What do you think?
Rate this book
Safe Is Not An Option: Overcoming The Futile Obsession With Getting Everyone Back Alive That Is Killing Our Expansion Into Space
The history of exploration of new lands, science and technologies has always entailed risk to the health and lives of the explorers. Similarly, the history of settlement of new territory is a bloody one, with great risk to the settlers. Had they not taken those risks, we might still be in the trees in Africa, and unable to write books like this on computers. Yet, when it comes to exploring and developing the high frontier of space, the harshest frontier ever, the highest value is apparently not the accomplishment of those goals, but of minimizing, if not eliminating, the possibility of injury or death of the humans carrying them out.
For decades since the end of Apollo, human spaceflight has been very expensive (about a billion dollars per ticket) and relatively rare (about 500 people total, with a death rate of about 4%), largely because of this risk aversion on the part of the federal government, whether driven by a changed American culture itself, or grandstanding politicians. From the Space Shuttle, to the International Space Station, the new commercial crew program to deliver astronauts to it, and the regulatory approach for commercial spaceflight providers, our approach to safety has been fundamentally irrational, expensive and even dangerous, while generating minimal accomplishment for maximal cost.
The implicit assignment of an infinite value to the life of a space farer, as has been the apparent and perhaps-unique default for decades, will inevitably result in a gross misallocation of resources and, paradoxically, actually increase the individual risk of death or injury. It is also a signal, regardless of how much money we spend on them, of how utterly unimportant and valueless we as a society believe that space accomplishments are, that we are unwilling to risk human life on them, compared to any other human endeavor such as commerce, mining, farming, construction, transport or even adventure seeking. If we are to open up space to humanity, this attitude must change. Our goal must be not to maximize safety, but rather to maximize space activity, and to accept and recognize that in doing so it is inevitable that human lives will be lost, as is the case in any other worthwhile (and even worthless) human activity. We must be more accepting of the possibility that people will be injured or killed in space, whether for government missions or private endeavors, and be much bolder in our goals. This is not to encourage recklessness, but to simply be more rational in our approach. Suitable for all ages.
For commercial space, this implies that Congress and the FAA should delay, perhaps indefinitely, any attempt to regulate the commercial spaceflight industry with regard to passenger safety, and allow lessons to be learned over time that can be incorporated in such regulations when it becomes appropriate to introduce them. When it does so, the agency must assign a value to the life of a spaceflight participant, so that it can properly determine whether or not a proposed rule is cost effective. It must also allow individuals to participate on an informed basis, regardless of risk level.
Similarly, for NASA, the implications of this are that the agency must stop using the words “safe” and “unsafe” as though they are binary conditions rather than a continuum, and that it must assign a value to the life of an astronaut as a function of the mission to be performed so that it can rationally allocate the resources necessary to reasonably minimize the probability of losing it.
For Congress, it means that we have to have a serious discussion about what we are trying to accomplish in space with regard to human spaceflight, and what we’re willing to spend, both in taxpayer dollars and human life, to do so.
For decades since the end of Apollo, human spaceflight has been very expensive (about a billion dollars per ticket) and relatively rare (about 500 people total, with a death rate of about 4%), largely because of this risk aversion on the part of the federal government, whether driven by a changed American culture itself, or grandstanding politicians. From the Space Shuttle, to the International Space Station, the new commercial crew program to deliver astronauts to it, and the regulatory approach for commercial spaceflight providers, our approach to safety has been fundamentally irrational, expensive and even dangerous, while generating minimal accomplishment for maximal cost.
