I think that right now, it simply isn't up to the safety standards that most people would expect unless you are extreme adventurers, like base jumpers.
Statistics for base jumping - about 1 in 250 jumps leads to injury, about 1 in 2000 + leads to death.
BASE jumping
For astronauts, sixteen fatalities so far out of 549 who have flown in space
List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents
Astronaut/Cosmonaut Statistics
So 1 in 34.
Statistically it is far more risky than base jumping at least at first sight.
It's more comparable to the risk of dying while climbing Mount Everest. 1 in 50 have died doing that since 1922. AdventureStats - by Explorersweb
It's also roughly same order as your lifetime risk of dying in a car accident of 1 in 100. But in a single flight. The Odds of Dying
Now - I know that we haven't had any fatalities in space since 2003, which is twelve years ago. And the Soyuz TMA is thought to be highly reliable.
Still, would you fly in an airplane that's only had a 549 flights (counting flights multiply if you have more than one pilot or a pilot and passengers), and had sixteen people die in early prototype versions of it?
And - even more so - if you are flying in a new version that's been tested only a few times, and with one test pilot fatality (Virgin Galactic)?
Or that has only been used to fly cargo so far, and one of those flights crashed (SpaceX) and they are hoping to send humans into space in the next few years?
Or is used to fly passengers, but a cargo version of almost the same spacecraft has crashed (Soyuz TMA)?
If you are an astronaut, so far, you know the risks, that it is a risky thing to do. And you are willing to take those risks.
And many others may be willing to take that level of risk.
Same also for the early aviators. Many of them died and they kept on flying in their airplanes.
I think our present space flights, though of course far higher technology, really aren't hugely far ahead of these early airplanes in reliability. And, for now, need to be flown by people who can accept those sorts of risks.
So, don't have any problems at all with people who are used to taking risks and able to assess the risks from flying in space.
What bothers me is that the new space companies are rather downplaying the risks I think. They should market it as a risky enterprise, like base jumping. Otherwise it's unfair on the people who might go into space thinking it is safer than it is.
And as it is now, one crash by a much loved celebrity or some such, would probably bring the whole thing to a close for a decade or more.
If they really played up the risk element of it, it would be different. Then everyone would know it is risky, like base jumping, and would be prepared for the almost inevitable fatalities if it becomes really popular and takes off.
Or if they could afford to do hundreds or thousands of test flights, like an aircraft again they could reassure people and say "It has flown 2000 times with no crashes" or some such. But at present it just costs so much to fly to orbit, that it's not feasible to have of order of several thousand test flights before you take on paying passengers.
I don't know what the answer is. I would like to see it go ahead but am concerned about the repercussions with the way some entrepreneurs are "selling it" at present.
See also Weighing the risks of human spaceflight
Statistics for base jumping - about 1 in 250 jumps leads to injury, about 1 in 2000 + leads to death.
BASE jumping
For astronauts, sixteen fatalities so far out of 549 who have flown in space
List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents
Astronaut/Cosmonaut Statistics
So 1 in 34.
Statistically it is far more risky than base jumping at least at first sight.
It's more comparable to the risk of dying while climbing Mount Everest. 1 in 50 have died doing that since 1922. AdventureStats - by Explorersweb
It's also roughly same order as your lifetime risk of dying in a car accident of 1 in 100. But in a single flight. The Odds of Dying
Now - I know that we haven't had any fatalities in space since 2003, which is twelve years ago. And the Soyuz TMA is thought to be highly reliable.
Still, would you fly in an airplane that's only had a 549 flights (counting flights multiply if you have more than one pilot or a pilot and passengers), and had sixteen people die in early prototype versions of it?
And - even more so - if you are flying in a new version that's been tested only a few times, and with one test pilot fatality (Virgin Galactic)?
Or that has only been used to fly cargo so far, and one of those flights crashed (SpaceX) and they are hoping to send humans into space in the next few years?
Or is used to fly passengers, but a cargo version of almost the same spacecraft has crashed (Soyuz TMA)?
If you are an astronaut, so far, you know the risks, that it is a risky thing to do. And you are willing to take those risks.
And many others may be willing to take that level of risk.
Same also for the early aviators. Many of them died and they kept on flying in their airplanes.
I think our present space flights, though of course far higher technology, really aren't hugely far ahead of these early airplanes in reliability. And, for now, need to be flown by people who can accept those sorts of risks.
So, don't have any problems at all with people who are used to taking risks and able to assess the risks from flying in space.
What bothers me is that the new space companies are rather downplaying the risks I think. They should market it as a risky enterprise, like base jumping. Otherwise it's unfair on the people who might go into space thinking it is safer than it is.
And as it is now, one crash by a much loved celebrity or some such, would probably bring the whole thing to a close for a decade or more.
If they really played up the risk element of it, it would be different. Then everyone would know it is risky, like base jumping, and would be prepared for the almost inevitable fatalities if it becomes really popular and takes off.
Or if they could afford to do hundreds or thousands of test flights, like an aircraft again they could reassure people and say "It has flown 2000 times with no crashes" or some such. But at present it just costs so much to fly to orbit, that it's not feasible to have of order of several thousand test flights before you take on paying passengers.
I don't know what the answer is. I would like to see it go ahead but am concerned about the repercussions with the way some entrepreneurs are "selling it" at present.
See also Weighing the risks of human spaceflight
About the Author
Robert Walker
Writer of articles on Mars and Space issues - Software Developer of Tune Smithy, Bounce Metronome etc.Studied at Wolfson College, Oxford
Lives in Isle of Mull
4.8m answer views110.3k this month
Top Writer2017, 2016, and 2015
Published WriterHuffPost, Slate, and 4 moreHuffPost, Slate, Forbes, Newsweek, Business Insider, and Science 2.0