0011 Schaub 4:00 R21
ETHICS IN ASTRONAUTICAL ENGINEERING
Paul Gatto (pmg24@pitt.edu)
HOW BAD CAN IT BE?
Outer space, the final frontier of new geographical
discovery, has an unlimited potential for obtaining knowledge
of our beginning and to expand commercial industries,
creating new jobs and allocating financial resources. Since the
1960’s, America’s space program has been symbol of
ingenuity, technological prowess and spirit, and has fueled
economic expansion to become the crown jewel of American
exceptionalism [1]. But the major problem that is holding
back most of the research and development in the space
industry is lack of funding. It is too expensive and risky to
continually research and test new technologies and prototypes
without serious financial backing from the government. With
the current economic turmoil and sequestration, the space
program faces a grim future of unrelenting budget cuts until
one day, we may only be watching other countries leave us
behind [2]. I am an astronautical engineer working at the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as a
safety officer looking over new technologies being developed
for space flight. A new technology from a private aeronautical
company, the Ground Based System (GBS), which is a new
design of leaving fuel on the ground instead of on the
spacecraft [3], has been brought to the safety board and I’ve
noticed some safety violations that would fail the new
technology forcing it to have to be completely redesigned.
My boss has approached me with an offer that puts the
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Code of Ethics into question. He offered that if I overlook
some of the safety violations and pass the new GBS system,
that I will receive a commission from all of the units put into
production and our funding would heavily increase. I have
started to think about how this could affect me personally as
an engineer and what second and third order effects it could
possibly have.
BROKEN CODES
If I was to accept this offer, I would be violating multiple
codes of ethics that I swore to uphold when I first started my
career. I would always question my integrity after this point
and if I was willing to overlook these violations, what else
would I be willing to overlook. I would be risking my entire
career and life’s work for a monetary reason, one that may not
even pay out since the violations can cause more problems
farther into the design process, causing greater amounts of
wasted funds. One code, I would be breaking, would be Code
2.2 which states, “2.2 The member will act fairly and justly
toward vendors and contractors, and will not accept from
vendors or contractors any commissions or allowances which
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering
2013-10-29
represent a conflict of interest” [4]. This code is stating that I
should be accepting any bribes from any company or show
favoritism to a certain vendor for reasons of personal gain. If
I was to accept the offer given to me, I would be in direct
violation of this code and it would be a blatant disregard for
the entire Code of Ethics in its entirety.
Another code, I would break, would be Code 2.3 stating,
“the member will inform his employer or client if he is
financially interested in any vendor or contractor, or in any
invention, machines, or apparatus, which is involved in a
project or work of his employer or client. The member will
not allow such interest to affect his decision regarding
services he may be called upon to perform” [4]. This code is
explain that if I was to be financially interested in this new
technology in order to make money from it, I would have to
make sure the private company and my employers were aware
of my interests. Since I would be breaking the rules to
overlook violations and pass the technology, I obviously
wouldn’t tell them. This would cause me to lose my job,
which is the biggest personal risk that I would be taking by
accepting this offer. Besides my own personal risk, there are
many other high risks involved that would be likely to occur
if this technology were put into practical use with these safety
violations kept unchanged.
PRO’S AND CON’S
In deciding whether I am going to accept the offer, I have
to take many different situations into account. How will this
benefit me in the long run? Will it be good for my employer
if I let this technology pass the safety inspection? These are
the types of questions I need to ask myself if I want to
properly decide if accepting the offer is an appropriate action.
What are the potential positives and negatives that could be
an outcome of accepting this offer?
The Positives
For the space industry to continue to thrive and to keep
funding adequate enough to operate, it needs something new.
The technology that is currently propelling rockets into space
is generally the same as it was in 1957 [3]. GBS could be that
system, the system to change the game in the space
exploration world. With the potential of GBS, NASA would
be able to get more funding in order to keep developing the
technology, along with re-allocating current funds to other
projects as well. Spending the money now could save in the
long run by reducing space flight from $20,000/kg down to
$200/kg [3]. With such a huge price cut, there would be an
immense amount of leftover funds that can be re-allocated
Paul Gatto
into actual research of space, flying further into space than we
have before, exploring extra-terrestrial bodies that could give
us astounding knowledge like whether there life is life outside
out planet. Currently the project to explore the frozen oceans
of Jupiter’s moon Europa for signs of extra-terrestrial life,
which is considered to be the scientific community’s top
priority, has been cut allocate funding [5]. The GBS system
can be incorporated into other propulsion concepts currently
in development such as magnetic levitation and propulsion,
and space elevators, using magnets and counter weights to
tether payloads up to space [3].
