That's a good point. People tend to die on Everest every year, and that's a well-worn path by now.
The biggest difference is probably the budget required for either trip. I think a likely moon trip (excluding R&D, maybe?) would cost about 4 orders of magnitude more than a typical Everest excursion. That puts it out of range of most individuals, so investors would be required. Investors tend to like repeatable results, so they are biased toward the non-dying type of mission.
(I suppose deadly moon launches are technically repeatable, but there would be non-technical roadblocks imposed from outside to limit deaths.)
-- Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
Investors tend to like repeatable results, so they are biased toward the non-dying type of mission.
Get reality-TV shows involved - as long as no gory details for the deaths are broadcast, the Big Brother aficionados will bite, even if it involves dying instead of eviction.
Investors tend to like repeatable results, so they are biased toward the non-dying type of mission.
Depends on the type of investor. Investors with lots of money, like Venture Capitalists, tend to live pretty high on the risk/reward continuum. Lots of risk is acceptable, as long as the (risk X reward) product justifies it.
You're lacking creativity, in the 1960s you could have signed CocaCola as a sponsor and they would have paid millions to have their logo visible on the face of the moon... I'm sure there are similar deep-pocket sponsors around today who would pay for the rights to a documentary of the mission plus direction of the mission objectives.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bart9h on Tuesday June 04 2019, @12:40AM (6 children)
If people are not dying on space exploration, we are not pushing it hard enough.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 04 2019, @02:04AM
Are you suggesting we need more of https://smelly.info/JYWuqm [smelly.info]
Note it didn't say "Who will be the first to put a live human on the Moon in this century?"
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Wednesday June 05 2019, @08:35PM (4 children)
That's a good point. People tend to die on Everest every year, and that's a well-worn path by now.
The biggest difference is probably the budget required for either trip. I think a likely moon trip (excluding R&D, maybe?) would cost about 4 orders of magnitude more than a typical Everest excursion. That puts it out of range of most individuals, so investors would be required. Investors tend to like repeatable results, so they are biased toward the non-dying type of mission.
(I suppose deadly moon launches are technically repeatable, but there would be non-technical roadblocks imposed from outside to limit deaths.)
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday June 06 2019, @09:15PM
Get reality-TV shows involved - as long as no gory details for the deaths are broadcast, the Big Brother aficionados will bite, even if it involves dying instead of eviction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday June 10 2019, @06:19PM (2 children)
Depends on the type of investor. Investors with lots of money, like Venture Capitalists, tend to live pretty high on the risk/reward continuum. Lots of risk is acceptable, as long as the (risk X reward) product justifies it.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by mobydisk on Tuesday June 18 2019, @09:57PM (1 child)
The problem is there is no capital reward to going to the moon. Venture capitalists like capital.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday June 18 2019, @10:53PM
You're lacking creativity, in the 1960s you could have signed CocaCola as a sponsor and they would have paid millions to have their logo visible on the face of the moon... I'm sure there are similar deep-pocket sponsors around today who would pay for the rights to a documentary of the mission plus direction of the mission objectives.
🌻🌻 [google.com]