3 ms·

Exactly whose safety are they concerned for? The volunteers who would gladly accept the risks of death, disease, and injury for a chance at glory? If we'd had

Exactly whose safety are they concerned for? The volunteers who would gladly accept the risks of death, disease, and injury for a chance at glory? If we'd had this attitude to risk in the 1960s, the Apollo program would have ended after Apollo 1 burned up.

codingdave 11y ago
Yes, that is exactly whose safety they are concerned with. People who are willing to give their life for a cause may be too willing to do so. There is nothing wrong with making a project as safe as possible, even if you can find volunteers with higher risk tolerances.
- BatFastard 11y ago
  "There is nothing wrong with making a project as safe as possible" This is crazy, it will leave us with space projects that will never be finished. Didn't mars one prove that people are willing to die on Mars to get there first? The cost of getting people to mars is trivial compared to the cost of getting them back. We spend so much time on safety we have become totally immobile in space. The whole NASA budget should be given to the private sector!
  - codingdave 11y ago
    OK, fine, what if we changed it to "as safe as practical"? The point is that those who are willing to die should not set the safety standards. We should surpass their personal risk tolerances, and make it safer than that.
    - BatFastard 11y ago
      As a parent, I found that what I considered "as safe as practical" was considerably different than what my wife considered safe.
- mturmon 11y ago
  And as we learned after Shuttle disasters, mission failure leading to loss of life has political consequences for the nation and the human space program as well. The risks are not limited to the astronauts.
7952 11y ago
Crew death and illness would represent a serious threat to the mission, especially when it is coupled with damage to the various machines. This is likely to be much more of an issue with such long duration away from earth.

codingdave 11y ago

Yes, that is exactly whose safety they are concerned with. People who are willing to give their life for a cause may be too willing to do so. There is nothing wrong with making a project as safe as possible, even if you can find volunteers with higher risk tolerances.

BatFastard 11y ago
"There is nothing wrong with making a project as safe as possible" This is crazy, it will leave us with space projects that will never be finished. Didn't mars one prove that people are willing to die on Mars to get there first? The cost of getting people to mars is trivial compared to the cost of getting them back. We spend so much time on safety we have become totally immobile in space. The whole NASA budget should be given to the private sector!
- codingdave 11y ago
  OK, fine, what if we changed it to "as safe as practical"? The point is that those who are willing to die should not set the safety standards. We should surpass their personal risk tolerances, and make it safer than that.
  - BatFastard 11y ago
    As a parent, I found that what I considered "as safe as practical" was considerably different than what my wife considered safe.
mturmon 11y ago
And as we learned after Shuttle disasters, mission failure leading to loss of life has political consequences for the nation and the human space program as well. The risks are not limited to the astronauts.

7952 11y ago

Crew death and illness would represent a serious threat to the mission, especially when it is coupled with damage to the various machines. This is likely to be much more of an issue with such long duration away from earth.