The implicit assignment of an infinite value to the life of a space farer, as has been the apparent and perhaps-unique default for decades, will inevitably result in a gross misallocation of resources and, paradoxically, actually increase the individual risk of death or injury. It is also a signal, regardless of how much money we spend on them, of how utterly unimportant and valueless we as a society believe that space accomplishments are, that we are unwilling to risk human life on them, compared to any other human endeavor such as commerce, mining, farming, construction, transport or even adventure seeking. If we are to open up space to humanity, this attitude must change. Our goal must be not to maximize safety, but rather to maximize space activity, and to accept and recognize that in doing so it is inevitable that human lives will be lost, as is the case in any other worthwhile (and even worthless) human activity. We must be more accepting of the possibility that people will be injured or killed in space, whether for government missions or private endeavors, and be much bolder in our goals. This is not to encourage recklessness, but to simply be more rational in our approach. Suitable for all ages.
For commercial space, this implies that Congress and the FAA should delay, perhaps indefinitely, any attempt to regulate the commercial spaceflight industry with regard to passenger safety, and allow lessons to be learned over time that can be incorporated in such regulations when it becomes appropriate to introduce them. When it does so, the agency must assign a value to the life of a spaceflight participant, so that it can properly determine whether or not a proposed rule is cost effective. It must also allow individuals to participate on an informed basis, regardless of risk level.
Similarly, for NASA, the implications of this are that the agency must stop using the words “safe” and “unsafe” as though they are binary conditions rather than a continuum, and that it must assign a value to the life of an astronaut as a function of the mission to be performed so that it can rationally allocate the resources necessary to reasonably minimize the probability of losing it.
For Congress, it means that we have to have a serious discussion about what we are trying to accomplish in space with regard to human spaceflight, and what we’re willing to spend, both in taxpayer dollars and human life, to do so.
242 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 31, 2013
21 people are currently reading
222 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
December 25, 2024
Provides an excellent argument that NASA's unconditional safety culture and lack of a clear purpose hinders our expansion into space, development of space technology, and ironically the safety of space technology by increasing the cost and reducing the pace of space technology development. It is backed by a good background on the history of spaceflight and provides insightful recommendations on how to reverse the harmful precedent set by Shuttle and Constellation era NASA and Congress.
The book could be a lot more concise (written by an engineer, and it shows), and in my opinion goes into too much specificity and gets small details wrong regarding the safety of certain specific launch systems. At times it becomes somewhat unclear how the text is supporting its overall argument as it delves into details of design or history.
It is also an old book, referencing current events happening around time of writing in 2012 and companies which have since failed and been forgotten. But the fact that NASA is in a similar state now as it was at the time of writing, despite commercial companies either having categorically advanced or having failed and been forgotten is evidence that the argument still holds up today.
Its certainly worth a read, but I recommend skimming through certain sections, especially where the author inserts 5 page long uncut quotes...
The book could be a lot more concise (written by an engineer, and it shows), and in my opinion goes into too much specificity and gets small details wrong regarding the safety of certain specific launch systems. At times it becomes somewhat unclear how the text is supporting its overall argument as it delves into details of design or history.
It is also an old book, referencing current events happening around time of writing in 2012 and companies which have since failed and been forgotten. But the fact that NASA is in a similar state now as it was at the time of writing, despite commercial companies either having categorically advanced or having failed and been forgotten is evidence that the argument still holds up today.
Its certainly worth a read, but I recommend skimming through certain sections, especially where the author inserts 5 page long uncut quotes...
September 14, 2017
Interesting topic that I completely support and understand given my education and experience. It is a shame that tax payers, again, support programs that are driven by politics and not mission or cost effectiveness. One of many favorite quotes appears on page 156, "We cannot determine the appropriate level of requirements for our space systems, either government or private, if we don't understand why we're building and operating them." Futhermore, why citizens are more outraged by their perceived risk of space travel, than traffic deaths or other high-risk activities is super unfortunate. Being ignorant (lacking knowledge, information or awareness) and unwilling to listen to evidence (the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid) before rendering a policy (or other far-reaching) decision is a dangerous combination for society.
