Why Do We Mourn Our Astronauts?

mental_avenger · Dec 15, 2006

OK, now that I have your attention, please don’t go ballistic until you read the rest. One of the major problems with the space program has been catastrophic failures. When someone dies, the entire program comes to a grinding halt for years. It happens every time. Why? About 38,000 people die in automobile crashes every year. About 20,000 people are killed by the common flu every year About 15,000 people are murdered every year About 120 people die in airline crashes every year About 90 people are killed by lighting every year So, .0000546 of the fatalities get 95% of the news coverage. And that is what handicaps the space program. The space program depends upon public support to get funding. If the public perceives that the space program is too risky, the funding is cut off and the program suffers. The problem is that NASA and JPL are active participants in the very activities that threaten their existence. Instead of handling the accidents as the ordinary mishaps of cutting edge achievements, they hype the problems way out of proportion, and in so doing, create a public atmosphere of distrust and lack of confidence. IMO, space program accidents, fatal and otherwise, should be handled like all other accidents, as an inevitable part of, and acceptable risk of the business. Honor the dead, and move on. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

earth_bound_misfit · Dec 15, 2006

"please don’t go ballistic until you read the rest." Ballistic LOL, there's a bit of a pun there. How come you're up here, I thought you lived in free space <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I trend to agree with what your saying here though, especially after the Columbia accident. We on here all know the inherent risks involved in manned space exploration. I think down the track NASA and others will kick themselves for abandoning the STS program. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?Go here to see how: SDC Eye saver </div>

mental_avenger · Dec 15, 2006

I used to hang out in nothing but the science forums. But there came a point at which almost everything had been discussed over and over so many times that the redundancy became annoying. After 10,000 posts, there are few “undiscovered territories” in these forums. Same BS, different day. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

docm · Dec 15, 2006

Yup, mostly in this thread <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> We mourn because we're human and have empathy for them and their families. If you didn't understand that sentence I highly recommend therapy. Quickly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mithridates · Dec 15, 2006

I haven't read the rest of the responses but it's easy to explain. The amount of time and effort it takes for a person to become an astronaut means that a loss of just one sets back space exploration by just that much more. For a relatively new field, every bit is crucial. It's like the loss of a prominent contributor in the IAL movement, a small movement where each person contributes a lot and whose loss is missed even more because of it. Later on when space travel becomes mundane astronauts will be missed no more than regular airplane pilots. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----- http://mithridates.blogspot.com </div>

JonClarke · Dec 15, 2006

Overall, a space traveller's changes of dying in a space mission have been about 1/50. Compared to what people normally consider risky activities this is high - scuba diving is about 1/100,000 and sky diving about 1/80,000. A better comparison might be with other activities at the limit of human capabilities. If you wintered over in the Antarctic in the heroic age (before WWI) you have about a 1/24 chance of dying. If you reach the top of Mt. Everest you have a 1/12 change of dying. In recent decades spaceflight has become much safer. Since Challenger your chances of dying on a mission are less than 1/100, twice as safe has the historic average, and only twice as risky as wintering over in the Antarctic post WWII (where the fatlities amongst the Australian expeditioners in the first 40 years were 1/255. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

rocketman5000 · Dec 15, 2006

mithridates, you stole my thunder....

mrmorris · Dec 15, 2006

"The problem is that NASA and JPL are active participants in the very activities that threaten their existence. Instead of handling the accidents as the ordinary mishaps of cutting edge achievements, they hype the problems way out of proportion..." Nope. That's not the problem. The problem **is** hype, but NASA has diddly to do with it. The space program is extremely visible. A small but significant segment of the population follows space activities religeously (guilty as charged) whether there is media coverage or not. But almost *everyone* will see coverage of manned launches -- even if it's just a blurb on the evening news. And ***EVERYONE***/b> (not positive if I emphasized that enough) will see (over and over and over again) media coverage in the event of fatalities. This is half of the problem -- astronaut deaths are much more visible than the death of motorist X. The second problem is that we empathize with astronauts. Everybody wants to be one at one time or another -- even if the desire is never vocalized or seriously considered. When one dies... it's as if part of *you* died. Again -- motorist X simply doesn't make it onto the scale in terms of empathy. Even if someone sees a report about motorist X's death on the news -- the most likely response is "Glad that wasn't me." Mind you -- unless X was famous/rich/etc. -- there's no reason to *want* to be them, so the emotional response to their demise is nil. Russia was a totalitarian state during the Cold War. They had a total clamp down on the media. They were able to hide accidents and cosmonaut deaths. If the deaths are hidden -- the empathy factor simply isn't there. In any event, a significant percentage of their population wasn't in any position to find out about it even if the government *wasn't* in control of the media, and cosmonauts didn't have the empathy factor that astron

centsworth_II · Dec 15, 2006

About 38,000 people die in automobile crashes every year. About 20,000 people are killed by the common flu every year About 15,000 people are murdered every year About 120 people die in airline crashes every year About 90 people are killed by lighting every year At the risk of sounding even more cold-hearted than you, none of these other deaths also involves the loss of billions of dollars of national investment as well. A catastrophic failure indicates a serious fault in the system. The program must be halted and the fault corrected or the risk exists of not only more loss of life but loss of billions more in investment. On the other hand, perhaps you advocate running the space program like a vanity war. There the loss of life and the waste of billions of dollars is no big deal. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

