I don't think The Futile Obsession With Getting Everyone Back Alive is what's Killing Our Expansion Into Space. After all, unmanned missions have been extremely productive, dollar for dollar, and losing a robot probe in space, on the pad, or during reentry is not only less traumatic, it is also a lot cheaper than losing a crew and all its life support. Even a successful manned mission requires an enormous investment in training, life support and redundancy to protect the crew, an investment that might best be spent somewhere else.

There is a place for man in space, and there are some jobs only meatware can handle, but imaging the moons of Saturn or bringing back a piece of comet doesn't require a multibillion dollar, multi-year manned mission. True, only men could service the Hubble, but for what it cost to send them there, they probably could have launched several others.

OTOH, if we found the ruins of a city buried under the Martian sands, or a black hole in orbit around Neptune, THAT might justify sending a crew. What it boils down to is how many robot probes can we send to interesting places in the solar system for the cost of just one manned Mars mission? Or for that matter, one ISS?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of man in space, we need to develop the tech, especially where it can be used to complement and supplement a vigorous unmanned program. I just don't think its vital, or smart, to focus on that now.

As for the risk, that is not a factor at all. I know I'd sign up for a ride in a heartbeat, and there would be no shortage of qualified volunteers either. Governments who send millions off to war without a second thought aren't going to be stingy with the lives of a few space crews.