November 2, 2017
As a longtime NASA geek I appreciate Simberg's excellent job of outlining the troubles with American space exploration and his cautious optimism regarding private/commercial efforts. My big takeaway is: Do we continue the 'pork over progress' model that strangles settlement and development or do we embrace the explorer's mentality that created modern maritime and aviation technology?
July 26, 2025
As an aerospace engineer it’s not easy to read a take that could lead to more humans dying in space but I think this criticism of NASA’s safety culture is important nonetheless. From pointing out safety hypocrisies to arguing the current culture is not going to lead to booming space exploration, this is worth the read even if you aren’t going to agree with everything he says.
August 16, 2019
A thoughtful and very important discussion of the issues constraining the way human Spaceflight is conducted. Though written in 2012/2013, its points are valid and in many cases prescient. Definitely worth the read.
June 29, 2022
It makes a great point about deregulation for commercial space; however, government funded spaceflight will never be able to tolerate loss of human life with our tax dollars unless there is a massive paradigm shift.
September 7, 2017
A great book about how we should assess risk. While it focuses on space exploration, it's lessons are practical for all sorts of policy.
June 28, 2022
Highly insightful look into what’s hampering our exploration of space.
January 30, 2023
Helpful, short, and convincing discussion of a counterintuitive notion that putting safety above all else actually makes space flight less safe.
May 28, 2014
This book is a winning combination of being both important and easy to read. It's important because it raises issues that lawmakers, policy makers, industry and prospective customers must all address, namely, what is our appetite for risk in space travel? The book starts with inspiring stories, many of which we are already familiar with, but when Simberg offers them as contrast to society's aversion to risk, it shows starkly how much we've changed since setting sail in wooden boats and facing a hostile continent.
After showing the pitfalls of demanding perfect safety (which would mean we shouldn't get out of bed in the morning, much less launch rockets), Simberg raises an important issue that needs to be part of the public discussion. When the nation thought space was important, we were willing to take risks. All modes of transport carry risks, but we accept those risks because we need to get places. So, he asks, why do we need to go to space? He argues that the settlement of space is reason enough. The Commercial Space Launch Act would appear to support his thesis. There, Congress said "the goal of safely opening space to the American people and their private commercial, scientific, and cultural enterprises should guide Federal space investments, policies, and regulations."
Finally, the writing is smooth, the explanations clear, and the arguments cogent. It's a quick read, and I highly recommend it.
After showing the pitfalls of demanding perfect safety (which would mean we shouldn't get out of bed in the morning, much less launch rockets), Simberg raises an important issue that needs to be part of the public discussion. When the nation thought space was important, we were willing to take risks. All modes of transport carry risks, but we accept those risks because we need to get places. So, he asks, why do we need to go to space? He argues that the settlement of space is reason enough. The Commercial Space Launch Act would appear to support his thesis. There, Congress said "the goal of safely opening space to the American people and their private commercial, scientific, and cultural enterprises should guide Federal space investments, policies, and regulations."
Finally, the writing is smooth, the explanations clear, and the arguments cogent. It's a quick read, and I highly recommend it.
June 1, 2014
Would you support spending a million dollars to save the life of an astronaut, or to improve their chance of survival in an emergency? Sure, you would.
Ten million dollars? Well, yeah, probably.
One hundred million dollars? Um. That's a lot of money.
A billion dollars? Sorry... you knew the job was dangerous when you took it.
Ten billion dollars? Go home, Congress. You're drunk.
How about an infinite number of dollars? That's essentially the position that NASA (as micromanaged by Congress) is in today. If "safety of astronauts is our number one priority," then astronauts should just stay home. Preferably wrapped in cotton wool.
That's the starting point of Rand Simberg's book. He digs into history, showing how every form of transportation has killed both passengers and crew, starting with "wooden ships and iron men." He then goes through a good review of America's history of space exploration, then an analysis of NASA's safety culture for Constellation, ISS, and the Hubble repair mission. He finishes with a set of recommendations that should be the starting point for any safety discussion with NASA, Congress, or the FAA's Office of Commercial Transportation.
