Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by sanxiyn | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

sanxiyn

It isn't frivolous, or impossible, but it is not ready to take customers. Rocket launch failure rate is about 5%.

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/11/spa...

View on HN

> Rocket launch failure rate is about 5%.

That's not too far off Everest's death rate, for which customers happily line up in hordes.

600 people isn't really a horde; its a light cavalry unit you could easily lose with an accidental command. More relevantly, At what year did the number of people flying aircraft reach 600?

600 people a year on Everest is more annually than have been in space in all of human history.

It's definitely a "horde" in terms of the impact Everest (and the families of tour guides regularly sacrificed so rich tourists can get their kicks) can actually sustain.

"Sacrificed" seems a little hyperbolic, considering no one is forcing anyone to take these jobs. Compare e.g. crab fishing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_king_crab_fishing#Dange...

Since you brought up stats:

    Annual Fatality Rates by Profession
    (Deaths per 100,000 full-time equivalents)

    Miners (2000-2010): 25
    Commercial Fisherman (2000-2010): 124
    Alaskan Bush Pilots (1990-2009): 287
    *Alaskan crab fishers: 300
    U.S. military in Iraq (2003-2007): 335
    Everest Sherpas (2000-2010): 1,332
    Everest Sherpas (2004-2014): 4,053

Source: [1], except for your entry, marked with a *.

Anyway, the "no one is forced" argument has been used to justify (or minimize the negative image of) all manner of free-market labor abuses since the beginning of time. Of course, it ignores the crushing poverty levels which drive people to "choose" most high-risk professions on the first place.[2] Which tend to be basically unimaginable to most people making the "no one is forced" argument.

[1] http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/climbing/moun...

{2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140418-evere...

I think they are mixing manned and unmanned missions.

The deadly failure rate in manned space missions is less than 1/50.

For example, the Space Shuttle had 2/135 deadly failures.

The Soyuz spacecraft had 2/128 deadly failures, but it's probably safer now. They have no deadly accident in space since 1971. Nevertheless, they have a few "recent" non deadly incidents in 2003 and 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_acc...

Its wholly frivolous at the current time, there is no destination other than up. How more frivolous can you get.

Once there are orbital and lunar destinations where you can stay more than a few days with a reasonable number of other people then it might get past frivolous.

"Up" does still bring a unique viewpoint.

Waiting for space-stations/moon-bases/whatever before working on cheaper ways to get people there leads to a massive chicken-and-egg problem. We do have a reasonable idea of how to build space stations, once the demand is there.

The destination isn't the point. Yes, some rich folks go to go to almost space, and that's awesome for them. But what's awesome for the rest of us is the rich folks are subsidizing research into spaceplanes, and some day stepping into a spaceplanebto go to the Lunar colony will be just like stepping onto a 747 to go to London is today.

Pretty much exactly what I came to say.

Also, as well as ponying up the cash, they will also be risking their skins. We need human guinea pigs, and the super-rich are volunteering.

Sorry is anyone who offers the contrary opinion - no matter how politely- that space tourism is frivolous, going to be voted down just because its an unpopular view about here?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com