Also, with increase funding, there is potential for
continued expansion of the space industry. The space industry
is a major contributor of revenue for the US economy. The
space industry contributes $31 billion in revenues in
California alone, which incorporates 71,000 jobs whose
wages support another 300,000 jobs, totaling to about $19
billion in California wages. Every part of the commercial
sector where the space industry operates take a share of the
major growth in high wage industries such as space craft,
rocket launching, and satellite services [6]. Money is the
greatest issues at this time, and NASA knows it. William
Gerstenmaier, NASA’s human-spaceflight chief, has said that
the US is at a “tipping point” in the space industry and is about
to tip in the wrong direction. Future budget cuts on space
spending will be inevitable due to the already weaken
economy [6]. GBS may be what the space industry needs in
order to get that push back in the right direction.
Putting Humans Back on the Space Map
With the continuation of GBS development, the preferred
method of space exploration would change back to human
exploration rather than the current trend of robotic
exploration. Although human exploration can cost up to 100
times more than robotics [5], the investment has proven to be
worth it. Humans have the ability to accomplish a great
amount more than what just a robot can. One advantage is
greater
mobility
and
in-the-moment
exploration
opportunities. Humans also can make on-the-spot decisions
and prioritize mission objectives and exploration activities.
This could include a wider range of locations and more
efficient, intelligent collection samples [8] Ian Crawford,
from the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at
Birbeck College London, explains, “Compare the 35.7 km
traversed in three days by the Apollo 17 astronauts in
December 1972 with the almost identical distance (34.4 km)
traversed by the Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity in eight
years” [9]. He continues on to explain about the increased
efficiency of sample collecting and return capacity by stating,
“Compare the 382kg of samples returned by Apollo with the
0.32 kg from the Russian robotic sample return missions
Lunas 16, 20, and 24, and the zero kg returned so far by any
robotic mission to Mars” [9]. These comparisons give sizable
credit that human space exploration can far greater exceed
productivity of robotics. With GBS into development stages,
human space exploration would be just as inexpensive as
robotics.
The Negatives
If I were to accept the offer, and pass this new technology,
I would also be running many risks just with the technology
alone. There are many things that could go wrong if the GBS
would get to the testing phases and the violations having not
been fixed. The biggest risk is loss of human life. The entire
space industry is risky and dangerous, but it’s the risk we take
to further our knowledge of space and sciences. Despite the
risk and costs, the space program has been a crucial element
in technological advancement and commerce to the United
States and the world. The Astronauts represent the best of the
best in the spirit of mankind and they willing accept the risk
of their lives to broaden humanities knowledge and frontiers
[10]. Human space travel is immensely dangerous already. 22
of the 439 people that have flown in space from the US have
died, which is a mortality rate of 4.1%, which puts space flight
almost at the top of the most dangerous jobs list. These figures
don’t include the approximately 70 people from ground crews
who have also died [5]. How would I feel if I knew that my
overlooks caused the unnecessary death of someone? It may
be an extreme scenario but it is a potential possibility and
cannot be ignored.
Another negative to accepting the offer would be that if
GBS ended up being a huge failure, I could add negative
publicity to NASA’s already shaky reputation, something it
cannot afford. After the Columbia shuttle disintegrated over
Texas in 2003, killing all 7 astronauts while trying to re-enter
the atmosphere, NASA’s reputation floundered and the
benefits of exploring space were put on the proverbial
chopping block. During this negative time for NASA, the
short term effects actually helped find problems in the system
and allocate funds to more appropriate projects. It also helped
educate the public on arising innovations coming from the
program [11].
