Why a Mars Mission Would Not Abort for a Stowaway

Mars missions pose unique challenges, especially when dealing with unexpected situations such as a discovered stowaway. Many people wonder why the crew wouldn't simply abort the mission and turn around to take care of the stowaway. However, the decision to return is not as simple as it might seem. This article will explore the reasons why a Mars mission would not simply abort for a stowaway, focusing on fuel efficiency, the complexities of space travel, and the moral consideration of a stowaway's life.

1. Fuel Efficiency and Mission Trajectory

Fuel efficiency is a key consideration in space travel. Once a Mars mission trajectory has been set, significant amounts of fuel have already been used to reach the planet. Aborting the mission to turn around would require even more fuel, which may not be available. Consider the Apollo 13 mission, which had to navigate around the Moon to return to Earth after a fuel cell failure. Similarly, a Mars mission would require a detailed trajectory that takes into account the transfer orbits and other critical maneuvers.

Fuel Consumption and Trajectory Adjustments

Suppose the crew had already inserted themselves into their transfer trajectory for Mars. The fuel used to enter Mars orbit and transfer to the return trajectory to Earth is a finite resource. While it might be tempting to suggest short-circuiting the return path, the mission would still require a significant amount of time to reverse course and return. This is more complex than simply turning around, as the spacecraft needs to decelerate and realign its trajectory.

2. Ethical Considerations and Legalities

Morally and legally, a stowaway is a complex issue. If the stowaway is discovered after a few days of the mission, the crew might face not only the practical but also the ethical issues. If the stowaway is discovered after a safe landing on Mars, any decision to return would mean sacrificing the primary mission objectives to care for an unauthorized passenger.

Stowaway as a Human Life

If the stowaway were a viable human, facing the decision to abort for their benefit would be ethically and legally challenging. For instance, if the stowaway were not born alive, they would be considered a non-viable life. However, if the stowaway was born alive, it would be considered a viable human life, similar to a ship's stowaway being considered a legal obligation. This is a sensitive issue that many governments and space agencies consider.

3. Practical Considerations and Missions Objectives

Missions to Mars have specific goals and objectives that must be completed. These missions are expensive, and any deviation from the intended path can be costly in terms of both time and resources. Aborting the mission for a stowaway could result in a significant waste of resources, including costly delays in the exploration of Mars.

Mission Safety and Confinement

Therefore, the crew may need to isolate the stowaway in close confinement to minimize the impact on the mission. This isolation would involve minimal rations and no access to life support systems, including windows, to prevent any potential contamination or breach of the spacecraft's integrity.

Conclusion

To summarize, a Mars mission would not abort for a stowaway primarily due to the inefficiency of turning back, the ethical considerations if the stowaway is a viable human life, and the need to maintain the mission's objectives. The decision to accommodate or eject a stowaway would be a critical moment for the crew, balancing moral, legal, and practical considerations.