7 ms·

Well, 'The Martian' made the money spent on it and more. It is up for debate how much the rocket sent to Mars has given back on the investment. And by this I me

Well, 'The Martian' made the money spent on it and more. It is up for debate how much the rocket sent to Mars has given back on the investment. And by this I mean that it's an apples to oranges comparison.

platz 10y ago
> made the money spent Transfer of wealth is not the same as consumption of resources
- nickgrosvenor 10y ago
  You should read the Paul Graham essay on wealth, specifically the "Pie Fallacy" paragraph. Hopefully it'll be insightful. :) http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - platz 10y ago
    yep, I understand that "wealth" isn't a zero-sum concept. Perhaps I should've chosen my words more carefully, because I am emphasizing the 'consumption of "natural" resources', more than to "wealth". (If we're going to keep using the word "wealth", a movie may produce intangible "wealth" in the form of happiness, among other things)
  - E6300 10y ago
    Paul Graham is wrong. There's a finite amount of wealth. His idea of "creating wealth" is simply expending energy in order to transform some thing into a more valuable configuration; both fixing a car and writing a computer program fall into the category of rearranging atoms into more valuable configuration. But energy itself is also a form of wealth, and there's only so much of it in the universe (and, more relevantly, on Earth) and only so much available to be used per unit of time. In other words, you can bake another pie, but not without using some of the flour in your pantry and some gas to run the oven. Once the flour runs out, you're done baking pies.
    - mason240 10y ago
      In that case the amount of energy in the universe is infinite.
      - E6300 10y ago
        As far as we can tell, it's not.
    - ajamesm 10y ago
      Also, there is no such thing as farming, because the terrestrial carbon cycle is zero-sum
      - E6300 10y ago
        I'm not sure what it is you're saying.
        ajamesm 10y ago
        So if solar flux is zero-sum, then farmers are appropriating sunlight that would otherwise be productive in other ways. All they're doing is using carbon as energy transport, not "creating" anything per se. What I'm saying is your idea is insane.
        platz 10y ago
        I'm not sure what you both are on about regarding entropy and cycles, but my point was that raw materials can be used in different ways, productively (converting those raw materials/labor to a more useful form) and wastefully (converting those raw materials/labor to a form that has no "durable value", even if some people make "money"/"wealth").
        E6300 10y ago
        I didn't think "the universe has a finite capacity" to be such a controversial idea. Look, if you use land for farming then you can't use it for something else, right? And the Earth has a finite surface, right? So once all arable land has been farmed and all other land has been allocated for other uses, then necessarily land allocation will become a zero sum game. If wealth can just be created ex nihilo then human population should be able to grow without bounds, no? The pie is a lie, after all. We can just bake more pies. I don't see how that's possible when both space and food production capacity are bounded.
harigov 10y ago
It's not a problem with the investment itself but inability of economics to evaluate such investment decisions. A lot of externalities like positive PR for the scientific progress of the country, research outputs that can benefit in other areas, etc., can't be evaluated with just money. Not in the least in the timelines that investment firms (and movie industry) usually work at.
- rajathagasthya 10y ago
  > research outputs that can benefit in other areas This is the most important thing. A lot of military technology in India, especially missile tech, originated at ISRO. And was spearheaded by former President APJ Abdul Kalam, who worked at both ISRO and DRDO (Defense Research and Development Organization). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Guided_Missile_Development_Programme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Guided_Missile_Deve...
larrydag 10y ago
I don't know. There was a lot of R&D that went into that probe. That was the FIRST probe to ever have that type of methane sensor put into interplanetary orbit. I would think the intellectual property would be worth quite a bit.
- greglindahl 10y ago
  You mean the methane sensor which doesn't actually measure methane? Yes, there's a lot of learning in this space probe.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  If it had worked, yes.
skynetv2 10y ago
wow! what a short sighted comment!! Investing in space exploration may not give you returns on investment in short run but it helps humanity learn more about the vast expanse that surrounds us and affects our day to day lives.
- mod 10y ago
  So, it literally is "up for debate." I don't think the GP intended to make a comment on just how big or small the return was.
BeetleB 10y ago
>And by this I mean that it's an apples to oranges comparison. Sadly, almost anyone responding to you is not understanding this. I had the exact same thought when I read the headline (even before I knew this was about India or women - I was expecting some private enterprise...). Your comment doesn't take away from the achievement. Comparing it to the cost of a movie is just pointless.
jogjayr 10y ago
> It is up for debate how much the rocket sent to Mars has given back on the investment ISRO actually has a commercial satellite launching arm that does make money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antrix_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antrix_Corporation