tplank · Dec 15, 2006

There is much I agree with here…most of this stuff are factors. But I think there is a better explanation. We morn more vigorously any time some one dies in a noble cause. It is just like the soldier that throws himself on a grenade or rescue diver that jumps into danger and loses their life. We morn for these a little differently because it confronts us all with our own short comings. We look at such deaths and wonder to ourselves whether we would have taken that risk for the benefit of others. Not that any of us know what we might do given the “opportunity”, but we wonder what we are made of. These are people that looked at the risk and weighed it again the gains for their fellow men, and plunged forward. They passed one of the greatest and most difficult tests that one can pass in life and we know intuitively, if not intellectually, that these men and women were made of the right stuff. Knowing that, we can not help but feel mankind is somewhat poorer for the loss of such a person, even if ultimately they are expanding the horizons of humanity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The Disenfranchised Curmudgeonhttp://tonyplank.blogspot.com/ </div>

ldyaidan · Dec 15, 2006

I agree. Especially in a world where heroes and adventurers are in short supply, when we lose one, it's felt by everyone. These people do what no one else can do. They are held in regard far above most people, so their loss can be devistating. And, in my opinion, are due the recogition given to them by being mourned by the entire nation. They are the ones making our future possible. Rae

mental_avenger · Dec 15, 2006

docm, Try reading my entire post, not just the thread title. Then see if you can manage a relevant response, not just a snide and inappropriate put-down. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Dec 15, 2006

mrmorris says: Nope. That's not the problem. The problem **is** hype, but NASA has diddly to do with it. I disagree. True, NASA has very little to do with the quality of the initial hype. However, by going overboard in their reactions, such as canceling space flight for years, holding numerous high-visibility investigations, and pointing fingers all around, the perpetuate the hype. In fact, their reactions to the situation often bring it back to life over and over and over. Another thing, there are a number of people who will seize the opportunity to try to make NASA “accountable”. That is partly NASA’s own fault for being irresponsible and evasive so often. That kind of behavior will always attract those who already have a beef with government in general and are looking for a place to grind another axe. I will have to disagree. NASA plays a big part in their own problems. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Dec 15, 2006

newsartist asks: Is this a cut-and-paste from a Pasadena paper, or a JPL newsletter? LOL. Not at all, entirely my own creation. The statistics were taken from individual searches for “death rate” for each category. The .0000546 is my calculation based on those various statistics. newsartist says: The numbers cited seem about 40% low across the list, but that doesn't change the impact of the topic any. Several sources across the internet came up with similar figures. newsartist says: The public, through Congress, would never accept that approach for spaceflight. Not as long as the hype is so far out of proportion to the event. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Dec 15, 2006

centsworth says: At the risk of sounding even more cold-hearted than you, none of these other deaths also involves the loss of billions of dollars of national investment as well. And that is also partly NASA’s fault. The type of management that allows most of the materials and parts to be charged out at 10-100 their actual value is responsible for those extremely high costs. In addition, designing and building enormous, overly complex multi-function vehicles such as STS sets NASA up for just that very problem. centsworth says: On the other hand, perhaps you advocate running the space program like a vanity war. There the loss of life and the waste of billions of dollars is no big deal. I understand. You just cannot help yourself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Dec 15, 2006

tplank says: We morn more vigorously any time some one dies in a noble cause. It is just like the soldier that throws himself on a grenade or rescue diver that jumps into danger and loses their life. We morn for these a little differently because it confronts us all with our own short comings. Good point. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

vulture2 · Dec 15, 2006

The delays are not due to mourning; a fatal accident almost always requires design changes, and it takes a year or more to make them. As to why we mourn, here's a letter I wrote after Columbia: Why do we feel such a sense of emptiness? Had we lost as many priceless friends under more mundane circumstances it would have indeed been a tragedy, but still one of human proportions. Had we lost the ship but saved the crew, relief would have overshadowed disappointment. But sometimes, as with the Titanic and the Hindenburg, a ship, its passengers and crew together become something more than the sum of its parts, and seem a fabulous world apart, within our sight but just beyond our reach. And when it is lost, our loss is not just of steel and glass and human lives, but of dreams, a loss that even the grander ships of a future age will not replace.

mental_avenger · Dec 15, 2006

vulture2 says: The delays are not due to mourning; You missed the point. Read it again. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Dec 15, 2006

vulture2 says: The delays are not due to mourning; You missed the point. Read it again. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

JonClarke · Dec 15, 2006

Russia was a totalitarian state during the Cold War. They had a total clamp down on the media. They were able to hide accidents and cosmonaut deaths. No mission deaths were hidden. No training deaths were hidden, apart from one that occurred before the flight of Vostock 1. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

Why Do We Mourn Our Astronauts?

mental_avenger

Guest

earth_bound_misfit

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

docm

Guest

mithridates

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

rocketman5000

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

tplank

Guest

ldyaidan

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

vulture2

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page