Highly recommended. Buy copies for your friends. And your Congressmen.
Ten million dollars? Well, yeah, probably.
One hundred million dollars? Um. That's a lot of money.
A billion dollars? Sorry... you knew the job was dangerous when you took it.
Ten billion dollars? Go home, Congress. You're drunk.
How about an infinite number of dollars? That's essentially the position that NASA (as micromanaged by Congress) is in today. If "safety of astronauts is our number one priority," then astronauts should just stay home. Preferably wrapped in cotton wool.
That's the starting point of Rand Simberg's book. He digs into history, showing how every form of transportation has killed both passengers and crew, starting with "wooden ships and iron men." He then goes through a good review of America's history of space exploration, then an analysis of NASA's safety culture for Constellation, ISS, and the Hubble repair mission. He finishes with a set of recommendations that should be the starting point for any safety discussion with NASA, Congress, or the FAA's Office of Commercial Transportation.
Highly recommended. Buy copies for your friends. And your Congressmen.
February 6, 2018
An interesting book that is moderately effective in making its point. However I wanted more. More facts, statistics, stories. Most of the book consisted of long quotes from various groups and organizations. I would have rather he expanded his research and possibly included interviews with various people in the industry.
Mr Simberg makes a good case that excessive caution is killing (literally) NASA and the American Space program by both making it risk adverse and driving up costs- however he does not succeed in driving the final nail in. On the cost part- an area he should be strong on, he is weak. He mentions the arbitrariness of "Man Rating" rockets and talks about how this adds unnecessary cost and risk, but could have expanded it with statistics to show how Russian rockets are cheaper to launch and safer to operate- all the while having less oversite. Perhaps he could have researched Russian quality control to see how they compare to American practices. There are ton's of statistics by country and rocket system to make his point but he never brings it up. Indeed while sometimes mentioning statistics, as in how dangerous it was to be a test pilot or navy aviator, he does not provide much in the way of figures.
Mr Simberg makes a good case that excessive caution is killing (literally) NASA and the American Space program by both making it risk adverse and driving up costs- however he does not succeed in driving the final nail in. On the cost part- an area he should be strong on, he is weak. He mentions the arbitrariness of "Man Rating" rockets and talks about how this adds unnecessary cost and risk, but could have expanded it with statistics to show how Russian rockets are cheaper to launch and safer to operate- all the while having less oversite. Perhaps he could have researched Russian quality control to see how they compare to American practices. There are ton's of statistics by country and rocket system to make his point but he never brings it up. Indeed while sometimes mentioning statistics, as in how dangerous it was to be a test pilot or navy aviator, he does not provide much in the way of figures.
January 22, 2015
This book is subtitled: Overcoming the futile obsession with getting everyone back alive that is killing our expansion into space. It is a review into and commentary on the current risk averse nature of the US civilian space program. As the early space shots demonstrated, it is almost impossible to recognise all of the hazards that are likely to be faced - so it is only with actual experience that we learn them. Despite common belief and the cost, the Space Shuttle was not safe and was doomed because it was not reliable. And similar errors appear to have been made in the Constellation program in the mistaken belief that Shuttle derived hardware was safe. The author argues that NASA is constrained by the insistence of politicians that space flight be "safe" without ever defining what that means. Eventually the author advocates that NASA should get out of human space activities and leave that to commercial operators if the US is ever to realise the dream of settling space. I would recommend this book to space advocates, especially those frustrated with the current state of NASA’s developments.
April 9, 2014
Even if you read RISKS, even if you're well-informed, there is plenty of new information here worth reading. Simberg has a good understanding of our depressingly risk-averse (and ill-informed) culture; of spaceflight engineering; and, most importantly, the human project-management pitfalls that have led to the death of American manned spaceflight. He presents solid analyses of why current policies are misguided and how to go about fixing them. And he writes engagingly, with well-organized material.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews