17 ms·

The risk of losing 3 dudes is greater than $450m.

AcerbicZero 2y ago
Risk avoidance has its place, but fear didn't get us to the moon the first time and I'm confident it wont work this time either.
ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
You're probably right in this specific example, or at least you're probably in-line with NASA's leadership's thinking. I am willing to bet that other parts of society (e.g. traffic planners and automobile manufacturers) have a much lower cost of human life.
- __s 2y ago
  For NASA the cost of dead people includes bad PR
  - rvnx 2y ago
    Not really, SpaceX would just sell that as an unscheduled disassembly + “we collected data”. It’s widely accepted that you may die going to space in experimental vehicles, nobody ever said it would be safe, and nobody can reasonably think it is risk-free. Apollo 1 folks died, not a problem for reputation of NASA.
doytch 2y ago
People put valuations on lives all the time in risk analysis and I've never seen a cost even close to $100m. DOT puts it at 13.2m: https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-...
- rvnx 2y ago
  Finding someone who agrees to go to the moon with a risk of 1 out 2 of dying, and 1 of 2 of becoming a historical hero is really doable. Plenty of volunteers, and no need for 100M USD. People go to war for less than 50K USD.
  - talldatethrow 2y ago
    The odds of dying in a war are less than 1 in 2, and for joining the military in general it is far far less.
    - rvnx 2y ago
      ?! I was like, "oh really?" and I checked... you're right, "a German soldier had approximately a 1 in 3 chance of dying during the WW2 conflict" Dying to protect a political system vs dying to advance science, better pick science.
      - talldatethrow 2y ago
        And that is an exceptional example. For most modern wars or major conflicts it's nowhere near as bad as 1 in 3.
    - BJones12 2y ago
      In WWII young men volunteered to join RAF bomber crews and faced an almost 1-in-2 chance of dying, with a far higher chance of getting wounded or captured.
  - esalman 2y ago
    The city I'm from, there are people who'll kill for USD equivalent of $100. That does not mean we should encourage it.
- idiotsecant 2y ago
  Astronauts are very visible deaths for politicians whose currency is points in the polls. Having your photo not show up on the news next to a photo of a dead square-jawed captain america astronaut is probably worth 100m of other peoples money.
  - Rapzid 2y ago
    They wouldn't be "astronauts". They'd be cargo.
- tjohns 2y ago
  Factor in the PR impact on the entire space program given the public visibility. We've never had an astronaut crew get stranded on the moon. though we got close with Apollo 13. If/when that happens for the first time, you'd better believe the entire planet will be paying attention. Just the congressional inquiries alone will set the space program back by decades.
  - esalman 2y ago
    This. It seems average Americans, including average hn commenters, have their future outlook confined to the next fiscal quarter.
- choilive 2y ago
  Thats for the average person - whats the cost to replace the average astronaut? I've seen estimates that it costs $15M just to train 1 astronaut, and the pool of qualified candidates is likely extremely small. I would figure a guess of $100M per astronaut is not unreasonable.

Risk avoidance has its place, but fear didn't get us to the moon the first time and I'm confident it wont work this time either.

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago

You're probably right in this specific example, or at least you're probably in-line with NASA's leadership's thinking. I am willing to bet that other parts of society (e.g. traffic planners and automobile manufacturers) have a much lower cost of human life.

__s 2y ago
For NASA the cost of dead people includes bad PR
- rvnx 2y ago
  Not really, SpaceX would just sell that as an unscheduled disassembly + “we collected data”. It’s widely accepted that you may die going to space in experimental vehicles, nobody ever said it would be safe, and nobody can reasonably think it is risk-free. Apollo 1 folks died, not a problem for reputation of NASA.

doytch 2y ago

People put valuations on lives all the time in risk analysis and I've never seen a cost even close to $100m. DOT puts it at 13.2m: https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-...

rvnx 2y ago
Finding someone who agrees to go to the moon with a risk of 1 out 2 of dying, and 1 of 2 of becoming a historical hero is really doable. Plenty of volunteers, and no need for 100M USD. People go to war for less than 50K USD.
- talldatethrow 2y ago
  The odds of dying in a war are less than 1 in 2, and for joining the military in general it is far far less.
  - rvnx 2y ago
    ?! I was like, "oh really?" and I checked... you're right, "a German soldier had approximately a 1 in 3 chance of dying during the WW2 conflict" Dying to protect a political system vs dying to advance science, better pick science.
    - talldatethrow 2y ago
      And that is an exceptional example. For most modern wars or major conflicts it's nowhere near as bad as 1 in 3.
  - BJones12 2y ago
    In WWII young men volunteered to join RAF bomber crews and faced an almost 1-in-2 chance of dying, with a far higher chance of getting wounded or captured.
- esalman 2y ago
  The city I'm from, there are people who'll kill for USD equivalent of $100. That does not mean we should encourage it.
idiotsecant 2y ago
Astronauts are very visible deaths for politicians whose currency is points in the polls. Having your photo not show up on the news next to a photo of a dead square-jawed captain america astronaut is probably worth 100m of other peoples money.
- Rapzid 2y ago
  They wouldn't be "astronauts". They'd be cargo.
tjohns 2y ago
Factor in the PR impact on the entire space program given the public visibility. We've never had an astronaut crew get stranded on the moon. though we got close with Apollo 13. If/when that happens for the first time, you'd better believe the entire planet will be paying attention. Just the congressional inquiries alone will set the space program back by decades.
- esalman 2y ago
  This. It seems average Americans, including average hn commenters, have their future outlook confined to the next fiscal quarter.
choilive 2y ago
Thats for the average person - whats the cost to replace the average astronaut? I've seen estimates that it costs $15M just to train 1 astronaut, and the pool of qualified candidates is likely extremely small. I would figure a guess of $100M per astronaut is not unreasonable.