THE ECONOMIST CORNER: SOME THOUGHTS ON PRIVATE EQUITY, THE MARKETS AND SPECIALTY GROCERS

The Economist Halloween Cover?

The Economist Halloween Cover?

The Economist Corner: Comments on Private Equity, The Markets and Specialty Grocers.

This is one of those weeks when The Economist and its hybrid reporting/policy suggesting approach is overflowing with meaty articles.

Besides an in-depth dig at Putin’s Russia, The Economist does both an opinion piece and longer article examining the power the private equity industry has come to wield.

For instance Carlyle, through all the companies they own, is the second largest employer in the country-after Walmart-with 725,000 employees-while several other private equity companies are also near the top in this regard.

The Economist laments the fact that the ultra-wealthy are choosing private equity instruments for investing instead of the stock market which has seen listed companies shrink from 7,000 in the late 90’s to 4,000 today. IPOS this year are estimated to be 50-75% less than 10 years ago.

As the magazine says, “Public companies are out of fashion. They need to be revived.” To tell you the truth as a retail investor in the market this article made me feel like a “chump,” to use the old fashioned term.

On one hand The Economist says something must be done to get the cash back into the markets. “Public Markets are inclusive and deep; they should provide capital efficiently (meaning inexpensively and intelligently) and should as a result be the best solution for both companies and investors. They should thus outperform the competition.”…..

But then The Economist goes into so much detail about how the private equity firms work-how focused they are compared to the public companies- and how that focus drives the much higher returns the private equity industry sees compared to Wall Street you begin to wonder why anyone with large sums to invest would do it with Wall Street.

Let’s see…. if it’s a decision between banking on all the “shoulds” The Economist feels –should… be happening- or  taking the profits that the focus and higher returns private equity is delivering right now……is there really going to be much of a decision process in making a choice?

After you weigh the various challenges publicly traded companies  face-like more public and government scrutiny, “quarterly capitalism” or the activist investors, and all the red tape involved in being public it’s not hard to understand given the polarized nature of today’s society-why more and more investors and companies are shying away from public offerings. Politicians during this cycle have routinely signaled out Wall Street for beating up.

Plus start-ups, because of their technological basis need less money to get off the ground-companies like Uber have even invented industries and have done so quickly without the need for the kinds of funds on the scale Wall Street is traditionally used for.

In addition private equity, unlike public companies- can take advantage of tax laws which allow them to load up on debt and in doing do so reduce the taxable income they’re subject to. Both Clinton and Trump have said they want to address this private equity industry advantage.

This article appeared just as the Whole Foods problem with hepatitis A was announced in Detroit last week. And this followed a Supermarket News interview with a Wall Street analyst who specializes in grocery in which he expressed his skepticism about Whole Food’s ability to recapture the reputation and profits it once enjoyed. Yes margins are still good but as many have been pointing out there’s a lot more competition from others carrying organic and natural foods-and at lower prices which is not only affecting same store comps but causing Whole Foods to be reactive rather than lead the pack.

The analyst’s thoughts aside I found myself wondering whether going public was really the best thing for Whole Foods and other formerly private companies like The Fresh Market and Wild Oats in its day. Having worked with these companies over the years in their pre and post private days, I’ve come to believe that these companies compromised their focus-the very element now driving the success private equity companies are experiencing.

Ask yourself what does Whole Foods stand for these days? The “whole paycheck” meme, rather than the high quality experience which made them the benchmark for upscale/specialty retailers, is more often associated with them these days-a product of the increased scrutiny that came with being a public company.

Is chasing lower demographics with the lower priced and serviced stores in Detroit, Chicago and New Orleans in addition to 365 which are designed to deliver a lower priced experience-while reducing the elements that helped build their reputation in the first place- really playing to the strengths that made them such a powerhouse?

The Fresh Market was never the same after it went public- while delivering a nice payload to the founders in the process. Is their new, 1 stop shopping reformulation really going to work now that they’re competing directly with so many others with years of experience in this regard?

