Humans are a dime a billion. We have no problem slaughtering humans daily in contrived conflict but somehow losing a few furthering scientific understanding is unacceptable.
First, this is an extremely naive view as to what goes into training an astronaut to be sent into space. It's not like we just plucked four random people from the globe and are sending them to space. These are people who are very likely at the top of their fields, have gone through rigorous (and costly) training, and are going up to do very specific jobs. These people are not a "dime a billion", and claiming so is the same as saying that if Elon Musk were to disappear today, that any other person could simply take his place and keep moving his companies forward.
Second, just because there are negative aspects in the world that cause loss of life, doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing everything we can to ensure a safe flight. This is unrelated to the cost aspect mentioned in my first point, but the average person living in the U.S.A is only living as comfortable as they are because modern civilization, for the most part, values safety quite high. It's a poor argument to say "Well X people died yesterday, so we shouldn't care so much about the 4 that might die in a launch".
> These are people who are very likely at the top of their fields, have gone through rigorous (and costly) training, and are going up to do very specific jobs
That is irrelevant to the level safety precautions. Unless you were trying to argue that their costly training makes them worth more than other people. I hope that is not what you were arguing.
> doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing everything we can to ensure a safe flight
At some point you have to declare something 'safe enough' since 100% safety is an impossible perfection. Bicycles aren't 100% safe, but we don't go around insisting on multiple backup systems. Personally I do find it curious that the standard of safety for astronauts is so high. The cynic in me suggests its less out of concern for the astronauts and more to do with the publicity fallout that occurs after disasters and the damage to other assets. The optimist suggests its more a concern for all the ground crew and spectators who are also at risk. There is potential for a lot more than 4 casualties when you play with that much fire.
>> These are people who are very likely at the top of their fields, have gone through rigorous (and costly) training, and are going up to do very specific jobs
>That is irrelevant to the level safety precautions. Unless you were trying to argue that their costly training makes them worth more than other people. I hope that is not what you were arguing.
I believe GP was arguing about the "a dime a billion" part. They are not worth more than other people in the human sense, but that doesn't make them any more common. It's just the fact that there are very few people with such qualifications that negate the argument of "a dime a billion".
And I guess it's also true that not any of those billions could be trained to be an astronaut for a myriad of reasons.
But I think there is (or at least will/should be) a difference between a trained astronaut and a space tourist.
I mean, being an astronaut is more than just going to outer space, isn't it? A space tourist might do a lot of the stuff that astronauts do, but I think there will still be a fundamental difference. Astronauts are there to do research, push the limits on human capabilities, etc.
After all that is settled, then the tourists can come.
Well and think about planes. Planes are already safer than cars, but we demand very high reliability. If 30% more planes crashed and it cut ticket prices by 30%.. some people would make that trade. People do it when buying smaller less safe cars... but we don't like the thought of plane or shuttle crashes.
What astronauts are trained to do at the top of their field and what they end up doing are kind of divorced though. They spend an inordinate amount of time turning wrenches really, really slowly.
I think that's like saying that pilots spend an inordinate amount of time sitting in their chair making sure that the autopilot is working properly. The remainder is why they get all of the training that they do.
Divorced, but still related, I think. There are lots of possibilities to die in space, to kill fellow crew members or to seriously damage quite expensive equipment, so one should really know how to, e.g., turn wrenches.
Not only is it acceptable, it is necessary. How do you think our ancestors determined what was safe to eat? As the saying goes, sometimes you need to break some eggs. Now don't get me wrong, I'm neither condoning, nor encouraging, wanton negligence concerning human safety, obviously all possible efforts should be made to ensure it, but sometimes, such as in cases like this, the rewards far outweigh the risks.
Yes. And thousands have died in death camps to bootstrap our modern cariology. We should be grateful to all people who died in the past providing us data and knowledge, and to honor them we should use it in the best way we can, so that no one else has to die.
Second, just because there are negative aspects in the world that cause loss of life, doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing everything we can to ensure a safe flight. This is unrelated to the cost aspect mentioned in my first point, but the average person living in the U.S.A is only living as comfortable as they are because modern civilization, for the most part, values safety quite high. It's a poor argument to say "Well X people died yesterday, so we shouldn't care so much about the 4 that might die in a launch".