[polymatter]

> 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.

[saganus]

>> 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.

[avmich]

> 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.

This is less clear. Even more, the space tourism industry relies on that to be false. To an extent.

[saganus]

Well, in part I agree.

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.

[brianwawok]

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.

[eru]

Of course, for cars you have the added problem of externalities: the bigger `safer' car actually causes more damage to others in a crash.

[ambicapter]

> Unless you were trying to argue that their costly training makes them worth more than other people.

I would imagine they are to the company that is launching them.