Wild Oats seemed to change overnight bringing in big guns from mainstream grocers to run their operation and in the process turning off many of the venders who had been serving them loyally for years as suddenly there were demands for slotting fees and a host of other requests mimicking what public companies elsewhere do-which in hindsight seemed like approaches designed to prepare the company for a sale rather than improve  it.

One has to wonder whether going public is always in the best interests of grocers with their own unique identity and culture. Look at Trader Joes, Aldi, Lidl, H.E.B in TX-all privately held companies showing no signs of being off message. Without the challenges plaguing publicly-held companies they’re free to go about doing what they do-and doing it profitably without the short-term mentality investors from the Markets bring.

If you’re Elon Musk you have the type of personality that can take a more free-form approach to running public companies and deal with the heat from investors and financial experts without seeming to compromise their mission-but he’s the exception.

In the end it seems to me that it’s the specific focus-the company’s mission and culture-that the decision on whether to stay private or go public should be evaluated against.

Private equity seems to be a good match for New Seasons, Metropolitan Market and Bristol Farms-the Endeavour held companies-which continue to be on point with their traditional focus.

Haggen’s melt down appears to be an anomaly in the private equity area. You could see it was going to be a disaster early on. But in this case it’s likely their owners-a private equity firm out of Florida still made money on the deal as no doubt they did what many other private firms do-load on the debit from the acquisition and use it to lower their taxable income.

But when it comes to upscale/specialty grocers the most important consideration-like the private equity industry- may be focus.

This more niche-orientated approach is fundamental to the success of private equity and it may be the most important aspect for an upscale/specialty grocer to look at when it considers going public. Will they compromise their focus going public?

As The Economist admits, it may be quite a while before the challenges arising from the nature of being a public company can be mollified. Until then they admit, it looks like private equity may remain the best choice for wealthy investors. And it may  still be the best option for specialty/upscale grocers who find themselves wanting to raise money without sacrificing their mission focus, their unique identity, in the process.

Dean Balsamo

The Economist Corner: Ketamine-another recreational drug drafted for medical research.

Lead into The Economist article about Ketamine

Lead into The Economist article about Ketamine

After slogging through a half dozen articles devoted to the swirl around Mr. Trump and his existential threat to human life on this planet and substituting the names of different countries for the usual spate of articles on dictators, war torn states, bankers under fire and bribery you come across an article like Sniffing at a New Solution– a piece devoted to on-going studies with Ketamine and the possibilities it offers for treating deep depression and suicidal thoughts.

As someone who admires Freud I immediately associated the article’s title with both his cocaine habit and the movie The Seven Percent Solution.

But the use of “sniffing” here refers to  on-going projects with Johnson & Johnson among others to develop a Ketamine-based treatment for deep depression and suicidal thoughts that’s a nasal spray taking advantage of Ketamine’s fast-acting properties in this regard.

While Prozac is still the leader in this area it’s only effective in 58% of the cases. Plus even though Prozac delivers the boost in Monoamines, the class of chemicals thought to influence depression-its effects can take weeks or even months-if at all-to work.

The Prozac approach stems from the “chemical imbalance” theory that’s guided depression-treating approaches for decades now.

But Ketamine which is used in anesthesia, but is more popularly known as a drug used at raves is undermining this theory.  It has shown promise as an antidepressant because in studies it’s shown to  not only deliver a shot of the Monoamines but, unlike Prozac whose effects take weeks or even months – Ketamine actually  works in a matter of hours if not minutes in some cases.

Ketamine however does not act on the Monoamines directly. But because it’s shown to be effective in 75% of the cases of people who do not respond well to Prozac, Ketamine research is taking anti-depressant treatment down a different road. At this time researchers don’t know exactly why Ketamine works but The Economist says Ketamine research offers the opportunity to “design a new class of antidepressant.”

