Even less, as accidents that do kill people on the ground may easily kill more than one.
> that seems an acceptable level of risk to tolerate for someone else’s joyride.
Let’s do that math on air flights. Pre-covid, there were 38 million air flights a year (https://www.statista.com/statistics/564769/airline-industry-...). One in 10,000 would mean 3,800 bystanders killed on the ground each year.
I would think that, in reality, way fewer got killed (might be ignorance), and 3,800 would feel unacceptable. So, why would we accept that of these joyrides? Is “because there are so few of them” an acceptable answer to that?
You are replying to a comment about spaceflight regulations
In this case, I even think we should accept more risk from commercial flights than from a billionaire’s hobby.
Even less, as accidents that do kill people on the ground may easily kill more than one.
> that seems an acceptable level of risk to tolerate for someone else’s joyride.
Let’s do that math on air flights. Pre-covid, there were 38 million air flights a year (https://www.statista.com/statistics/564769/airline-industry-...). One in 10,000 would mean 3,800 bystanders killed on the ground each year.
I would think that, in reality, way fewer got killed (might be ignorance), and 3,800 would feel unacceptable. So, why would we accept that of these joyrides? Is “because there are so few of them” an acceptable answer to that?