Posted By martinw This came from a scientist talking about the 1969 moon landing: 'Leading spacecraft expert Professor Andre Balogh, from Imperial College London, argues that the level of commitment and risk required to get astronauts to the Moon and back in 1969 would simply not be possible today. He said: "It was carried out in a technically brilliant way with risks taken ... that would be inconceivable in the risk-averse world of today.' So are we risk averse to the detriment of progress?

Posted By Ron Hunter Possible? Yes. Acceptable? Hmmm....it wasn't until Apollo 13 mission that we all became aware of just how risky the whole business of space exploration really is. Floating in a tin can (ack. David Bowie) susceptible to being punctured by high velocity dust particles and with computing power only a fraction of what we now have in a 'no frills' mobile phone, etc. Balance all of that against what is arguably one of mankind's greatest achievements. Mind you, the statistics of miles travelled v. major incidents must hold up pretty well?

Posted By Bob Y I had sort of pondered much the same thing myself and I don't think we are. From the outside it is understandable why many of us think that 'space travel' is routine as it has often appeared like that. But of course as well as Apollo 13 there where many previous accidents and incidents and there have been quite some more since, Challenger and Columbia are prime examples. While we do take a somewhat different view of risk nowadays I still think that the various manned space programmes including the occupation of the ISS must surely remain an inherently high risk undertaking.

Posted By Paul Leadbetter You don't remember Apollo 1 then, Ron; fire on the launch pad killed the three astronauts. Paul

Posted By Yossarian Paul, I thought they were called Gemini then?

Posted By Yossarian Quick trawl of Wikipedia & I stand corrected: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1 Still, my excuse is I wasn't born until '72.

Posted By Bob Y No problem Martin, and in fairness I agree that the deaths of astronauts are more newsworthy than the deaths of Chinese miners. I am sure that the conditions in Chinese mines are probably pretty atrocious and the risks are high, as they are in may other industries that don't have the same incidence of accidents and fatalities. I would say that the reason for this is that not only are the risks high but that the risk controls are poor.

Posted By Jay Joshi The US Apollo programme was primarily to demonstrate the US supremacy in the space race versus the Soviet Union during the height of the cold ware era- which was the primary motivation and all resources required to achieve this aim were made available. Obviously, the safety aspects are vital, but with the quantities of explosive fuel and dependency on hundreds of safety critical systems, human space flight will always be "high risk". The Space Shuttle programme, that has had the highest number of fatalities, from an safety engineering perspective was a "political fix" rather than looking objectively at safety. I have form reliable sources that there was no need to have the main booster rocket in sections that would require "seals"--and there was a seal failure in the shuttle NNNNNNN. For the booster to be fabricated as a single piece, it would have to be manufactured in close proximity of the launch centre in Florida, but the booster contract was given to a contractor in Utah, and there was no practical method of transporting the booster except in sections--thus requiring seals when the sections are assembled! Also, there was a commercial pressure to maximise the shuttle flights prior to the Challenger disaster and concerns of the safety team were ignored http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/51lcover.htm

Posted By martinw I take your point Raymond but should not cultural differences take a back seat where life risk is present in a work situation? I am reminded of another quote which almost sums up the opposing position to ours: 'I did not go to his funeral, but I wrote a nice letter saying I approved.' -Mark Twain which almost seems to be the case in other parts of the world. Strangely, we have some of the lowest work related fatality stats in the world and we are allowed to talk about it openly. In some places where the work related fatality numbers are huge, such discussion is not always allowed. With that in mind I do not make an excuse for making judgements, based on cultural bias or otherwise.

Posted By Jay Joshi It is not primarily the cultural aspect, but the time scale within which these emerging economies are undergoing the "industrial revolution" and a form of republic/central government that occurred over 200 years in the developed world. Add to this the diversity and the population of the people living, for example in India. I tend to compare the diversity of the groups of people in India with Europe--it has taken hundreds of years to get to a stage where there is a semblance of peace amongst the European nations! Obviously, there should be accelerated improvements in the standards of health and safety. In India, those who are in the "organised sector" are sometimes overprotected, but the "unorganised sector" leaves a lot to be desired in context of welfare conditions and health and safety.

Posted By martinw About dramatisations then - what of the theory that the moon landing did not take place and it was all a mock-up? I do not believe it but I am aware of a growing conspiracy theorist movement surrounding this thought. Now that would be being risk averse to the detriment of progress! Also, if it did prove to be true I would laugh until I filled my pampers.......

Posted By GeoffB4 I was told some of it came from a Council tip in Scunthorpe.

Posted By Pete48 I thought everyone knew it was International Rescue. Thunderbirds are go!! Geoff, did you mean the rubble or the mirror? Or is that just a reflection on Scunthorpe? Next question. How many people would have to be involved in a scam to put men on the desert floor of Arizona or the Spanish sierras? Martin, I agree. Risk aware is what everyman needs to be; risk averse is what kept the dinosaurs in the wrong place when those aliens landed. Whoops is that another myth! We still boldly go! http://www.cbsnews.com/s...8/tech/main5171782.shtml Different day, different technology, same risks? Looks much the same risk to me. Mind you I suppose it could all be happening round the back of the Big Brother studio?

Posted By mknott I don't think that you can say that we are more risk averse, but that as time passes, and lessons are learnt, we become more risk aware and therefore we have better management systems in place to manage the "new" risks.

Posted By Graham Bullough If I heard aright, a British space expert mentioned during a local radio interview last week that the men who went to the moon in 1969 knew very well that their risk of not landing safely on the moon was about 50;50. Even if they were able to land safely, they also knew that their chance of taking off and returning safely to Earth was also 50:50. However, they were willing to take the risk and ultimately everything went in their favour - no doubt to everyone's relief, especially those who were determined to put an American on the moon before the Russians, irrespective of the cost in terms of lives and dollars.

Posted By Stuff4blokes Tabs, I gave up smoking nearly 20 years ago because of the risks to my health.

Posted By martinw Something we no longer do because of risk? Use asbestos. Use kids to work up chimneys. Allow people to legally drive without passing a test. Made heroin an illegal drug(used to be able to buy it in shops). I agree that there are those who ignore some risky aspects of their life, as individuals. But there are a lot of things which as a society we have stopped.