3 ms·

If the space program is not willing to kill some astronauts, there shouldn't be a space program. From a purely economic point of view, the cost of killing an a

If the space program is not willing to kill some astronauts, there shouldn't be a space program. From a purely economic point of view, the cost of killing an astronaut is small compared to the cost of these missions. The statistical value of a human life is around $12 M. Astronauts may be a bit more expensive, due to cost of training, but not enormously so. Making space flight much cheaper will shift the economics, making safety relatively more important. It will also enable that safety by enabling many more launches to reduce risks. People anguish over the 14 astronauts killed in the Shuttle, but the economic value destroyed by that program was in the end a much greater loss.

93po 2y ago
this is a really sad and disappointing perspective for someone to have. if you are putting people's lives at risk for the sake of economic value when they have trusted you with their lives then you don't deserve that trust.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  The money spent on making astronauts safer could save more lives if spent elsewhere. That's how the statistical value of a life is set: it's the marginal cost of saving a (age adjusted) life used to justify government actions, say in worker safety, pollution control, road improvements, medical spending, etc. Why do you think astronauts are so much more important than the common persons saved by these other efforts? Why do you advocate spending patterns that increase the body count for a given expenditure?
  - michaelt 2y ago
    We all know that society applies almost arbitrary values to all these things. 42,000 road deaths annually? Meh. 3,000 people die in the terror attacks of 9/11? Multi-trillion-dollar, 20 year war. Politicians only fund NASA manned launches because the average voter thinks it's kinda cool and maybe it inspires some kids to work hard at school. Too many high profile, fear-inducing deaths and politicians are liable to decide the money spent on NASA could be better spent elsewhere.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      Yes, the point I'm working toward is the manned space program is not worth the money spent on it. The willingness to suspend the thing for years when a few astronauts die is a tell. If what they were doing was actually important this would not be allowed to happen.
      - HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
        Just because something is important (although I'm not saying that manned space exploration is), doesn't mean it has to be done tomorrow. e.g. It's important you save for your kids college, but you don't need to have all the money saved up by time they are 10 years old. Rushing an important task can also cause it to fail. Being overly aggressive with college savings by putting it in high-risk investments would not be conducive to meeting goals, and NASA losing public support by getting crew killed unnecessarily would not be conducive to them getting funding for future manned missions.
  - 93po 2y ago
    > Why do you think astronauts are so much more important than the common persons saved by these other efforts? Because they're being asked to do something extraordinarily dangerous. I think it makes sense that the higher the risk, the more accountability (and expenditure) there should be for reducing said risk
- WalterBright 2y ago
  > if you are putting people's lives at risk for the sake of economic value when they have trusted you with their lives then you don't deserve that trust. That happens all the time. If you drive your car to work, you are putting your lives and those of others at risk for economic value. There's no way around it.
gus_massa 2y ago
Most of the science results from the space program are from proves. The experiments that the astronaut run in space are fully automated, because they are not experts in all topics, so they get a box that they have to plug, turn on and off later. The value of astronauts is to get some data about the human body in space and mostly to get support from the public. (It's almost like pilots in F1. Nobody would go to see a robot version of F1.)
- MadnessASAP 2y ago
  I would very much pay to see F1 cars being controlled by computers beyond the limits of humans. Especially if they removed many of the limitations intended to keep the drivers safe.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    I'd like to see F1 revert to 1960s technology (with safety improvements) because those cars required a lot more driver skill.
  - gus_massa 2y ago
    Mee too! But I think we will be the only two spectators in the stands.
  - radicaldreamer 2y ago
    You need to keep the audience safe as well! Most of the people who have died in motorsport are spectators.
Firaxus 2y ago
Here (with parent sources mentioned at the link) it is claimed that training costs 15 million, a bit more than a bit eh? https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/35431/how-much-does-it-cost-to-train-an-astronaut#:~:text=Today%20at%20the%20saturation%20diving,and%20seems%20to%20confirm%20it https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/35431/how-much-doe....
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- pfdietz 2y ago
