"The Cold Equations" by Tom Godwin

[Jamie123]

I first read this story when I was 12. I had no idea at the time that it was a classic: it was in a compendium of sci fi stories that I borrowed from the school library. I found a pdf of it here: http://photos.state.gov/libraries/hochiminh/646441/vantt/The%20Cold%20Equations.pdf

It's the story of an astronaut charged with delivering vital vaccine to a group of space colonists on a distant planet. En-route he discovers a young girl hiding aboard his capsule, who tells him she wants to see her brother who is amongst the colonists. However, the capsule has only just enough fuel to complete the mission, so the astronaut has two choices:

1. Jettison the girl into space, in which case she will obviously die but the mission will be successful.
2. Keep her aboard, in which case the capsule will crash (having been unable to decelerate enough for a safe landing), both he and the girl will die, and so will all the colonists who urgently need the vaccine.

It's a no-brainer of course, and even his superiors aboard the mother-ship (though they are sympathetic) agree that he must do the unthinkable deed. It made quite an impression on me as a kid, but I couldn't help thinking even then that if I had been in his shoes I'd have found some way to save her. Surely there was something else on board that could have been jettisoned: furniture, shoes, clothing etc. that could have made up at least enough of the weight difference. For example, it says she was hiding in the storage cupboard; why not rip off the door of the cupboard and throw that overboard?

And another thing: she got on board remarkably easily, just by distracting a cleaning woman and slipping past while she wasn't looking. The notice on the capsule door "UNAUTHORIZED PERSONNEL KEEP OUT" gives no indication that if you ignore it you will die. And why wasn't the computer programmed to add a little extra fuel in case of such an emergency? (Googling the web for people's opinions on this story, I find I'm not the only person to have thought of this.)

Yes I know it's only a story, but it's a good story, and it gets you thinking. It might make good set-reading for an engineering course, to get students thinking about the importance of safeguards, contingency planning, and dimensioning systems for the worst-case scenario.

[estradling75]

If it made you think... then it did it's job.

Of course by making you think it causes you poke holes in the story... to ask questions... to wonder... to what if...   Which is what you see when people talk about it.  That is a side effect of getting you (and others) to think about the subject at hand.

 

 

[Guest]

It appears to be a metaphor for Christ.

[estradling75]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

It appears to be a metaphor for Christ.

Hmmm... Lets see the titular "Cold Equations could be Divine Justice..

The special snowflake of the young lady who thinks only of what her own desires and wants... Until she is forced to face the stark reality of what she has done... That could be us facing Divine Judgement...

The desire to show mercy but having no means to do so...  with out some outside intervention.... Yeah I can see it

 

EDIT sorry premature posting

Edited February 25, 2016 by estradling75

[Jamie123]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

It appears to be a metaphor for Christ.

Oddly enough I was thinking exactly the same thing myself - though it's not a perfect analogy: Christ was a willing victim, whereas the girl is definitely unwilling. Also Christ died for other people's mistakes, whereas the girl is dying for her own.

[unixknight]

This story was adapted into a Twilight Zone episode in the '80s during the first attempt to bring the series back.  I liked it as a sci-fi story, because it dispelled a lot of the myths we typically see perpetuated in speculative sci-fi stories in settings like Star Trek, and let us know just how brutal the realities of space travel would be. 

[Vort]

I'm a (sort of) engineer with a physics major. My physics side says that it's a good story, but my engineering side rolls his eyes and shakes his head contemptuously.

[unixknight]

25 minutes ago, Vort said:

I'm a (sort of) engineer with a physics major. My physics side says that it's a good story, but my engineering side rolls his eyes and shakes his head contemptuously.

What was it about the story that your engineering side disliked?  (Just curious.)

[estradling75]

9 minutes ago, unixknight said:

What was it about the story that your engineering side disliked?  (Just curious.)

Vort can speak for himself but for me...

Engineers should build backup/redundancies and/or otherwise plan for things not going as expected... In the story the rescue ship did not have enough tolerance for emergencies.

[unixknight]

Makes sense.  Didn't they hang a lampshade on that though?  Like something about minimizing weight to maximize cargo of the vaccine?  I dunno it's been a very long time since I watched it so maybe not.

[Vort]

35 minutes ago, unixknight said:

What was it about the story that your engineering side disliked?  (Just curious.)

What estradling said. No engineering venture allows for a mere 1% variance, and this story allowed for less than that.

