The ending didn't seem to fit any of the sociological or scientific themes of *Aniara*. The name of the story itself implies despair, and it continually devolves in each act. However by the nature of that final scene,

> 
>  Arriving at a lush water-covered planet in the Libra constellation that looks like a pristine young earth  
>  ![Destination planet in Lyra constellation]](https://i.stack.imgur.com/h9f9G.png)  
> carrying remains of her 8,000 passengers and algae  
> ![Jawbone and other human remains](https://i.stack.imgur.com/U3wOA.png),
> 
> 
> 

it seems to actually leave hope. Was it the film maker's intent to express the idea of panspermia?

*Please use spoiler text in your answers!*

Note [the director has confirmed](https://www.inverse.com/article/55884-aniara-movie-director-interview-pella-kagerman-says-this-is-climate-change) that the ending scene I am asking about is both true to the Swedish poem and a fundamental part of the story.

> 
> Kågerman obtained permission to adapt Martinson’s poem thanks to the blessings of the poet’s daughters, Harriet and Eva. “They were very open-minded and excited about the film,” she says. “Their only concern was for us to stay true to the ending of the poem, which we also did.”
> 
> 
> 

I have researched several online reviews and the all-important ending scene is normally glossed over, like in the case of this [horrible New York Times](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/movies/aniara-review.html) review. This could be to protect the quite shocking and unexpected ending, or just because the reviewer was too lazy to sit through a 110 minute film. But again, per the author that is an essential part of the story.

I am not inviting film critique or interpretations and such are not appropriate for this site. Only answers which reference intent are appropriate (staff interviews and canonical references). Was this ending chosen to show panspermia in action?