Hacker News Reader

I am sure the astronauts know and accept the risks, but does that really mean the public should be funding such reckless activities? They can go paragliding or base jumping on their own dime if they want an adrenaline rush.

The public has spend billions of dollars on this program, if the end result is astronauts getting cooked during reentry then how could that possibly be an outcome worth the expense?

View on HN

That's the debate we should be having, but aren't. It isn't by definition "reckless." It is a calculated risk. The thing with science and exploration is that you never know what is at the end of it. Maybe we should just give up science and exploration?

>The public has spend billions of dollars on this program, if the end result is astronauts getting cooked during reentry then how could that possibly be an outcome worth the expense?

The public has spent [tons of 15th century money] on earth exploration. If the end result is sailors drowning, then then how could global exploration be an outcome worth the expense?

It is not even "if" they should be funding these activities.... it is whether the public would "support" funding these activities, if there was a trail of deaths.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com