But is it really that different to the early years of sea exploration? I mean let's face it: certain -- most? -- of the ships were known to be marginally seaworthy at best, and if it wasn't the ship that cost seamen their lives, it was surely the inadequate food, water, and supplies that precluded many from a safe return.
My point is that either way, many, many adventurers knowingly and willingly embarked on their journeys to an all but certain doom. That this particular and more recent seemingly forced excursion happend as recently as the 20th century and under the circumstances described of course renders it more palpably disturbing, I agree, but I would suggest it is different only in degree, not in kind.
Again- I'm in no way intending to minimize this tragedy or others like it.* I'm just suggesting that for the sake of these great explorers' memories, it is better to remember them fondly rather than wallow in melancholic nostalgia of their (indisputably) unjust loss.
* I understand this particular tragedy is unique in that the cosmonaut knew with virtual certainty that he was being sent to his death. My focus here is not whether he knew death was certain, but the greater context in which this certainty existed, i.e., the inherently dangerous activity of (space) exploration which is "inherently dangerous" precisely because such deaths are foreseeable and indeed statistically likely to occur, just or unjust alike.