Sander Vesik wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:

I think everyone knows the reality of the risk now.
And, during a time when U.S. soldiers are dying in
combat for national goals authorized by Congress,
I think there is an acceptance of spaceflight risk
for national purposes if the missions are deemed
worthwhile and if reasonable efforts are made to
minimize the risk as much as possible.


I'm not sure this is true - soldiers dieing is not really
seen as a failure (and even so, look at all the fuss around
images of planefuls of coffins) while astronaut deaths are.

I don't mean to equate the specific risks of combat
with those of spaceflight. What I'm attempting to
say is that 9/11 and war has changed public perception
of risk. I suspect that the public reaction to the
loss of Columbia might have been different if it had
happened before 9/11/01. After we watched thousands
of our fellow citizens die at their workstations in
office buildings, the site of astronauts dying in a
horrible reentry accident was not such a shock.
Before 9/11 NASA might have been forced to shut down
the program, but a post-9/11 NASA is preparing to
launch more astronauts on what is essentially the
same machine. The risk has been mitigated somewhat,
but even NASA is feeling free to admit that another
Really Bad Day could happen.

For it to change, spacelight needs to stop being a national
honour thing and become a practical thing.

I would like to see that happen during my lifetime,
but the reality of the present is that human
spaceflight is conducted for reasons of national
prestige.

- Ed Kyle