......... Other than a major TOY for the very wealthy, I'm not sure that I see any real benefit in this expensive program, short of employinnng a few engineers. When a project includes significant risk to human life (rocket engines, altitudes beyond 50K ft etc.) perhaps a second and third look is necessary. What is the REAL benefit of this program - if there is one? Is it appropriate to risk human like for 1) a personal fantasy or 2) an ultimately commercial venture with no significant contribution to the flying sciences?
This makes perfect sense IF you are an advocate of the Nanny State. However, I believe people should be able to build toys, even dangerous ones, and be free to enjoy them even if there is no benefit at all. Race car drivers, sky divers, rattle snake collectors, mountain climbers, or tight rope walkers should not be prohibited from exercising their right to have fun. Neither should space travelers.
Of course, you have to assume that the participant is fully aware of the risks. I would bet that Leonardo di Caprio, for example, would be VERY unlikely to have ever used his space ride ticket once they got down to the nitty-gritty of explaining how dangerous space travel really is.
Unfortunately, I don't think Christa McAuliffe fully understood what risk she was facing when she met her end and probably expected something like a bus ride. Although the statistics have improved lately, for a long while nearly 10% of the Americans who wanted to fly in space died while practicing their chosen profession, or in Ms. McAuliffe's case, her school science project.