I guess that there's another Vort, in addition to "physics major" Vort and "engineer" Vort, and that's "writer" Vort -- who is even less accomplished than his non-distinguished compatriots. But Writer Vort dislikes flawed or lazy story plot elements. Have some sort of emergency that juuuuuuuuuuuust allows the ship to survive its crucial mission -- but only with the sacrifice of the stowaway -- and I'll accept that. But when the actual plan for the voyage calculates allowed stowage down to the kilogram and makes no allowance, that just is not realistic. Any deviation at all from plan, any minor emergency, and this crucial mission is toast. Hey, folks, it's vaccine, not gold bricks or bulk water! How much space does it actually take up?

Needless to say, Writer Vort (and Physics Vort, and Engineering Vort, for that matter) are not the life of the party.

[unixknight]

Gotcha.  Thanks.

I wonder if NASA or any of the other government or private space agencies have some sort of standard amount of reserve fuel automatically added to what they plan to use.  I mean, I assume they add SOME extra, I'm just curious as to whether it's always the same, like 20% extra or 15% extra...

[Guest]

On 2/25/2016 at 9:28 AM, estradling75 said:

Hmmm... Lets see the titular "Cold Equations could be Divine Justice..

The special snowflake of the young lady who thinks only of what her own desires and wants... Until she is forced to face the stark reality of what she has done... That could be us facing Divine Judgement...

The desire to show mercy but having no means to do so...  with out some outside intervention.... Yeah I can see it

Interesting.  Good point.  I hadn't seen the film.  I was just going off the description in the OP.

[Guest]

On 2/25/2016 at 11:53 AM, unixknight said:

I wonder if NASA or any of the other government or private space agencies have some sort of standard amount of reserve fuel automatically added to what they plan to use.  I mean, I assume they add SOME extra, I'm just curious as to whether it's always the same, like 20% extra or 15% extra...

I just got word from my cousin at NASA.  

Quote

Mass ratio is the equation I think you are looking for.  Typically a payload is less than 1% of the total mass of the rocket plus fuel.  My guess is fuel is 90% of the weight and the rest is rocket mass.  We cheat so to speak by staging rockets so we dump the useless mass and increase payload capability.

 

https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktwtp.html

 

Wikipedia has some rocket mass fractions to get an idea of how much payload they can carry.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payload_fraction

I've now told him the movie premise and the question of extra fuel for the child.  While I'm waiting on his response, I'd postulate that her weight already affected the fuel a lot more than we'd think.  Her weight was there during take-off from Earth(?) It was there during acceleration and deceleration through the entire journey and during the millions of little corrections that would need to take place between earth and the distant planet.  The deceleration through the descent would be the straw that broke the camel's back.  And who knows?  Maybe the contingency of extra fuel was already used up for unforeseen circumstances throughout the journey. 

Considering all that, it is plausible that this could happen.

What I'd wonder is that any trip between star systems would take a while.  How long did this child sit somewhere and never make a sound or require food or a bathroom?

*******************************************************************

I heard back from him again.

He says that there should be enough extra fuel to handle such a small load.  But there wouldn't be any reason to send any humans at all.  When sending supplies like the case in this film, it would be sent on an automated transport so it didn't risk any humans.

The entire craft is weighed as a final flight check, so her weight would be discovered if it were significant enough.  But she would die on the trip over because insufficient oxygen would be available since it was supposed to be an unmanned flight.

******************************************************************

While this all may be true, the movie, of course would be set in a future with technology significantly different than ours.  So, there may be different rules.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Guest

[Just_A_Guy]

Seems to me that she's dead in either scenario; so to me it's roughly (though not perfectly) analogous to an abortion in a situation where neither the mother nor the child would survive childbirth but the mother could survive an abortion.  

The only other option is if the astronaut teaches the girl to land the craft, and jettisons himself.  That would be a very admirable and noble thing to do; but I don't think he's morally bound to do it.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

23 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The only other option is if the astronaut teaches the girl to land the craft, and jettisons himself.  That would be a very admirable and noble thing to do; but I don't think he's morally bound to do it.

You don't huh? Because that was my first thought upon reading the OP. Save the girl and the colony. Jettison yourself.

[The Folk Prophet]

 

On 2/25/2016 at 10:50 AM, Vort said:

Needless to say, Writer Vort (and Physics Vort, and Engineering Vort, for that matter) are not the life of the party.