KEEPING IT ETHICAL
If I were to refuse the offer and fail the Ground Based
System, I would be sending the technology back to the
drawing boards. All of the resources already spent on
development will have been wasted. Without this potential
new technology, NASA will basically still be in the same
situation as we were before. We won’t have a new, big upand-coming technology, we would not be able to use the
potential GBS has to allocate more funding, and we wouldn’t
have the potential probability of stumbling on new
technologies for other industries just from researching about
ours. An example of these happenstance discoveries would be
Nitinol, a metal that can with stand intense twisting and
bending, which now has a secondary use in orthodontic
Page 2
Paul Gatto
braces. NASA’s research and development of space
technologies has brought forth countless unexpected benefits,
some of which being prominent industries today such as
alternative energy, industrial manufacturing and machine
aided medicines [11].
Without GBS and the potential funding that could come
with it, more and more budget cuts will proceed in the near
future causing research and development to cease, and could
even cause employment cuts. NASA is highly vulnerable to
sequestration and budget cutting due to such an immense
amount of funds needed for proper research and testing [7].
Although refusing the offer and failing this new
technology would waste all of the money already put into the
project, it would inevitably save the even more money that
could be wasted if it was put into the project then the projects
fails in a later developmental stage. The money saved from
GBS failing at an early stage can be allocated into other
projects that have more potential for success.
IT’S JUST NOT WORTH IT
I have decided that I would not take the offer and fail the
new technology, Ground Breaking Systems (GBS), for safety
violations. The risk is too great and although there are many
positive reasons and innovations that could come from GBS
moving to a further stage in development, in the end they are
all potential and the negatives seem too dangerous. I would
rather see a safer, more thought out version of GBS come back
and spend the extra funds than to send a faulty, unsafe version
of this new technology and see it fail, wasting even more
money and potentially majorly putting lives at risk. No
monetary value can be put on a human life. In this situation,
although very tempting and seeming to have limitless
positives, I would stick to the AIAA Code of Ethics, and
refuse an offer made by a private company to receive
commission on the project. The Code of Ethics has been put
into place for a reason, and should be adhered too, to the best
of everyone in the industry’s integrity and ability. (2209)
development.” Issues in Science and Technology. (Online
Article). Vol 29.1. pp. 57
[4] “AIAA Code of Ethics.” (2013). The American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics. (Online Article).
www.aiaa.org/secondary.aspx?id=4324
[5] P. Pawlick. (2013). “Point: Human Space Flight is a
Pointless Waste of Money.” Point of View: U.S. Space
Program. (Online Article). P2-2. P1
[6] “Cutting Space Programs Could Make A Nosediving
Economy Even Weaker” Space & Missile Defense Report.
(Online Article). Vol. 32. No. 16
[7] F. Morring Jr. (2012). “Tipping Point.” Aviation Week &
Space Technology. (Print Article). Vol. 174, no 47. pp. 24
[8] I. Crawford. (2010). “Astrobiological benefits of human
space exploration.” Astrobiology. (Online Report).
http://wwwliebertpub,com/publication.aspx?pub_id=99
[9] I. Crawford. (2012). “Dispelling the myth of robotic
efficiency.” Astronomy & Geophysics. (Online Article).
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-4004.2012.53222.x. pp. 2.22-2.26
[10] E. Badertscher. (2013). “Counterpoint: The Vital
Importance of Space Exploration.” Points of View: U.S.
Space Program. (Online Article). P6-6. 1p.
[11] M. Issitt. (2013). “Counterpoint: We All Benefit from
Space Exploration.” Points of View: U.S. Space Program.
(Online Article). P3-3. 1p.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Matt Zora for helping me in my
decision of my scenario and for formatting guidance. I
would also like to that Steve Anderjack for the many indepth discussions on codes of ethics and the basis of what I
have written about, and Chris Bowman for proofreading,
grammar and formatting help.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Albrecht. (2011). “America’s space program is
crashing; Final shuttle launch of bloated, disorganized
agency.” The Washington Times. (Print Article). ISSN 07328494, 2011.07.07, sec B. pp. 3
[2] A. Harman. (2012). “Cutting space programs lets others
overtake us.” The Washington Times. (Print Letter). DOI:
10.1111/J.1468-4004.2012.53222.x. pp. 2.22-2.26
[3] J. Coopersmith. (2012). “Affordable access to space:
rockets are the 20th-century technology. A government effort
to develop new technologies could open the door to a vast
array of new opportunities for space exploration and
Page 3