The article goes on to say this research is, “a change of direction so radical that some think it heralds a revolution in psychiatry.”

The research into Ketamine has been going for 10 years with favorable results. But because its patent has expired it’s not a high priority for drug companies who of course make the bulk of their profits from patented formulations they market.

However even though Ketamine isn’t formally approved it is prescribed “off label,” and here in the US a number of clinics have opened that use Ketamine infusions of the drug to treat people.

Right now these clinics focus on administering infusions of Ketamine intravenously because that’s how it works best for this purpose at this time. According to the article treatment with Ketamine in this manner has actually saved lives.

So now there are a number of companies looking at nasal sprays as mentioned above, as well as other formulations to take advantage of Ketamine’s potential (and to create drugs which they can patent) to work fast and effectively.

Still as someone who helped to put on some raves in the 90’s (though I never used K) it’s hard to imagine this drug would be helpful in this regard as there are plenty of instances where its recreational use has led to less than desirable results.

But then again if medicine is in effect going back to the drawing board with regard to the causes of depression maybe it’s no accident that there’s been a resurgence in the study of the theories and treatments by Freud among researchers in recent years as all the mapping of the brain and how it functions has still left scientists wondering about the mysterious impact our emotional complexes and thoughts have on the mind and the states it inhabits.

COLORADO CANNABIS STORES PART 3: MONEY, LAWS, DISTRIBUTION, COMMENTS ON TINCTURES AND TOPICALS

cannabis-dew-drop-tincture

Good old Google. I went to a site yesterday and up pops an ad about investing in the cannabis industry. Strange isn’t it. I post a few articles on an obscure blog and go to a few sites related to the subject and they’re already targeting me.

But I’m not complaining because I did follow the link and it brought me to a video some “research” company produced. It must have been for pensioners because it was so long-at least 10 minutes by the time I stopped watching it – so I didn’t get a chance to get my “free” booklet from them on investing in the industry.

Nevertheless it did perk my interest in finding ways to invest in the industry. The video itself highlighted penny stocks being offered by small companies that have products and services that support the cannabis industry-and the tremendous gains their examples had made over the last few years.

The funny thing is several weeks ago we met with our financial advisor at Edward Jones and I asked him about investing in cannabis-related businesses. He told while he’d love to help us do that- because of the federal laws against cannabis use, the company doesn’t offer any access to these companies in the investment portfolios it creates.

It would seem like this would be a good time to look at the possibilities. With California poised to pass recreational use this fall the industry is set to continue showing fantastic growth.  This year it’s projected to be about 7 billion and by 2020, 22 billion dollars-that’s 10 more than the NFL does.

And these are just the numbers for actual cannabis sales. It doesn’t take into account all the related businesses, products and services that support the industry. You have  companies like Praetorian Property which specializes in finding real estate for growers and stores, lighting and green house manufacturers, Vape-started by an ex CIA person I think-which has seen tremendous growth with its smoking device ,one that has Lego-like sections of buildings that fit together in a modular fashion allowing configurations as needed by the cannabis store or grower and of course-lawyers. Graham Sorkin, business development head at Mary’s Medicinal based in WA told me it felt like they are as many lawyers as employees involved in the industry.

That makes sense when you consider the complexity and differences between the states and their laws around cannabis. Anyone actually interested in manufacturing a product with cannabis or having a store pretty much has to go to one of a number of law firms with a cannabis focus – plus they know all the players who might open to investment or working with you on a product offering.

The law is everywhere.  The gentleman at Mary’s helped clear up one question I’d posed in my earlier posts about cannabis stores regarding the point of purchase in the stores and the lack of impulse items up there.

Colorado law does not permit a fixture out in front of the counter at this time. I’m assuming that explains why the magazine rack I saw in the Pueblo store is behind the counter. That seems odd. But then again under CO Law buds, wax, tinctures and edibles-anything that you consume must be kept in a different place from the non-consumable products like pipes & papers.

