How many shuttle crashes before you think it unacceptable?

Let us say I am a country.

There is a program to launch ONE shuttle into Near-Moon orbit. Between 2025 and 2030, my national space agency has six failed televised shuttle launches.

In February '25, Moon Shuttle Mk.I explodes mid-air - live on television - and does not make it out of Earth.
Everybody is dejected, but the emergency budget accounts for accidents and things like this.

In July '25, we try again; Moon Shuttle Mk.II launches during a live televised launch but also explodes mid-air due to a problem with two rockets. Hundreds of millions of people are shocked.

It's awful, but the emergency budget accounts for this as well. So far, 17 crew have died. Many are shocked and angry that 17 astronauts have been killed.

The executive of the national space agency is adamant that we can succeed. We will try again. The executive lobbies for another attempt.

March '27 - A live televised launch of Moon Shuttle Mk.III sees the shuttle disintegrate in low Earth orbit. Six more astronauts die.

There aren't any more launches until 2028 and 2029 and the next three also fail, resulting in the deaths of 24 more astronauts.

Finally, in 2030 - success! Moon Shuttle Mk.VII succeeds! The launch - televised live like the rest - is smooth and good! Everything goes smoothly and according to plan! Moon Shuttle Mk.VII enters near-Moon orbit much later on and the program's objectives are finally reached.

47 astronauts had already perished by 2030 to get this far.

At what point would you have found this unacceptable - and bad for public morale etc?

EDIT:

Bear in mind, also, that the executive of the national space agency, whilst lobbying and campaigning over the five years, constantly reminds government officials and hundreds of millions of citizens and non-citizens alike that international air travel is as effortless, regular and frequent as people drinking a cup of coffee in the morning and we don't hear of regular plane crashes anymore, so a few hiccups at the beginning is nothing to be ashamed or frightened of.

Are the astronauts being forced to go? Or do they volunteer? Volunteers are big kids who can take their own risks. It is tragic and sad to see them die and everything should be done to fix the mistakes that led to the deaths of previous launches, but they knew the risks going in and were presumably of sound mind and able to make those calls.

Budget wise, these are the things elections are held for.

One thing is for certain though - we will eventually have to leave the earth and move out into the stars to survive.

a reply to: AT9S911

HUH?????

What the heck are you talking about??????

Seems like you're speculating about things that haven't happened yet, and then asking questions about the speculative outcomes! What basis do you even have for this quasi-'argument'?????

Sorry, but I'm lost!

originally posted by: AT9S911
At what point would you have found this unacceptable - and bad for public morale etc?

That depends on whom you are asking.

The political entities that we call nations seem to have the idea they are entitled to extinguish human life at will.

a reply to: AT9S911

Shocking of course but unacceptable? Not sure
What is hoped to be gained from just putting this vehicle in to orbit of the moon? For what purpose?
Manned interplanetary travel is going to be dangerous because...well we’ve never done it before but we have already been to the moon and returned successfully and those spacecraft did multiple orbits of the moon while out there.
There would have to be a damn good reason to be there to accept all those deaths.

a reply to: AT9S911

It takes bravery to battle through the limitations set before us.

It's only natural to push against our constraints.

Why are your first few launches carrying so many astronauts anyways? Poor design requires that many as a minimum. I would say the first few (lets say 3) launches would be totally automated. Then you send 2-3 astronauts, max, for the first 5 launches at least.

Those initial high risk launches will have a lower probability of success than later launches (proven by history).

Your supposition is flawed from the beginning. I suggest you read up on the NASA Mercury & Gemini programs before leaping to Apollo from the start.

SMH

a reply to: AT9S911

Ban assault shuttles!

Oh they mostly kill white people... Never mind.

I hope nothing stops the space program because I sure as # know china won't stop for a few dozen deaths. If we stop and they don't, boom bing we lose the new space race.

a reply to: RazorV66

Yeah that's what I'm wondering here, what's the background behind the program? Also did they not test with automated systems? I would say a certain degree of loss is expected, but that many in that time span? Something seems off.

originally posted by: watchandwait410
I hope nothing stops the space program because I sure as # know china won't stop for a few dozen deaths. If we stop and they don't, boom bing we lose the new space race.

I don't want to stop the space program because there are just too many crazies on this planet. I want off.

Let us say I am a country.

Then where did the country obtain astronauts , much less the large amount of folks that would be needed to assemble
any kind of space program ?
Using wildlife ?

( where do they all come from ?)

50 yrs ago we had this in the bag 6 times in a row.
can we do it now?

no

why not?

a reply to: ketsuko

What if the astronauts weren’t given all of the information? What if some of the most serious risks were hidden from them? What if some of the most dangerous risks were not only hidden, but when others tried to tell the astronauts about the serious risks, the information was erased and the people trying to warn them were wrongly discredited?

Look at NASA's past history after and tragedy they pretty much shut down active operations. After Challenger, they were shut down for 18 months I think. I would expect the same response, hypothetically of course

I will play the skeptic in that world ,

Does not sound efficient though , all that extra weight in wings and whatnot is gonna minimize the Delta V you can "pack"

You need that fuel bad for the transfer burn to the moon , and back preferably.
Cant land the thing on the moon, so you need a lander in the cargo hold.

You need that cargo hold for Fuel , for all the burns you need to do, so no lander.

Can make it bigger but then the engine dont match , and you dont get the proper thrust weight ratio.

Need bigger wings then , bigger booster bigger everything.

These people are probably dying because the wrong vehicle is being used.

Yes the Spaceshuttle does look mighty fine , But it limits also a lot compared to conventional rockets.

Hope i am not a party pooper , not meant like that , im trying to go along and imagine but its hard

originally posted by: Krakatoa
Why are your first few launches carrying so many astronauts anyways? Poor design requires that many as a minimum. I would say the first few (lets say 3) launches would be totally automated. Then you send 2-3 astronauts, max, for the first 5 launches at least.

Those initial high risk launches will have a lower probability of success than later launches (proven by history).

Your supposition is flawed from the beginning. I suggest you read up on the NASA Mercury & Gemini programs before leaping to Apollo from the start.

SMH

That's the issue. The tests were successful, but the actual first six launches failed.

This nation is one which televises all launches - even if there is a chance of explosions or failure; no cutting away from feeds, so everybody knows what happens.

But yes, I think you're on the right lines. In reality, the first attempt or attempts would be automated just in case there are freak occurrences or whatever...

a reply to: AT9S911

Something like 40,000 people in the USA die from vehicle accidents every year. Doing everyday crap. And throw some vehicular manslaughter in to boot.

If people want to explore, support them.

originally posted by: KansasGirl
a reply to: ketsuko

What if the astronauts weren’t given all of the information? What if some of the most serious risks were hidden from them? What if some of the most dangerous risks were not only hidden, but when others tried to tell the astronauts about the serious risks, the information was erased and the people trying to warn them were wrongly discredited?

They wouldn’t be able to figure out the risks after the first televised explosion?

Strange though, I think your post is more applicable to the current state of vaccinations.....

a reply to: AT9S911

So close.

I was gonna say 50.

So, at least one more launxh.