1) They won't risk sending the Shuttle to Low Earth Orbit to fix the Hubble Space Telescope but in almost the same breath talk about sending humans to the Moon and later to Mars.

2) They won't risk doing a Mars Sample Return mission because they fear biological back contamination even though all evidence indicates the surface of Mars is sterile.

3) It's common knowledge that the economic bottle neck to accessing Space is getting from the ground to Low Earth Orbit. However almost all government funded R&D efforts towards a Reusable Launch Vehicle are about to be abandoned.

We've discussed your #1 concern. I agree that it might be the most troubling for the future of human space exploration. If we're going to continue launching humans into space, there will be more fatal accidents. Period. If we're not willing to face that fact, then we might as well abandon spaceflight.

As to your #2 concern, Luddites will no doubt oppose it like they do against RTGs, despite the very high probability that the surface of Mars is sterile and that Mars rocks have been blasted to the Earth many times in the past. One possible work-around is to send instruments to Mars and do the analysis in situ - despite the expense and difficulty of doing so. On the other hand, Mars Sample Return isn't exactly cheap or easy, either.

As for #3, it might not be as bad as it seems. On the one hand, reusable boosters haven't exactly proven to be the way to achieve CATS. One of the most cost effective boosters ever built is the expendable SL-04 Soyuz rocket. At the same time, there's the work (as yet unproven) of SpaceX that holds the promise of low launch costs in part through reusability. Perhaps government funded research isn't required to lower the cost to LEO.