I was also told that while the Washington-based company came up with a Rescue Remedy type tincture for those who got too high they were required to take what I call “The Bloody Mary” approach as Colorado law mandates that there has to be at least a bare minimum they proscribe of active THC in the tincture in order to sell it in a cannabis store.

And while these cannabis shops are retail stores the law prevents distribution companies –those with a multitude of products from different manufacturers-from operating in the way they do in almost every other industry like grocery, book stores, and so on.

It’s state by state but in CO you cannot be a distributor –a middle man in the process. The stores either create their own products for sale in their retail establishments or if they carry someone else’s product that manufacturer itself has to provide it directly to the store.

Yes there are lots of paths to navigate. Take transactions. While cash is still king you can now use a debit card in Colorado stores. These transactions are processed through credit unions which do not have the same burden of federal laws to follow that regular banks have to abide by. So until there’s a national rewriting of the law you’re not going to find Wells Fargo or Bank of America involved.

I’m not aware of any specific stances the big banks have on cannabis-whether they’re for or against it but I did read where Sheldon Adelson the man whose efforts changed the focus of Las Vegas income streams has poured money into fighting legalization both in NV and Florida, while Dr. Bronner the famous soap maker out of CA has given $100,000 to helping to pass a recreational cannabis law in AZ this fall.

Granted the whole cannabis subject is polarizing for many. But as one who has spent a few nights in hotel rooms around the country doing some channel surfing I have to wonder if making cannabis more available can be any worse than what I see on TV. It’s astounding how many commercials touting anti-depressants are on. And while I remember some books by Macrobiotics founder George Oshawa written in the early 1960’s specifically stating that the U.S. had mental health problem it’s still amazing to think we’re that messed up as a society in this regard.

That’s why I find the cannabis tinctures with active THC of interest. Based on my experiments with the tincture I believe they’re worth looking at by people who might only need a gentle lift not a full on mental make over.

There’s a learning curve –basically how much to use. It’s typically taken via a dropper ideally sublingually rather than put in coffee or water. The one I tried was flavored with vanilla. You’re basically talking about one to three drops. And it should be taken as recommended by people in the cannabis stores-after eating as this helps buffer the physical effects of the tincture.

One time I took it without having eaten anything  and experienced an uncomfortable feeling in my stomach for a while as a result.

As for effects while these things are always individual I found the tincture to work well with regards to just a subtle “lift” to the mood, a sense of well-being, as well as, an ability to help focus on a task-which may seem counter to the usual cannabis experience except the tincture’s method of preparation isn’t meant to deliver a knock- out punch.

To my mind the tincture’s straddling of both medicinal and recreational highlights what could be viewed as an out-right prejudice our society has but never really acknowledges.  While we certainly cater to victims and seem to put tremendous resources behind unearthing more and more of them there seems to be one that no one wants to talk about.

I’m talking about the bias against the person who already feels good and wants to highlight that feeling-feel even better. In a way it reminds me of the Smart Drugs fad in the 1990’s where magazines like Wired did articles on the various formulations (which also included a fair amount of caffeine) appearing at that time designed to boost your brain power.

In one pop up art exhibition in an abandoned space we did in Santa Fe we featured a smart bar at a musical event we held in the space. It was a popular offering.

The topical pain treatments seem to have an easier path for acceptance among the general population as they don’t have to actually use activated THC in order to be effective according to some of their manufacturers.

While most of the ones I’ve seen and used do,  there are others that feature the CBC cannabis compound and- not active THC- which is said to mimic the active THC properties by merging with the same receptors in the brain and body that the THC does.

I can’t say for myself whether this is true as all I’ve tried are the ones with both THC and CBD. It’s my understanding that those topicals that only have the CBC and not THC or CBD are not treated in the same way by the law as those with activated THC/CBD compounds.

