If you look up the mortality rates for things like mining, fishing, or logging in the US, you'll find that they tend to run between 0.01% and 0.05%. You're proposing a risk 100 to 500 times what the most dangerous ground-based jobs run.
I have no doubt there are some people who would accept that risk, but the political problems with it don't end just because they're not government employees.
Slight quibble because you said "most dangerous ground based jobs". Consider the mortality rates for soldiers in combat zones and police officers in the US.
That said, I am curious why people think that space travel is safe or that space casualties are unacceptable. Without implying anything, if we seem to think it's good and honorable to die fighting for your country, then it should be just as honorable to die fighting for you country's scientific advancement.
In 2006 there were about 861000 police officers in the US, and about 150 die in the line of duty each year.
That's about 0.02 %
I understand the sentiment, but people are not rational when it comes to risk. See, for example, the number of people who die in road traffic accidents because they're avoiding "dangerous" air travel after terrorist atrocities.
EDIT: So politically it's very hard to give any suggestion that your programme of scientific exploration will have anyone dying, even though that's a very real risk.
(I may have horribly botched this; I've just woken up.)
Surely the comparisons should be more in line with mortality rate of pursuits such as Arctic exploration, rather than those of policing a largely sedentry population.
What exploration? The context of this thread is commercial exploitation of a resource. This isn't a search for knowledge. You're caught up in the romanticism of space.
The very goal is death. The situations are utterly incomparable.
DanBC has already addressed the faulty assumption you made as to police.
> I am curious why people think that space travel is safe or that space casualties are unacceptable.
Nobody made or remotely implied either statement. This is a scale, not an absolute. I would find a mortality rate of 1 in 20 to be unacceptable. I would find a mortality rate of 1 in 1000 entirely acceptable. Somewhere in between is a number I would be prepared to reluctantly accept.
> if we seem to think it's good and honorable to die fighting for your country
Through a system of intense indoctrination and mass delusion, powerful people have managed to embed such sentiments in the psyche of the masses. That has nothing to do with "thinking" anything.
Are you saying that the goal of soldiers is to die? I assure you that, in reality, it's quite the opposite. Please read nknight's parent post to which I replied. I brought up police officers and soldiers as examples with higher mortality rates than what nknight mentioned. Dan just provided some numbers.
>Nobody made or remotely implied either statement
It seems the confusion is that you believe I'm talking about other HN posters. In reality I am referring to the American public and Government agencies seem to be making this statement due to their reluctance of embracing risk that's inherent in space exploration. I appreciate that you provided information on what you find acceptable.
>indoctrination
Are you implying that this is a new phenomenon? The expression "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" has been around since Rome. I would just have us apply the same pride in defending our country to expanding our national scientific advancement. Imagine the day our scientists and researches attain awards and recognition similar to what we offer our military heroes.
I have no doubt there are some people who would accept that risk, but the political problems with it don't end just because they're not government employees.