  "Not enormously so". In particular, it doesn't counter the argument I was making. For the Shuttle, for example, the value of the astronaut lives, even including $15 M in training costs, was an order of magnitude less than the cost of the orbiter itself.
dotnet00 2y ago
There's a massive difference between astronauts dying in the process of testing something innovative and risky that pushes the envelope, and astronauts dying because a company has let its engineering deteriorate. In the latter case, we might as well just shoot those astronauts instead, it'd give about the same meaning to their deaths.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  If what they are doing is not enough to give meaning to their deaths, then to a much greater extent it's not enough to give meaning to the very large amount of money being spent on the mission.
  - dotnet00 2y ago
    That makes no sense. The meaning of the very large amount of money being spent on the mission is of accomplishing the mission. Starliner is doing nothing innovative, and dying with it would not be accomplishing the mission or adding anything new towards accomplishing it past this point (that is, all the testing past this point can be done without putting people onboard, with just the comparatively small cost of a software swap), there is no meaning to dying on it. You might as well be arguing that SpaceX should put crew on IFT-5.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      So, the meaning of the deaths is the accomplishment of the mission. Why does the mission give meaning to money, but not to the deaths? Meaning is meaning. Starliner may indeed not be worth deaths involved in its testing, but that would be because Starliner would not be worthwhile as a program at all.
      - HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
        Starliner serves the purpose of NASA not being dependent on a single launch provider. If Starliner needs additional testing, as it appears to do, then it makes no sense, and serves no purpose, to test it in a way that endangers human lives when that is completely unnecessary. If NASA/Boeing need to test if Starliner can fly back home (whether this unit, or future ones, until they get it reliable) then have it fly back home autonomously. Your argument makes zero sense - it's exactly like saying that cars would only be worthwhile if we used humans for crash tests rather than crash test dummies. It's a bit like some ancient culture thinking that human sacrifice is needed to placate the gods.
philwelch 2y ago
The value of an astronaut is at least 10x the value of the “statistical human life”. Probably closer to 100x. Maybe even more. The statistical human life is meant to represent the average person. The average person is not qualified to become an astronaut. Selection alone, nevermind training, is stringent enough that maybe 1 in 100,000 people meets the bar. And the difference between a qualified astronaut and the average person here isn’t small; it’s a power law relationship.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  Interesting! Since it doesn't cost that anywhere close to that much to create an astronaut, clearly we can make the nation incredibly wealthy by simply training more of them. By the magical transmutation of astronaut creation, this increases their value enormously. What a brilliant free wealth concept you have created! It's the greatest idea since Beanie Babies.
  - philwelch 2y ago
    It’s a selection effect. If you trained all of the people qualified to become astronauts into becoming astronauts you would incur the opportunity costs of those people not applying their talents and ambitions elsewhere.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      So, you're saying we're actually losing value by training an astronaut, since their talents are not available or elsewhere? Or that astronauts should be chosen from the otherwise useless? Trying to understand here. I'm sure we can find plenty of low value people to transmute into incredibly valuable secular saints of space. No need to waste the otherwise useful.
      - philwelch 2y ago
        > So, you're saying we're actually losing value by training an astronaut, since their talents are not available or elsewhere? This is called “opportunity cost” and it’s a basic concept. > Or that astronauts should be chosen from the otherwise useless? That wouldn’t work because those people couldn’t become useful astronauts. > I'm sure we can find plenty of low value people to transmute into incredibly valuable secular saints of space. No need to waste the otherwise useful. The smug, superior attitude here doesn’t really work when you’re mocking basic concepts like opportunity cost or being qualified for a job. It just makes you come across as an anti-intellectual clown. If you tried engaging in good faith you might learn something.
rozap 2y ago
This is a silly take. There are two options, Starliner with X units of risk, Dragon with Y units of risk. Given what we know, X is greater than Y. The only reason to choose Starliner at this point is because in the event of it not killing them, some mid level managers at Boeing don't look as bad. Is that a good enough reason to gamble with someones life? I don't think reasonable people can come to different conclusions here. If we're pushing the envelope of technology and humankind's ability to do cool shit and people die in the process, you can argue that it's worth it, and that's fine, reasonable people can disagree. But that's just not what is happening here.