There are some different effects in terms of activation that I’ve noticed. For instance the crème picture below seems to have a greater concentration of aromatic substances like peppermint and juniper which gives it a more penetrating feeling after it’s applied.

cannabis-topical-creme

Considering that the industry’s still in its infancy we’ll see many more variations on cannabis orientated compounds not to mention the growing segment of edibles-gourmet edibles that chiefs are taking up as the industry makes the next leap on the back of the the current group of states looking at legalizing cannabis.

THE ECONOMIST CORNER: MILLENNIALS AND CASINOS

vegas-show-girl-drumming-up-business

Walking the Strip

The Economist Corner: Millennials and Casinos

According to The Economist the casino industry-Las Vegas, Atlantic City, state gambling and Indian casinos-has a problem: aging clientele.

Slot machines which account for most of the gaming revenue in this country are not generating the profits they once did because millennials in particular are not playing them like their parents.

I think this idea that millennials are not following the patterns of previous generations is true across the board in all industries isn’t it? Why would there be so many articles over the last few years about how to capture the millennial dollars? Why would Whole Foods create 365 or Ahold Bfresh if they didn’t feel they had to change the manner of merchandising and product offerings in order to get in sync with this generation?

While Sheldon Addelson and Steve Wynn have successfully transformed Las Vegas into a convention and entertainment destination as well as created extremely successful venues in Macau to take advantage of the Asian desire to gamble, the industry as a whole is suffering around the country.

Some people like a gentleman named Mark Frissora who came from Hertz and now runs Caesars Entertainment are trying to change the experience-attract the millennials by changing the experience and the focus on the gambling instruments that typically dominate the casinos by creating a “casino within a casino.”

He along with MGM Resorts International are soon to open “experimental spaces for young people.” These will feature new types of slot machines that test the skills of the players-in the manner of the games they now play on their mobile devices.

In addition the physical layout of these new rooms called will feature LED screens that continuously change the backgrounds-something like the overhead screens with projections that have been in place on Fremont St in Old Las Vegas.

Other approaches involve virtual reality shooting games which allow you and others to bet on how well you do. There is talk of games involving groups of players with wireless consoles with a variety of games you can bet on as well as ‘electronic sports tournaments” and more contemporary music acts.

But as the man from Hertz says, “the industry is not filled with creative geniuses.” Ironically while selling the gambling experience- the executives themselves are reluctant to take a risk on something new.  Cash flow believe it or not is also a problem. While Vegas isn’t going broke, all the major casinos seem to be carrying tons of debit which is tempering their desire to tweak the traditional models. And there’s slot machine providers themselves who aren’t crazy about the R & D and more expensive costs associated with change. The casinos are already in debt to them.

vegas-tropicana-follies-old-school

Old School Vegas

While Las Vegas is doing okay with the non-gaming strategy casinos elsewhere-casinos who are primarily dependent on slot machines-are not.

The “traditionalists” still feel that as millennials age and have more money they will become the same kind of gambling consumers as their parents.

As the parent of a millennial myself I’m not sure that this will come about if the casino’s keep the same old same old in place.

One of my colleagues at the magazine distributor I worked with who was fond of creating spreadsheets bringing together demographic information and “numbers” about income distribution by geographic location and groups once did one with millennials as the focus. His conclusion was that millennials basically didn’t have enough money for much in the way of entertainment or fine foods and so on.

And while it’s true when looked at on paper millennials are no- where near as wealthy as other groups in our society I told him his ‘story,” the conclusions he was drawing from his data collection- didn’t offer a true vision of what millennials do with their money.

Since I’ve had the opportunity to see firsthand how millennials approach things- from what I see they’re always willing and able to find the money and spend on things they really value,  like an experience whether it be a new tattoo, a trip to some far off destination, or a music venue.  They’ll also spring for great produce, wine and all the rest. When they feel the need –they’ll find the money.

