Space becomes routine.

On looking on NASAs site, and seeing the still-present banner, it
struck me that the true mark that spaceflight is routine will be
when a death in space is only local news, and no more widely reported than
any other industrial accident.

In article ,
Ian Stirling wrote:
On looking on NASAs site, and seeing the still-present banner, it
struck me that the true mark that spaceflight is routine will be
when a death in space is only local news, and no more widely reported than
any other industrial accident.

That's an interesting hope, because at the moment it's the opposite.
If there is another death in space any time soon, it will likely
mean the end of the space station. And that will be very big news.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

Ian Stirling wrote in message ...
On looking on NASAs site, and seeing the still-present banner, it
struck me that the true mark that spaceflight is routine will be
when a death in space is only local news, and no more widely reported
than any other industrial accident.

The problem with your theory is the fact that the mass media will put
something that their master want.

And really, the mass media has reported widely a local event (like
9/11 for example), which is done to cause conflicts, because that's
what their master want.

EAC wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote in message ...
On looking on NASAs site, and seeing the still-present banner, it
struck me that the true mark that spaceflight is routine will be
when a death in space is only local news, and no more widely reported
than any other industrial accident.

The problem with your theory is the fact that the mass media will put
something that their master want.

To an extent.

Ask "the man in the street" which of either a story of an astronaut
dying, or a construction worker in Korea dying.

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...

Ask "the man in the street" which of either a story of an astronaut
dying, or a construction worker in Korea dying.

The manned space program has been tied up with national prestige since its
beginning. So when things go fatally wrong, it's not just another
accidental death. It's big news... big, bad news.

The manned space program has been tied up with national prestige since its
beginning. So when things go fatally wrong, it's not just another
accidental death.

We know this. It will not always be so. The point is to get to where
it's of no more consequence than an aircraft accident, accident at sea,
or a construction accident.

That won't happen until human spaceflight is finally dissociated from national
prestige. Which won't happen as long as governments are the major purveyors of
human spaceflight.

G EddieA95 wrote:
The manned space program has been tied up with national prestige since its
beginning. So when things go fatally wrong, it's not just another
accidental death.

We know this. It will not always be so. The point is to get to where
it's of no more consequence than an aircraft accident, accident at sea,
or a construction accident.

That won't happen until human spaceflight is finally dissociated from national
prestige. Which won't happen as long as governments are the major purveyors of
human spaceflight.

Doesn't follow.
If there is a Mars/Moon base with ten thousand people, then that will in
itself reduce the 'specialness'.

"G EddieA95" wrote in message
...

We know this. It will not always be so. The point is to get to where
it's of no more consequence than an aircraft accident, accident at sea,
or a construction accident.

That won't happen until human spaceflight is finally dissociated from
national
prestige. Which won't happen as long as governments are the major
purveyors of
human spaceflight.

But national presige remains the main reason for sending people into space--
just as it was 40 years ago.

Manned spaceflight is old technology. It still shows near zero commercial
potential, despite nearly half a century of government (i.e., taxpayer
funded) R&D, and unlike unmanned satellites, which clearly have practical
benefits and which have been embraced by the private sector. "Someday" just
doesn't cut it anymore, and far too much money-- and lives-- has been wasted
keeping this obsolete technology alive.

I fondly remember as a kid being brought to the school auditorium to watch
the intrepid astronauts blast off into space in a tuna can. It was great
stuff. Let's face it, nobody cares anymore... until another fatal accident
happens.

I don't know what Bush is thinking with his idea of reprising the moon
mission. We beat the Russians already, George. After spending untold
billions, there are two possible outcomes: we'll succeed in doing what we
did decades ago (yawn), or it'll end in humiliating failure. Either way,
it's dumb public relations; and public relations is all it is.

curlyQlink wrote:
Manned spaceflight is old technology. It still shows near zero commercial
potential,

You have to consider that the Soyuz has launched two tourists, at
profit. The price charged for the tourist about paid for the whole
rocket, and yet took up only a single seat.

If the price hits about $1 million then we can expect a *lot* of
celebrities to go up.

despite nearly half a century of government (i.e., taxpayer
funded) R&D,

I think it's inspite of government funding. Governments *love* expensive
launch programs like the Shuttle- but such projects are not going to
be successful until the launch rate is significantly higher.

Trouble is; you don't use an expensive launcher to raise the launch
rate. You need a cheap launcher.

I fondly remember as a kid being brought to the school auditorium to watch
the intrepid astronauts blast off into space in a tuna can. It was great
stuff. Let's face it, nobody cares anymore...

That's because only people with the 'right stuff' are allowed to go.

We need to change that to include the 'right kind of money'; and then
work on pushing down how much money that is. The asymptotic cost of
chemical rocketry is potentially *really* low- a $50/kg kind of thing.

until another fatal accident happens.

Current launchers have a 2% fatality rate. Deal. There's nothing in the
laws of physics that make that so.

Ian Stirling wrote in message ...
G EddieA95 wrote:
The manned space program has been tied up with national prestige since its
beginning. So when things go fatally wrong, it's not just another
accidental death.

We know this. It will not always be so. The point is to get to where
it's of no more consequence than an aircraft accident, accident at sea,
or a construction accident.

That won't happen until human spaceflight is finally dissociated from national
prestige. Which won't happen as long as governments are the major purveyors of
human spaceflight.

Doesn't follow.
If there is a Mars/Moon base with ten thousand people, then that will in
itself reduce the 'specialness'.

Huh?? IMO, there will never be a Mars/moon base with
ten thousand people until commercial space is the dominant
activity in space.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com