93po 2y ago

this is a really sad and disappointing perspective for someone to have. if you are putting people's lives at risk for the sake of economic value when they have trusted you with their lives then you don't deserve that trust.

pfdietz 2y ago
The money spent on making astronauts safer could save more lives if spent elsewhere. That's how the statistical value of a life is set: it's the marginal cost of saving a (age adjusted) life used to justify government actions, say in worker safety, pollution control, road improvements, medical spending, etc. Why do you think astronauts are so much more important than the common persons saved by these other efforts? Why do you advocate spending patterns that increase the body count for a given expenditure?
- michaelt 2y ago
  We all know that society applies almost arbitrary values to all these things. 42,000 road deaths annually? Meh. 3,000 people die in the terror attacks of 9/11? Multi-trillion-dollar, 20 year war. Politicians only fund NASA manned launches because the average voter thinks it's kinda cool and maybe it inspires some kids to work hard at school. Too many high profile, fear-inducing deaths and politicians are liable to decide the money spent on NASA could be better spent elsewhere.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    Yes, the point I'm working toward is the manned space program is not worth the money spent on it. The willingness to suspend the thing for years when a few astronauts die is a tell. If what they were doing was actually important this would not be allowed to happen.
    - HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
      Just because something is important (although I'm not saying that manned space exploration is), doesn't mean it has to be done tomorrow. e.g. It's important you save for your kids college, but you don't need to have all the money saved up by time they are 10 years old. Rushing an important task can also cause it to fail. Being overly aggressive with college savings by putting it in high-risk investments would not be conducive to meeting goals, and NASA losing public support by getting crew killed unnecessarily would not be conducive to them getting funding for future manned missions.
- 93po 2y ago
  > Why do you think astronauts are so much more important than the common persons saved by these other efforts? Because they're being asked to do something extraordinarily dangerous. I think it makes sense that the higher the risk, the more accountability (and expenditure) there should be for reducing said risk
WalterBright 2y ago
> if you are putting people's lives at risk for the sake of economic value when they have trusted you with their lives then you don't deserve that trust. That happens all the time. If you drive your car to work, you are putting your lives and those of others at risk for economic value. There's no way around it.

gus_massa 2y ago

Most of the science results from the space program are from proves. The experiments that the astronaut run in space are fully automated, because they are not experts in all topics, so they get a box that they have to plug, turn on and off later. The value of astronauts is to get some data about the human body in space and mostly to get support from the public. (It's almost like pilots in F1. Nobody would go to see a robot version of F1.)

MadnessASAP 2y ago
I would very much pay to see F1 cars being controlled by computers beyond the limits of humans. Especially if they removed many of the limitations intended to keep the drivers safe.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  I'd like to see F1 revert to 1960s technology (with safety improvements) because those cars required a lot more driver skill.
- gus_massa 2y ago
  Mee too! But I think we will be the only two spectators in the stands.
- radicaldreamer 2y ago
  You need to keep the audience safe as well! Most of the people who have died in motorsport are spectators.

Firaxus 2y ago

Here (with parent sources mentioned at the link) it is claimed that training costs 15 million, a bit more than a bit eh? https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/35431/how-much-does-it-cost-to-train-an-astronaut#:~:text=Today%20at%20the%20saturation%20diving,and%20seems%20to%20confirm%20it https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/35431/how-much-doe....