They don’t appear to be particularly hamstrung by a lack of funds because they do spend their money differently. They don’t feel the need to accumulate in the same way as previous generations.  While they certainly enjoy nice things and experiences they don’t acquire things with a goal towards increasing their status in quite the same way.  Basically the rise of so many of the apps we see today reflect their mindset a lot better than “numbers” and statistics in general.

But if I had a hand in creating these new spaces for Las Vegas there are some things I would recommend.

For instance as someone whose gone to Vegas for numerous conventions in the grocery business I always found walking  very far along the strip to be a pain after a while. It’s simply not laid out to do this.

What if a Vegas version of the High Line was created for biking and walking-giving another look at the Strip? I’m sure the Vegas people could figure out ways to get gambling and drinking on this as well as satisfy those who wish to exercise something other than their elbow.

And what about the trays of drinks they bring to you at the tables-why not have great craft beers-at 7, 8, 9%-the kind millennials enjoy drinking. And artisan spirits like gin and others that are being produced around the country.

And there’s the drones. Couldn’t some sort of area where drones can be flown in tests of skill with of course betting and drinking accompanying the action be created?

Ideas are cheap of course. Everyone has those. What remains to be seen is whether the traditionalists are right about patterns that have evolved over time or whether Vegas is going to miss the boat-fail to accommodate the differences in a new generation.

Dean Balsamo

DEBT AND THE BIRTH OF A NATION

arcane-photo-tear

Saw the new film The Birth of a Nation recently and can say it’s an engaging movie. There’s lots of action, blood, and sensitive portrayals of the slaves as individuals-I found thought provoking.

One scene with an African ceremony performed by slaves on a plantation got me thinking about something I’d seen in a book called Debit the First 5,000 years which I read earlier this year. It’s fascinating because the author David Graeber dwells on the human component in debt.

For instance he has a discussion of the origins of Black African slavery that revolves around the various magical/ritual cults that existed among African tribes. As these societies came to dominate the tribes no one who hoped to improve their family’s lot could afford not to be a member.

The leaders of these cults knowing they had a hot product kept on raising the price of entry into them. And since many of the people wanting to join couldn’t afford the fee for joining the cult- a system of indentured servitude evolved.

Family members were routinely offered as collateral in exchange for the entry fee. Over time this became a system of slavery. The people offered in this manner became the property of the person covering the entry fee- to be sold and traded. Then when the Portuguese appeared Black slavery went international.

In the US there was also indentured servitude with the Celtic and others from the British Isles brought here to work off debits they had acquired in the old country. At one time the “red necks” outnumbered Black slaves here.

But unlike Africa it didn’t evolve into actual slavery. White slavery was being carried out by Muslim pirates working the Mediterranean basin where they’d raid coastal towns in France and Italy among other places for captives.  Occurring at roughly the same time as Black slavery, something like three or four million Europeans were taken in this manner.

It got so bad that the US Marines went over to engage them. This is what the line “shores of Tripoli” refers to in the Marine’s Hymn.

The Muslim slave owners in North Africa and other places made money off their slaves too in the usual ways. But given they were taking slaves from known families-rather than the way Black African families were broken up-the Muslim captors had another, more big business play at their disposal: ransom.

Once newly captured slaves were brought back to the Muslim kingdoms that traded with the pirates many times a European who lived among the Muslims would go around and qualify the captives-see which ones came from families who had the means to pay ransom for their loved one.

These candidates were separated out from the other slaves and were given lighter tasks, kept in better shape while the negotiations for their release proceeded.

The other slaves suffered the usual fate of slaves everywhere except that over time the European slaves created  what amounted to quarters- within the cities where they were held in the greatest numbers.

These areas had commercial activities-including taverns where Muslim men would go to drink- away from the eyes of their co-religionists.

Given slavery’s continuing connection  with debt and economics in addition to the urge to dominate and exploit you have to wonder when it will finally be eradicated from human society.

