4 ms·

Not again with this. This is comparing peanuts to oranges. Two completely separate domains, with their own requirements and goals. If you need to compare then

Not again with this. This is comparing peanuts to oranges. Two completely separate domains, with their own requirements and goals. If you need to compare then compare it with costs of other missions. And even then it would be unfair, as almost no two space missions have the exact same requirements, goals and parameters.

bhaavan 7y ago
I agree. But that said, it's good to give people estimate of what the costs for a moon mission are compared to other things we do on earth. In that sense, this comparison is useful, because "half the cost of avengers movie" is less abstract than "$ XYZ,000,000" for most people.
- rakoo 7y ago
  Do people really have a better grasp on how much a movie costs to be made ? I wouldn't know what the difference is between a 1 million, a 10 million and a 100 million movie, or to even give a single example for each of those categories
  - mruts 7y ago
    I’m pretty sure you do (and have).
totaldude87 7y ago
According to one article, NASA spent five times that for similar kind of mission.. again not sure about authenticity :)
- junipertea 7y ago
  Please share the article then.
cshimmin 7y ago
It's really not... it's comparing dollars to dollars. If anything, the only thing you should modify is maybe to consider how much the Avengers would have cost to produce in India. But in any case, it's certainly relevant to consider how much cash was invested and what was the return on that investment. Both ventures produce some common returns, such as cultural heritage, jobs/economic stimulus, pollution, etc. On the other hand, some of the returns are quite dissimilar; the space mission produces a considerable amount of scientific and technological benefits, while the movie put some cash back in investor's pockets.
- meddlepal 7y ago
  > the space mission produces a considerable amount of scientific and technological benefits Does it actually? This isn't 1960 anymore... we know how to launch a rocket and get it the moon now. It seems this is mostly a national pride kind of thing which has some value too but it's a very different kind of value.
  - JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
    We actually aren’t that sure if we could do an Apollo again at all in modern times.
    - meddlepal 7y ago
      Please explain because unless the Laws of Physics changed in the last 50 years I don't see how that could possibly be true.
      - JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
        https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610720/why-getting-back-to-the-moon-is-so-damn-hard/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610720/why-getting-back-t... https://www.space.com/7015-40-years-moon-landing-hard.html https://www.space.com/7015-40-years-moon-landing-hard.html Lots of the know how, resources, and people are gone forever. Just because we have lots of computers now doesn’t solve all problems. Apollo was an incredible feat of humanity. There’s a reason no other country has ever sent humans to the moon, it’s really hard.
samwhiteUK 7y ago
Think about what you're saying here. Doesn't this fact just make the Avengers movie seem COMPLETELY ridiculous in terms of cost? I think it's a perfectly valid comparison. You know when people spend 300 grand plus on a car, and people say, "Think what else could be done with that money". It's like that
- meddlepal 7y ago
  If you spend $300 million but make 3x or 4x that on return is it ridiculous? Anyways the reason these movies cost so much is because all the intermediary production and marketing pieces want a share of the pie.
- viraptor 7y ago
  Given how "Hollywood accounting" became a popular thing, I'm not even sure if the published cost of new movies is close to reality. And how much was the movie production vs paying the popular actors. There are just too may weird data points for popular film costs. For example each of Friends got ~$1M per episode in the last season, so that's $108M ($146M with inflation adjustment) just for main cast in season 10, vs $220M for "the Avengers". So the mission cost less than main characters in later seasons is Friends.
mikeash 7y ago
It’s fair to compare the prices of anything. This mission cost way more than a bottle of water, and way less than the market cap of BP. Both entirely fair comparisons. Where it gets tricky is what conclusions you draw from those comparisons.
- kjeetgill 7y ago
  > Both entirely fair comparisons. Where it gets tricky is what conclusions you draw from those comparisons. Brilliantly put, I need to commit that to memory. It reminds of the saying: "All models are wrong, some models are useful".
  - mikeash 7y ago
    I don't deserve to be in such esteemed company, but I'm glad you like it.

bhaavan 7y ago

I agree. But that said, it's good to give people estimate of what the costs for a moon mission are compared to other things we do on earth. In that sense, this comparison is useful, because "half the cost of avengers movie" is less abstract than "$ XYZ,000,000" for most people.

rakoo 7y ago
Do people really have a better grasp on how much a movie costs to be made ? I wouldn't know what the difference is between a 1 million, a 10 million and a 100 million movie, or to even give a single example for each of those categories
- mruts 7y ago
  I’m pretty sure you do (and have).

totaldude87 7y ago

According to one article, NASA spent five times that for similar kind of mission.. again not sure about authenticity :)

junipertea 7y ago
Please share the article then.

cshimmin 7y ago

It's really not... it's comparing dollars to dollars. If anything, the only thing you should modify is maybe to consider how much the Avengers would have cost to produce in India. But in any case, it's certainly relevant to consider how much cash was invested and what was the return on that investment. Both ventures produce some common returns, such as cultural heritage, jobs/economic stimulus, pollution, etc. On the other hand, some of the returns are quite dissimilar; the space mission produces a considerable amount of scientific and technological benefits, while the movie put some cash back in investor's pockets.

meddlepal 7y ago
> the space mission produces a considerable amount of scientific and technological benefits Does it actually? This isn't 1960 anymore... we know how to launch a rocket and get it the moon now. It seems this is mostly a national pride kind of thing which has some value too but it's a very different kind of value.
- JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
  We actually aren’t that sure if we could do an Apollo again at all in modern times.
  - meddlepal 7y ago
    Please explain because unless the Laws of Physics changed in the last 50 years I don't see how that could possibly be true.
    - JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
      https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610720/why-getting-back-to-the-moon-is-so-damn-hard/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610720/why-getting-back-t... https://www.space.com/7015-40-years-moon-landing-hard.html https://www.space.com/7015-40-years-moon-landing-hard.html Lots of the know how, resources, and people are gone forever. Just because we have lots of computers now doesn’t solve all problems. Apollo was an incredible feat of humanity. There’s a reason no other country has ever sent humans to the moon, it’s really hard.

samwhiteUK 7y ago

Think about what you're saying here. Doesn't this fact just make the Avengers movie seem COMPLETELY ridiculous in terms of cost? I think it's a perfectly valid comparison. You know when people spend 300 grand plus on a car, and people say, "Think what else could be done with that money". It's like that

meddlepal 7y ago
If you spend $300 million but make 3x or 4x that on return is it ridiculous? Anyways the reason these movies cost so much is because all the intermediary production and marketing pieces want a share of the pie.
viraptor 7y ago
Given how "Hollywood accounting" became a popular thing, I'm not even sure if the published cost of new movies is close to reality. And how much was the movie production vs paying the popular actors. There are just too may weird data points for popular film costs. For example each of Friends got ~$1M per episode in the last season, so that's $108M ($146M with inflation adjustment) just for main cast in season 10, vs $220M for "the Avengers". So the mission cost less than main characters in later seasons is Friends.

mikeash 7y ago

It’s fair to compare the prices of anything. This mission cost way more than a bottle of water, and way less than the market cap of BP. Both entirely fair comparisons. Where it gets tricky is what conclusions you draw from those comparisons.

kjeetgill 7y ago
> Both entirely fair comparisons. Where it gets tricky is what conclusions you draw from those comparisons. Brilliantly put, I need to commit that to memory. It reminds of the saying: "All models are wrong, some models are useful".
- mikeash 7y ago
  I don't deserve to be in such esteemed company, but I'm glad you like it.