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
pfdietz 2y ago
"Not enormously so". In particular, it doesn't counter the argument I was making. For the Shuttle, for example, the value of the astronaut lives, even including $15 M in training costs, was an order of magnitude less than the cost of the orbiter itself.

dotnet00 2y ago

There's a massive difference between astronauts dying in the process of testing something innovative and risky that pushes the envelope, and astronauts dying because a company has let its engineering deteriorate. In the latter case, we might as well just shoot those astronauts instead, it'd give about the same meaning to their deaths.

pfdietz 2y ago
If what they are doing is not enough to give meaning to their deaths, then to a much greater extent it's not enough to give meaning to the very large amount of money being spent on the mission.
- dotnet00 2y ago
  That makes no sense. The meaning of the very large amount of money being spent on the mission is of accomplishing the mission. Starliner is doing nothing innovative, and dying with it would not be accomplishing the mission or adding anything new towards accomplishing it past this point (that is, all the testing past this point can be done without putting people onboard, with just the comparatively small cost of a software swap), there is no meaning to dying on it. You might as well be arguing that SpaceX should put crew on IFT-5.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    So, the meaning of the deaths is the accomplishment of the mission. Why does the mission give meaning to money, but not to the deaths? Meaning is meaning. Starliner may indeed not be worth deaths involved in its testing, but that would be because Starliner would not be worthwhile as a program at all.
    - HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
      Starliner serves the purpose of NASA not being dependent on a single launch provider. If Starliner needs additional testing, as it appears to do, then it makes no sense, and serves no purpose, to test it in a way that endangers human lives when that is completely unnecessary. If NASA/Boeing need to test if Starliner can fly back home (whether this unit, or future ones, until they get it reliable) then have it fly back home autonomously. Your argument makes zero sense - it's exactly like saying that cars would only be worthwhile if we used humans for crash tests rather than crash test dummies. It's a bit like some ancient culture thinking that human sacrifice is needed to placate the gods.

philwelch 2y ago

The value of an astronaut is at least 10x the value of the “statistical human life”. Probably closer to 100x. Maybe even more. The statistical human life is meant to represent the average person. The average person is not qualified to become an astronaut. Selection alone, nevermind training, is stringent enough that maybe 1 in 100,000 people meets the bar. And the difference between a qualified astronaut and the average person here isn’t small; it’s a power law relationship.

pfdietz 2y ago
Interesting! Since it doesn't cost that anywhere close to that much to create an astronaut, clearly we can make the nation incredibly wealthy by simply training more of them. By the magical transmutation of astronaut creation, this increases their value enormously. What a brilliant free wealth concept you have created! It's the greatest idea since Beanie Babies.
- philwelch 2y ago
  It’s a selection effect. If you trained all of the people qualified to become astronauts into becoming astronauts you would incur the opportunity costs of those people not applying their talents and ambitions elsewhere.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    So, you're saying we're actually losing value by training an astronaut, since their talents are not available or elsewhere? Or that astronauts should be chosen from the otherwise useless? Trying to understand here. I'm sure we can find plenty of low value people to transmute into incredibly valuable secular saints of space. No need to waste the otherwise useful.
    - philwelch 2y ago
      > So, you're saying we're actually losing value by training an astronaut, since their talents are not available or elsewhere? This is called “opportunity cost” and it’s a basic concept. > Or that astronauts should be chosen from the otherwise useless? That wouldn’t work because those people couldn’t become useful astronauts. > I'm sure we can find plenty of low value people to transmute into incredibly valuable secular saints of space. No need to waste the otherwise useful. The smug, superior attitude here doesn’t really work when you’re mocking basic concepts like opportunity cost or being qualified for a job. It just makes you come across as an anti-intellectual clown. If you tried engaging in good faith you might learn something.

rozap 2y ago

This is a silly take. There are two options, Starliner with X units of risk, Dragon with Y units of risk. Given what we know, X is greater than Y. The only reason to choose Starliner at this point is because in the event of it not killing them, some mid level managers at Boeing don't look as bad. Is that a good enough reason to gamble with someones life? I don't think reasonable people can come to different conclusions here. If we're pushing the envelope of technology and humankind's ability to do cool shit and people die in the process, you can argue that it's worth it, and that's fine, reasonable people can disagree. But that's just not what is happening here.