Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

616

To lose a human life is a tragedy, and it costs a lot to train an astronaut. But it costs many times more to minimize each and every risk to the astronaut. If we were to simply train astronauts in larger classes and accept that, say, 20% of them will die progress could be made much more quickly. There would still be no shortage of applicants and in the larger scheme of things rapid progress in space science would save many more lives. So why wasn't that the approach of the space program?

To lose a human life is a tragedy, and it costs a lot to train an astronaut. But it costs many times more to minimize each and every risk to the astronaut. If we were to simply train astronauts in larger classes and accept that, say, 20% of them will die progress could be made much more quickly. There would still be no shortage of applicants and in the larger scheme of things rapid progress in space science would save many more lives. So why wasn't that the approach of the space program?

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (14).
[–] • 0 pt

No one has ever been to “space” or ever will. The entire concept of “space travel” or “exploration” is nothing but a public fantasy.

[–] • 0 pt

Go to the shore of a large lake or the ocean at sunset. Lie down in the sand and watch the sun set. As soon as it dips below the horizon, jump up onto a chair and you'll get to watch it set again. There's your proof the earth is round.

[–] • 0 pt

You mean standing at a higher point can let you see farther??!???!?!?!?!?!?!? Oh wow!!!!

[–] • 1 pt

If the sun goes down below the disk of a flat earth, standing at a higher point will not let you see it.