Evidently, every member of the shuttle crew faces a 1-in-100 chance of dying. At least, those are the official odds that NASA gives, and it seems there is some debate about whether that figure is accurate, but nonetheless, is that an acceptable risk for us to be sending humans into space with, if true?
Shouldn't that be the decision of the people that are going? If the financial cost of failure is acceptable, then the human cost should be the decision of the people that want to go, like volunteers for high risk military activities. Where would ocean exploration have gone if everytime a galleon didn't return to port there was a period of national soul searching? Or the early days of aviation? I hope in this century there will be extensive privatization of manned space flight so that people will be freer to take risks as they themselves choose to rather than a whole nation making such decisions for them.
The put things in perspective, 1 in 30 45-year-olds won't make it to age 55 due to conventional causes of death. A 45-year-old astronaut might make it into space once in his/her career. 1 in 100 odds don't look so bad in that context. Spectacular accidents create acute anxiety about mortality, but the reality is that everybody lives in danger (and psychological denial of danger) from much more mundane causes. In that vein, I cannot help but note that Alaskan crab fisherman have a fatality rate that dwarfs that of astronauts, yet there is no national debate about whether King Crab should be on restaurant menus!
To play devil's advocate for a second, the crab fisherman have market pressure that pushes them to do what they do. In other words, there is a market for King Crabs, and there is a profit incentive due to market pressure for them to go out and get the crabs. In the case of astronauts, there is no market pressure pushing them into space. They are funded by the government, and are (as some would argue) risking their lives outside of market pressure. (that would be the classic Libertarian argument anyway) Now that does not apply to the privately manned space missions, which would work due to market demand for space travel.
All that being said, I personally highly agree with space exploration, and its funding by the government. If anything I think NASA is highly underfunded as is, and any type of exploration and scientific achievements that can come from space exploration, I am all for! That is not to say that there shouldn't be careful planning to keep the astronauts safe, but as long as the individuals know the risks, and are willing to accept them, then I say, go for it! Your comparison to ocean exploration and aviation are exactly correct, Dr. Wowk.(imo) Humans have always pushed the boundries of what is possible (some would argue we were "built" (evolved) that way) and I think it is human nature to continue doing what was previously not done, and going places that have no one has ever gone before. In one sense, it is the very essense of what makes us human.