Query: Is there a Vort that is the life of the party?

[Just_A_Guy]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You don't huh?

I have a hard time saying he's obligated to do it.  To be sure, it'd be a heart-wrenching decision; but I don't think innocents (which the astronaut is) are under a moral imperative to die in order to spare delinquents from the natural consequences of their actions.

Certainly we can use the Christ metaphor--but then again, would He really be so worthy of worship, if His atoning sacrifice were done merely out of a sense of obligation and not as a free-will offering?

[Just_A_Guy]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You don't huh?

I have a hard time saying he's obligated to do it.  To be sure, it'd be a heart-wrenching decision; but I don't think innocents (which the astronaut is) are under a moral imperative to die in order to spare delinquents from the natural consequences of their actions.

Certainly we can use the Christ metaphor--but then again, would He really be so worthy of worship, if His atoning sacrifice were done merely out of a sense of obligation and not as a free-will offering?

[kapikui]

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You don't huh? Because that was my first thought upon reading the OP. Save the girl and the colony. Jettison yourself.

I haven't read the book, but I did see a SciFi channel movie based on it.  In that, he DID try to teach her to land the ship.  As I recall, she was some kind of underclass in that society and was consequently almost completely uneducated she wasn't stupid, but she wasn't capable of learning everything she needed to learn in the amount of time they had.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I have a hard time saying he's obligated to do it.  To be sure, it'd be a heart-wrenching decision; but I don't think innocents (which the astronaut is) are under a moral imperative to die in order to spare delinquents from the natural consequences of their actions.

Certainly we can use the Christ metaphor--but then again, would He really be so worthy of worship, if His atoning sacrifice were done merely out of a sense of obligation and not as a free-will offering?

Didn't read the story so I don't know more details than what I gathered from the thread, but she seemed pretty innocent to me, all things, of course, being relative.

Regardless, when I stand before my maker and have to answer for the choice...why did you jettison that girl seems a hard question to answer, eternally speaking, vs. well done on that sacrifice.

[kapikui]

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You don't huh? Because that was my first thought upon reading the OP. Save the girl and the colony. Jettison yourself.

I haven't read the book, but I did see a SciFi channel movie based on it.  In that, he DID try to teach her to land the ship.  As I recall, she was some kind of underclass in that society and was consequently almost completely uneducated she wasn't stupid, but she wasn't capable of learning everything she needed to learn in the amount of time they had.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, kapikui said:

I haven't read the book, but I did see a SciFi channel movie based on it.  In that, he DID try to teach her to land the ship.  As I recall, she was some kind of underclass in that society and was consequently almost completely uneducated she wasn't stupid, but she wasn't capable of learning everything she needed to learn in the amount of time they had.

 

Well way to ruin my philosophical debate with JaG!

Edited February 29, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[Just_A_Guy]

19 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Didn't read the story so I don't know more details than what I gathered from the thread, but she seemed pretty innocent to me, all things, of course, being relative.

Regardless, when I stand before my maker and have to answer for the choice...why did you jettison that girl seems a hard question to answer, eternally speaking, vs. well done on that sacrifice.

The horror of the space-ship scenario differs from real life only in the astronaut's being able to immediately name the victim of his inaction, and witness the consequences thereof.  But even in the real world, there are victims and consequences to our inaction; in a plethora of real-world scenarios--we just don't see them, so we're accustomed to ignoring them.  In fact, much of the "social justice" agenda involves getting us to see those real-world consequences, declaring ourselves culpable, and then Doing Something™ (usually involving other people's stuff, but I digress). 

But, to present an extreme example:   By putting a bullet in my brain and donating my lungs, heart, liver and kidneys to folks on a transplant list; I could save six lives within seventy-two hours.  So, why am I not morally obligated to do so?  If the astronaut has to kill himself to save one culpable person, why don't I have to kill myself in order to save six innocent ones?

Edited February 29, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

21 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The horror of the space-ship scenario differs from real life only in the astronaut's being able to immediately name the victim of his inaction, and witness the consequences thereof.  But even in the real world, there are victims and consequences to our inaction; in a plethora of real-world scenarios--we just don't see them, so we're accustomed to ignoring them. 

For example:  By putting a bullet in my brain and donating my lungs, heart, liver and kidneys to folks on a transplant list; I could save six lives within seventy-two hours.  So, why shouldn't I?

I'll grant you the concept point. The for example, on the contrary, is a stretch.