 

THE ECONOMIST CORNER: MARS AND DEATH

German military officers ushering an alien out of a Bavarian forest-from a 1990's UFO magazine.

German military officers ushering an alien out of a Bavarian forest-from a 1990’s UFO magazine.

Last week Elon Musk grabbed more headlines with his comments about sending colonists to space and the inevitability of deaths among the pioneers to the planet.

This triggered several responses in this week’s issue of The Economist. In their opening editorial they opine that Musk –and others-are setting their sights on the red planet for all the wrong reasons.  While acknowledging that humans have this need to explore, The Economist cautions against putting energy into voyages to Mars for what they deem -the wrong reasons-fear of mass extinction of humans on earth.

They call out stories by H.G. Wells (War of the Worlds) Ray Bradbury and Arthur C. Clark for their scare mongering stories about the destruction of human society.

Even scientists take a hit. Stephen Hawking’s suggestion that without human migration to surrounding space we face extinction from nuclear war, AI gone awry or a supervirus  is called “claptrap.”

Martian surface

Martian surface

 

While acknowledging the dream for travel to Mars is “stirring,” they take issue with the motivation Musk and others addressing colonization on Mars are using to promote their plans for the planet.  In The Economist’s opinion too much fear is behind the motivation for trips to Mars.

While the magazine agrees a natural or artificially designed pandemic, nuclear war or climate change could kill billions, extinction from these events is labeled “unprecedented.”

Even  an asteroid event like that which killed off dinosaurs isn’t as alarming as it might have been in the past due to the fact we catalog their movements  and none offer any danger in the foreseeable future.

In their opinion the only real concern for the preservation of human life here worth worrying about is long run-a billion years from now when earth isn’t inhabitable according to the timeline suggested by science.

In the end The Economist believes in the dream of Mars but not one based on the fear of death which they believe is prime motivating force behind present motivations to go there.

Fine. But in away The Economist sentiment is just splitting hairs. It looks like humans are going to Mars for whatever reasons.  Death is part of life so it’s only right Musk talks about the inevitability of death among colonists to Mars.  It’s yet another way of making the future trips real.  Death on the planet is going to happen. And most likely there will be both burials and some option around cremation.

And so in this same vein we might ask, what about death in space- far from a planet or space station?  What happens if a crew member dies while on a protracted voyage to Mars or other nearby planet?

While working on a screenplay a few weeks ago I had to research this scenario: someone dies on board a space craft months from earth-traveling to Mars.

What do you do with the corpse? Do you take a burial-at-sea-approach?  Shoot the body into space?

I was surprised to find out that there doesn’t seem to be an official policy about handling a death in space.

For one thing there are UN Treaties about littering in space that our country has signed. Many argue that under these treaties no one is allowed to eject dead voyagers into space.

The only other solution with any weight that came up involved several steps for dealing with a dead body.

The basic approach involves taking it and securing the body to the outside of the space craft where it will be subjected to the extreme cold of deep space.

There it would ride until the craft  began the re-entry phase of its journey-to land.

In order to avoid its destruction, the body would have to be brought back into the space craft.  Of course this sets up a potentially unnerving situation where the colonists have to deal with the dead person’s body again. Effects on morale can’t be discounted.

Furthermore taking a body frozen in this manner back into the temperature of the space craft means the body will just break apart-having become so brittle from freezing in this manner-that the change in temperature will cause it to shatter.

To counter the latter affect there’s a least one company that’s working on an approach that from what I can understand involves immediately placing a body treated in this manner-into a machine that essentially reduces it in a uniform manner-to a fine power or dust. But it’s still in an experimental phase.

So again there’s no specific policy yet dealing with a death …in space.

This may be one of those situations that only the episode itself will help to clarify what the approach will be.

As far as the fear of species death and the drive to colonize other orbs in space goes, when hasn’t human exploration had an element of fear of survival involved in its activities?

The more important question may be about what is accomplished in its wake.

Dean Balsamo