The key thing with Challenger is that the engineers working on the project estimated the risk to be extremely high and refused to budge, eventually being overruled by the executives of their company.

That's different than the engineers calculating the risk of failure at some previously-defined-as-acceptable level and giving the go-ahead.

> I would accept a 50% risk of death.

No offense but this sounds like the sayings of someone who has not ever seen a 50% of death.

It’s a little different 3 to 4 months out. It’s way different the night before and morning. Stepping “in the arena” with odds like those, I’d say the vast, vast majority will back out and/or break down sobbing if forced.

There’s a small percent who will go forward but admit the fact that they were completely afraid- and rightly so.

Then you have that tiny percentage that are completely calm and you’d swear had a tiny smile creeping in…

I’ve never been an astronaut.

But I did spend three years in and out of Bosnia with a special operations task force.

Honestly? I have a 1% rule. The things might have a 20-30% chance of death of clearly stupid and no one wants to do. Things will a one in a million prob aren’t gonna catch ya. But I figure that if something does, it’s gonna be an activity that I do often but has a 1% chance of going horribly wrong and that I’m ignoring.

50% of the time doing something that has a one percent chance of killing you 69 times will kill you

> No offense but this sounds like the sayings of someone who has not ever seen a 50% of death.

The space program pilots saw it. And no, I would not have flown on those rockets. After all, NASA would "man rate" a new rocket design with only one successful launch.

Using the space shuttle program as a comparison, because it's easy to get the numbers. There were 13 total deaths (7 from Challenger, 6 from Columbia [0]) during the program. Over 135 missions, the Space Shuttle took 817 people into space. (From [1], the sum of the "Crew" column. The Space Shuttle carried 355 distinct people, but some were on multiple missions.)

So the risk of death could be estimated as 2/135 (fatal flights / total flights) or as 13/817 (total fatalities / total crew). These are around 1.5%, must lower than a 50% chance of death.

This is not to underplay their bravery. This is to state that the level of bravery to face a 1.5% chance of death is extremely high.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_ac... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Space_Shuttle_missions

If I recall correctly, the Saturn V was man rated after one launch. There were multiple failures on the moon missions that easily could have killed the astronauts.

The blastoff from the moon had never been tried before.

Spooky graph that illustrates the risk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-25C_Titan_II#/media/File:U...

> Stepping “in the arena” with odds like those, I’d say the vast, vast majority will back out and/or break down sobbing if forced.

Something like 10 million people will accept those odds. Let's say 1 million are healthy enough to actually go to space and operate the machinery. Then let's say 99% will back out during the process. That's still 10,000 people to choose from, more than enough for NASA's needs.

> sounds like the sayings of someone who has not ever seen a 50% of death

Well, this sounds like simple ad-hominem. I appreciate your insight, overall, though.

Many ideologically-driven people, like war field medics, explorers, adventurers, revolutionaries, and political martyrs take on very high risk endeavors.

I would also like to explore unknown parts of the Moon despite the risks, even if they were 50%. And I would wholeheartedly try to do it and put myself in the race, if not for a disqualifying condition.

There is also the matter of controllable and uncontrollable risks of death. The philosophy around dealing with them can be quite different. From my experience with battlefield medicine (albeit limited to a few years), I accepted the risks because the cause was worth it, the culture I was surrounded by was to accept these risks, and I could steer them by taking precautions and executing all we were taught. No one among the people I trained with thought they couldn't. And yes, many people ultimately dropped out for it, as did I.

Strapping oneself to a rocket is a very uncontrollable risk. The outcome, from an astronaut's perspective, is more random. I think that offers a certain kind of peace. We are all going to die at random times for random reasons, I think most people make peace with that, especially as they go into old age. That is a more comfortable type of risk for me.

Individuals have different views on mortality. Some are more afraid than others, some are afraid in one set of circumstances but not others. Some think that doing worthwhile things in their lives outweighs the risk of death every time. Your view is valid, but so is others'.

> Some risk is acceptable. If I were to go to the moon, let’s say, I would accept a 50% risk of death. I would be happy to do it. Other people would accept a risk of investment and work hour loss. It’s not so black or white that you wouldn’t go if there’s any risk.

It's possible you're just suicidal, but I'm reading this more as false internet bravado. A 50% risk of death on a mission to space is totally unacceptable. It's not like anyone will die if you don't go now; you can afford to take the time to eliminate all known risks of this magnitude.

Not bravado at all, if I was given those odds today, I would put all my effort into it and go.

There are many people who are ideologically-driven and accept odds of death at 50% or higher — revolutionary fighters, political martyrs, religious martyrs, explorers and adventurers throughout history (including space), environmental activists, freedom fighters, healthcare workers in epidemics of serious disease...

> Not bravado at all, if I was given those odds today, I would put all my effort into it and go.

If that's actually true, you should see a therapist.

Given we have a track record of going to the moon with much lower death rate than 50%, that's a proven higher risk than is necessary. That's not risking your life for a cause, because there's no cause that benefits from you taking this disproportionate risk. It's the heroism equivalent of playing Russian Roulette a little more than 3 times and achieves about as much.

> There are many people who are ideologically-driven and accept odds of death at 50% or higher — revolutionary fighters, political martyrs, religious martyrs, explorers and adventurers throughout history (including space), environmental activists, freedom fighters, healthcare workers in epidemics of serious disease...

And for every one of those there's 100 keyboard cowboys on the internet who have never been within a mile of danger and have no idea how they'll react to it.

I would say I'm more ideologically driven than most, and there are a handful of causes I'd like to think I'd die for. But I'm also self-aware enough to know that it's impossible to know how I'll react until I'm actually in those situations.

And I'll reiterate: you aren't risking your life for a cause, because there's no cause that benefits from you taking a 50% mortality risk on a trip to the moon.

I think you may be projecting, because you are acting a bit like a keyboard warrior — telling others to see therapists. Consider that other people have different views, that is all. To some, the cause (principle/life goal) of exploring where others have not gone is enough.

Let me be clear; there are 2 options:

1. Go where others have not gone, with a 50% risk of death.

2. Wait 5 days for temperatures to rise, and go where others have not gone, with a 0.5% risk of death.

Choosing 1 isn't "different views, that is all", it's pretty objectively the wrong choice. It's not dying for a cause, it's not brave, it's not idealistic. It's pointlessly suicidal. So yes, I'm saying if you think 1 is the right choice you should see a therapist.

Notably, NASA requires all astronauts to undergo psychological evaluation, even if they aren't claiming they'll take insane unnecessary risks. So it's not like I'm the only one who thinks talking to someone before you potentially kill yourself is a good idea.

Is there really nothing on Earth so important that you would risk your life doing it, but the Moon is unique in this regard?

> If I were to go to the moon, let’s say, I would accept a 50% risk of death.

But you weren't in the shuttle, so it is irrelevant.