3 ms·

Who said "investment"? That's not a phrase that anyone here used prior to you bringing it up. Blue-sky science/hard science is not a financial instrument that

by paulmd 4y ago

Who said "investment"? That's not a phrase that anyone here used prior to you bringing it up. Blue-sky science/hard science is not a financial instrument that you can reasonably expect to generate a 10x ROI on a predictable timeline, that's why it's blue-sky research, but it's nonetheless extremely important. Due to the lack of an immediately apparent profit incentive, it's one of those things that more or less has to be socialized or it doesn't happen. If there was an expectation of this leading to a better kleenex within 5 years then for-profit enterprises would already be doing it. But there isn't, yet there are still scientifically important questions to be answered by performing the research.

quest88 4y ago
Lol what. It's the title of the article. OP said "It is", referring to the title, that it is a good investment. "Most Americans think NASA’s $10 billion space telescope is a good investment" in case you missed it.
- paulmd 4y ago
  That doesn't seem to carry the implication of an expected return-on-investment in a financial sense. Something can be a good investment and nonetheless operate at a loss. So to answer your question: the expected return is fundamental/hard science being performed that will lead to potential (but unknown) improvements to our understanding of astronomy, physics, and generally speaking our understanding of the fundamental fabric of our universe. It's also unclear why you replied to me if your comment was directed at the title of the article and not to anything I said in particular. Sheesh, typical Hacker News, like you really really needed someone to personally explain the concept of blue-sky/hard-science? Good afternoon to you too, mister roboto.
  - quest88 4y ago
    You said "It is". I was replying to you because you said it was a good investment, and I was questioning you why - to justify your opinion. The point is that I disagree that it is a good investment. The investment is gambling with unfavorable odds - we're hoping we get something out of it. Even if we learn something new from astronomy..so what? There are many problems on earth that could use $10B or more of NASAs space budget that have direct impact on lives.

by paulmd 4y ago

quest88 4y ago

Lol what. It's the title of the article. OP said "It is", referring to the title, that it is a good investment. "Most Americans think NASA’s $10 billion space telescope is a good investment" in case you missed it.

paulmd 4y ago
That doesn't seem to carry the implication of an expected return-on-investment in a financial sense. Something can be a good investment and nonetheless operate at a loss. So to answer your question: the expected return is fundamental/hard science being performed that will lead to potential (but unknown) improvements to our understanding of astronomy, physics, and generally speaking our understanding of the fundamental fabric of our universe. It's also unclear why you replied to me if your comment was directed at the title of the article and not to anything I said in particular. Sheesh, typical Hacker News, like you really really needed someone to personally explain the concept of blue-sky/hard-science? Good afternoon to you too, mister roboto.
- quest88 4y ago
  You said "It is". I was replying to you because you said it was a good investment, and I was questioning you why - to justify your opinion. The point is that I disagree that it is a good investment. The investment is gambling with unfavorable odds - we're hoping we get something out of it. Even if we learn something new from astronomy..so what? There are many problems on earth that could use $10B or more of NASAs space budget that have direct impact on lives.