Clearly, the author began with the notion that his story should end with the girl being put out the airlock and worked backwards from there to construct a narrative. The narrative betrays no great knowledge on the author’s part of engineering, security procedures, management, among other things listed by posters in this thread.
As I noted upthread, FTL interstellar travel is such a complex process that the notion that they need a pilot for the shitbox shuttle craft just to get a box of medical supplies planetside is just ridiculous. With our own present day technology that isn’t anywhere near what their’s has to be, we could deliver the goods with an unmanned lander. If this kind of thing happens often enough that they have written protocols, one would think that the star ships should carry a number of unmanned delivery landers instead of shitbox shuttles.
Actually, the opposite is true - the author wanted the story to end with the girl being saved - the editor (John W. Campbell, Jr.) insisted on the ending we have today*. So a lot of the inconsistencies in the story may relate to the author’s original plot elements intended to “set up” his intended ending no longer fitting with the ending that was imposed on him.
- see here 찰진정보센터 | 육아 & 일상 & 건강 제품소개 및 구매가이드
My point, then, should be modified to the editor wanted the girl to go out the airlock and the author had to work backwards from there. Thanks for the info.
I’ve always felt that the story failed to make the point it was trying to. I think the author/editor wants it to be about ‘the laws of physics are inexorable and don’t care about morality or compassion, and this girl learned that lesson the hard way’ but instead it ends up reading more like ‘people sometimes do stuff in really stupid ways’. From the description of the ship, there’s a ton of unneccesary weight on board (closet door, airlock, big bulky computer, and so on), so it doesn’t seem like a ship that’s stripped down to zero safety margin to avoid wasting precious fuel.
Less well known is that the original title was “The Warm and Fuzzy Equations.”
I think it’s more like the author was working backwards from “pilot saves girl” and the editor insisted on “girl dies” so the story ended up with pieces that don’t quite fit together.
I’m trying to figure out what that story would be if the girl doesn’t have to die.
Humans are crafty in tricky situations?
Humans suck at making minimal vehicles?
Killing stowaways only makes sense when you think they are evil men, not silly teenage girls?
Bureaucracy sucks?
Depends on who comes up with the solution. Could be:
A stowaway whose life is on the line can find a solution that’s not apparent to the less involved party.
or
A pilot who is abstractly interested in saving lives by delivering medicine becomes much more directly involved in saving one particular life.
You have to remember that the story was written in 1954, long before computers were small enough to fit in your back pocket or the rise of unmanned landers. It’s an example zeerust
No doubt the movie has a happy ending where they find a solution and everyone survives (after going through suitably dramatic crises and emotions). Alternative title: ‘The Warm Equations’. 
It doesn’t have good reviews. I think I’ll skip it.
“In space, no one can hear you scream. But watching Stowaway, there’s a good chance that you’ll hear muffled cries of frustration. They’ll be coming from inside the house.” - Globe and Mail
“The beauty of being Netflix … is that the service churns out so much content, failure actually is an option. And while “Stowaway” doesn’t entirely land in that bucket, you won’t miss much by waiting to catch the next shuttle.” - CNN
“Though Penna’s cast does its damndest to ride the tonal vagaries thrown at them, the movie uses overwrought moral questions to address its biggest mysteries. What’s scarier than space? A bunch of people arguing about life and death within its dark confines, apparently.” - IndieWire
“Penna expertly guides all this, but the ultimate effect is kind of meh.” - Deadline
“Trying to sustain this tension for almost two hours proves an impossible task, and while there are still seat-edge moments from the big set piece that closes the film out, it’s just a bit too conventional in how it plays out… We’re left a little adrift, the film ending less on a high or low and more of a huh?” - Guardian
I’ve read that story too. The kicker (so to speak) was that the legs of the stowaway, who was young, could be regenerated. The pilot’s could not.
Another take on the same basic idea is Charles Sheffield’s “Humanity Test”. Great story, look for it if you haven’t read it.
Well, look at it logically. The folks who designed the restrooms at Starbucks had probably read TCE, so they knew how important it was to lock door.
Also: how does he jettison the severed limbs?
Well before the second half of the movie I’d have happily volunteered to take Anna Kendrick’s place.
There have actually already been several movie versions of The Cold Equations.
I watched Stowaway. It was OK. They are all basically variations of The Trolley Problem ethical dilemma. Basically some contrived selectively bad engineering where the failure of some critical system will kill everyone unless someone sacrifices themselves by passing through plot induced radiation to flip some switch to activate the backups (sorry Spock).
My issue with the story isn’t the ones most people are arguing.
I hate the 50s mysogyny that females are somehow different and have to be protected at all cost. No one would have cared if the pilot spaced a man, but when ther stowaway is a girl, well, he’s supposed to sacrifice himself. Fuck that. Women are equal, and that means (in the context of the story) they can die from their stupidity just like guys.
It’s been quite a while since I read this. But yes, it pissed me off. If he was going to set up a “no possible win” situation, it should have been thought out much more carefully.