The shuttle breakup was sad, but not terribly unexpected (for two decades most of the reasonable risk analyses of the shuttle put the odds of a catastrophe between one in fifty and one in two hundred. Feynman noted that one in a hundred was the common number when you talked to good engineers.)
The astronauts clearly understand these risks and are willing to take them. Mourning for them is only natural, but it has been blown out of perspective by the media. Test pilots regularly die, scientists regularly die and little is said outside of their community. These folks understand and accept risk.
Car drivers generally don't know and don't accept risk, but society is uninterested in the carnage. Figures on SUV deaths indicate about 2000 a year that are solely single vehicle rollover accident - about 7 a day. Many of these people bought these vehicles because they thought they would be safer. Of course it is not in the interest of the media or politicians to argue against the highest profit item of a powerful industry. One wonders what would happen if these seven deaths a day were treated like the shuttle disaster. Within a few years car safety would be fundamentally improved and thousands of lives would be saved.
Space exploration seems like a reasonable way to spent money and do some good science. Unfortunately the manned program isn't space exploration (except for a bit of microgravity physiology), but seems more concentrated on politics and nationalism. If it can be shown that joint manned space programs offset wars and other bad things, I would say more power to them. Unfortunately NASA and others have a difficult time conjuring reasons to do this and high levels of funding continue as a lasting monument to the cold war
Don't get me started on the ISS...
There will be a time for serious manned exploration of space, but there needs to be a solid scientific or political reasons. At this point it is difficult to make a case for either.
8:51:21 AM 
|
