While "as safe as possible" is certainly the goal, most of the research is centered around first clearing the low bar of "safe enough to even make it there and then do some science". "Earlier death" might mean "on the way to mars", which would end up being a much bigger waste of money and effort (to say nothing of the political capital). Those are the questions we're trying to answer right now.

The other side of these things is that the research being done is not single-purpose. The lunar missions were an amazing human achievement, but their lasting legacy can be seen much more clearly on earth. Our radiation work has homeworld implications for understanding radiotherapy. Heavy ion therapy is a rapidly emerging technology that has the potential to make some previously-mortal cancers tractable, and understanding its full biological effects is critical. By exploring new worlds, we hope to be able to improve the lives on our own as well.

While thinking about it:

My claim was really totally unsubstantiated, because I have no idea how much is spent on human safety. I just assumed because I read about that regularily.

It might very well be that the actual investment is miniscule when compared to the technology spending.

Your other points are definitely valid as well.

Your point is still important, whether or not it is valid, because it represents a not-uncommon sentiment in the public. It's up to many researchers to try to make the results and potential of their work accessible to the public. The best mentors I've seen are always able to transfer their own excitement for their work to others.

If an astronaut dies a drawn-out, agonizing, painful death due to space cancer, without surgery or medication, it would be a PR disaster for NASA.

Look how many people die to due terrorism vs. traffic accidents. Yet people take traffic accidents to be a fact of life, white terrorism gets a lot of funding and government attention.

If an astronaut has anything other than a space journey, that will quell interest in traveling to Mars for a generation or longer. NASA would lose funding for those missions. "Travel to Mars! Die horribly when you get there, far, far away from everything you know and love!"

> If an astronaut dies a drawn-out, agonizing, painful death due to space cancer, without surgery or medication, it would be a PR disaster for NASA.

For the worst case, supply them with euthanasia drugs. Sounds inhuman, but in my opinion far more human than letting them suffer a brutal death.

I totally agree, but from a perspective, that doesn't really sound like a win.

Death on space missions is something we as a society have to find a way to deal with, anyway.

I mean, just imagine someone dies on a Mars base. Either of age, of a medical issue (heart attack), or an accident (e.g. electrical shock, or mishandling heavy stuff)... are they going to be buried on Mars? Cremated and flown home?

Will the families on Earth have a place to remember their lost ones? Should there be something like a Tomb of the Unknown Soldier? Where should this be, especially given that a Mars mission will be international? In the US? One per country?

Under which circumstances is euthanasia on space missions acceptable? Not at all? For grave untreatable injuries/illnesses only? Or for "okay its treatable on Earth easily but it's too expensive to fly home", too?

What do we do if someone (by negligence or with intent) kills or gravely injures someone else on a space mission? On a space travel, someone jailed is basically dead weight eating away your resources (ST:VOY dealt with this in the Lon Suder arc in the early seasons), so would it be acceptable to ditch the person? Same for a space colony. You're not going to bring lawyers, judges and trained police personnel on an early space mission.

To make it worse: society has to think about these issues FAST. I believe it's likely SpaceX will be manned permanently on Moon or Mars in no less than 10 years.

At the point when we have a Mars base, I think people will find it acceptable. Of course, people will die on a base on Mars, from all sorts of causes.

But for now, it's exploration, and the radiation exposure is almost a guarantee of cancer. I think NASA will have to figure something out before people are willing to accept half of Mars-bound astronauts dying horribly during the mission.

> I'd wager there are plenty of aspiring Astronauts that would be okay with an earlier death

The pool of talented astronauts is already surprisingly slim. And every one of them has a brilliant career ahead of them, on a safe planet, if they want it. I bet the percentage of qualified astronauts who are fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants daredevils willing to face certain death for fleeting glory, is actually kind of small. You know what they say about old pilots and bold pilots.

So I'll take your wager.

To an extent, this research is being done because

(1) It's fairly cheap, compared to real R&D and

(2) There's nothing else to do in the meantime. Without big budget shifts, or big tech breakthroughs, there's no realistic path to a (NASA) manned Mars mission anytime soon.

So there's fiddling around the edges of the problem in the interim.

Just look to the wingsuit fliers - like Graham Dickinson.