platz 10y ago

> made the money spent Transfer of wealth is not the same as consumption of resources

nickgrosvenor 10y ago
You should read the Paul Graham essay on wealth, specifically the "Pie Fallacy" paragraph. Hopefully it'll be insightful. :) http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- platz 10y ago
  yep, I understand that "wealth" isn't a zero-sum concept. Perhaps I should've chosen my words more carefully, because I am emphasizing the 'consumption of "natural" resources', more than to "wealth". (If we're going to keep using the word "wealth", a movie may produce intangible "wealth" in the form of happiness, among other things)
- E6300 10y ago
  Paul Graham is wrong. There's a finite amount of wealth. His idea of "creating wealth" is simply expending energy in order to transform some thing into a more valuable configuration; both fixing a car and writing a computer program fall into the category of rearranging atoms into more valuable configuration. But energy itself is also a form of wealth, and there's only so much of it in the universe (and, more relevantly, on Earth) and only so much available to be used per unit of time. In other words, you can bake another pie, but not without using some of the flour in your pantry and some gas to run the oven. Once the flour runs out, you're done baking pies.
  - mason240 10y ago
    In that case the amount of energy in the universe is infinite.
    - E6300 10y ago
      As far as we can tell, it's not.
  - ajamesm 10y ago
    Also, there is no such thing as farming, because the terrestrial carbon cycle is zero-sum
    - E6300 10y ago
      I'm not sure what it is you're saying.
      - ajamesm 10y ago
        So if solar flux is zero-sum, then farmers are appropriating sunlight that would otherwise be productive in other ways. All they're doing is using carbon as energy transport, not "creating" anything per se. What I'm saying is your idea is insane.
        platz 10y ago
        I'm not sure what you both are on about regarding entropy and cycles, but my point was that raw materials can be used in different ways, productively (converting those raw materials/labor to a more useful form) and wastefully (converting those raw materials/labor to a form that has no "durable value", even if some people make "money"/"wealth").
        E6300 10y ago
        I didn't think "the universe has a finite capacity" to be such a controversial idea. Look, if you use land for farming then you can't use it for something else, right? And the Earth has a finite surface, right? So once all arable land has been farmed and all other land has been allocated for other uses, then necessarily land allocation will become a zero sum game. If wealth can just be created ex nihilo then human population should be able to grow without bounds, no? The pie is a lie, after all. We can just bake more pies. I don't see how that's possible when both space and food production capacity are bounded.

harigov 10y ago

It's not a problem with the investment itself but inability of economics to evaluate such investment decisions. A lot of externalities like positive PR for the scientific progress of the country, research outputs that can benefit in other areas, etc., can't be evaluated with just money. Not in the least in the timelines that investment firms (and movie industry) usually work at.

rajathagasthya 10y ago
> research outputs that can benefit in other areas This is the most important thing. A lot of military technology in India, especially missile tech, originated at ISRO. And was spearheaded by former President APJ Abdul Kalam, who worked at both ISRO and DRDO (Defense Research and Development Organization). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Guided_Missile_Development_Programme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Guided_Missile_Deve...

larrydag 10y ago

I don't know. There was a lot of R&D that went into that probe. That was the FIRST probe to ever have that type of methane sensor put into interplanetary orbit. I would think the intellectual property would be worth quite a bit.

greglindahl 10y ago
You mean the methane sensor which doesn't actually measure methane? Yes, there's a lot of learning in this space probe.
jacquesm 10y ago
If it had worked, yes.

skynetv2 10y ago

wow! what a short sighted comment!! Investing in space exploration may not give you returns on investment in short run but it helps humanity learn more about the vast expanse that surrounds us and affects our day to day lives.

mod 10y ago
So, it literally is "up for debate." I don't think the GP intended to make a comment on just how big or small the return was.

BeetleB 10y ago

>And by this I mean that it's an apples to oranges comparison. Sadly, almost anyone responding to you is not understanding this. I had the exact same thought when I read the headline (even before I knew this was about India or women - I was expecting some private enterprise...). Your comment doesn't take away from the achievement. Comparing it to the cost of a movie is just pointless.

jogjayr 10y ago

> It is up for debate how much the rocket sent to Mars has given back on the investment ISRO actually has a commercial satellite launching arm that does make money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antrix_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antrix_Corporation