5 ms·

How much money has been spent bringing Matt Damon back home?

48 points by zatkin 11y ago

grecy 11y ago
$200B estimate for the fictional "The Martian" mars trip sounds low to me, though it does bring into perspective what could have been achieved with the trillions spent blowing stuff up here on earth.
- eridius 11y ago
  I'm actually wondering if that number is too high. After all, they already had the ship. What did they have to pay for? 1. The extended use-time of the ship. But really all that did was push back the subsequent missions, the ship was already something they owned. 2. Probably a bit more maintenance on the ship once it came back because it was used for longer (and because they deliberately damaged it). 3. The cost of the initial food package + booster which blew up. 4. The cost of the new food package. China already had the second booster, so I'm not sure if the cost of that should be added (especially since China wasn't going to rebuild it, they were just going to scrap the mission it was originally for). 5. The cost of the MAV that was used to get Mark Watney to orbit, plus whatever costs are associated with launching another one to Mars. 6. The salaries of the astronauts on the ship (does Mark Watney get paid for his time stranded on Mars?) 7. The salaries of people at NASA who worked overtime on this (assuming anyone actually gets paid overtime at all, which they might not). Does that add up to $200B? I'm skeptical. From the parenthetical (Mars Mission) it seems the cost was meant as an estimate for how much a new Mars mission would cost (I forget if the book actually put a number on that to begin with), but the rescue wasn't a new mission.
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    As for #6, check out the Wager shipwreck. Prior to the mutiny that resulted from that wreck, pay stopped at the point of shipwreck. It is now commonly understood that soldiers cannot be dropped from pay while stranded or captured. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wager_Mutiny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wager_Mutiny
    - eridius 11y ago
      Interesting, although NASA astronauts are not soldiers so any law about captured/stranded soldiers wouldn't really apply. But it does set a precedent. But beyond all that, I suspect it's safe to assume that NASA would make sure Watney was paid appropriately for his time, that's just a drop in the bucket that is the cost of the rescue mission anyway. Although I do wonder if his being assumed dead would have screwed up payroll...
      - gremlinsinc 11y ago
        Doubt he wouldn't mind NOT being paid, rescue would be enough for me... I think lol, not to mention book and movie rights would set him up for life.
forcer 11y ago
Ceirtanly better spending movie budget on movies that have potential inspiring people learning more about science
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- javajosh 11y ago
  A tangential thought, but isn't it interesting that Star Wars inspired lots of scientists and engineers even though it has nothing to do with actual science. There is no physical basis for light sabers, warp drives, force-fields, or artificial gravity, but people study all kinds of things that might give us some headway in those directions, at least in some limited way.
  - noja 11y ago
    You could say that about any sci-fi, they are all set in the future.
    - k_sze 11y ago
      Technically Star Wars is set in the past. Just sayin'
      - noja 11y ago
        It's in another galaxy where space travel is common.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
mitchtbaum 11y ago
Why bring him back? Perhaps on Mars his WaterCredits and PepsiCo-backed drinking water loans could find a good market.
gremlinsinc 11y ago
I highly doubt we will ever be able to achieve interstellar travel for 500B or less, not with our current technology, maybe in 100+ years, but when coming up with a number we need to also take into account all the tech we need between now and launch and the costs of those technologies, not to mention we'd need a wormhole, either one we create, or that someone else creates for us, and since we don't know if we're alone or not in the universe, the only assumption is we'd need to create that ourselves, and I really have no clue how much a Wormhole would cost to create, but I'm gonna guess at least 20 Trillion USD, if it's even possible at all...
DrScump 11y ago
my reaction went from annoyance to anger when I realized that the OP put zero value on the lives lost in "Saving Private Ryan"

48 points by zatkin 11y ago

grecy 11y ago

$200B estimate for the fictional "The Martian" mars trip sounds low to me, though it does bring into perspective what could have been achieved with the trillions spent blowing stuff up here on earth.

eridius 11y ago
I'm actually wondering if that number is too high. After all, they already had the ship. What did they have to pay for? 1. The extended use-time of the ship. But really all that did was push back the subsequent missions, the ship was already something they owned. 2. Probably a bit more maintenance on the ship once it came back because it was used for longer (and because they deliberately damaged it). 3. The cost of the initial food package + booster which blew up. 4. The cost of the new food package. China already had the second booster, so I'm not sure if the cost of that should be added (especially since China wasn't going to rebuild it, they were just going to scrap the mission it was originally for). 5. The cost of the MAV that was used to get Mark Watney to orbit, plus whatever costs are associated with launching another one to Mars. 6. The salaries of the astronauts on the ship (does Mark Watney get paid for his time stranded on Mars?) 7. The salaries of people at NASA who worked overtime on this (assuming anyone actually gets paid overtime at all, which they might not). Does that add up to $200B? I'm skeptical. From the parenthetical (Mars Mission) it seems the cost was meant as an estimate for how much a new Mars mission would cost (I forget if the book actually put a number on that to begin with), but the rescue wasn't a new mission.
- sandworm101 11y ago
  As for #6, check out the Wager shipwreck. Prior to the mutiny that resulted from that wreck, pay stopped at the point of shipwreck. It is now commonly understood that soldiers cannot be dropped from pay while stranded or captured. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wager_Mutiny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wager_Mutiny
  - eridius 11y ago
    Interesting, although NASA astronauts are not soldiers so any law about captured/stranded soldiers wouldn't really apply. But it does set a precedent. But beyond all that, I suspect it's safe to assume that NASA would make sure Watney was paid appropriately for his time, that's just a drop in the bucket that is the cost of the rescue mission anyway. Although I do wonder if his being assumed dead would have screwed up payroll...
    - gremlinsinc 11y ago
      Doubt he wouldn't mind NOT being paid, rescue would be enough for me... I think lol, not to mention book and movie rights would set him up for life.

forcer 11y ago

Ceirtanly better spending movie budget on movies that have potential inspiring people learning more about science

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
javajosh 11y ago
A tangential thought, but isn't it interesting that Star Wars inspired lots of scientists and engineers even though it has nothing to do with actual science. There is no physical basis for light sabers, warp drives, force-fields, or artificial gravity, but people study all kinds of things that might give us some headway in those directions, at least in some limited way.
- noja 11y ago
  You could say that about any sci-fi, they are all set in the future.
  - k_sze 11y ago
    Technically Star Wars is set in the past. Just sayin'
    - noja 11y ago
      It's in another galaxy where space travel is common.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

mitchtbaum 11y ago

Why bring him back? Perhaps on Mars his WaterCredits and PepsiCo-backed drinking water loans could find a good market.

gremlinsinc 11y ago

I highly doubt we will ever be able to achieve interstellar travel for 500B or less, not with our current technology, maybe in 100+ years, but when coming up with a number we need to also take into account all the tech we need between now and launch and the costs of those technologies, not to mention we'd need a wormhole, either one we create, or that someone else creates for us, and since we don't know if we're alone or not in the universe, the only assumption is we'd need to create that ourselves, and I really have no clue how much a Wormhole would cost to create, but I'm gonna guess at least 20 Trillion USD, if it's even possible at all...

DrScump 11y ago

my reaction went from annoyance to anger when I realized that the OP put zero value on the lives lost in "Saving Private Ryan"