5 ms·

I find it fascinating that people in 2023 argue with „resource constraints“ when talking about scientific projects. Those guys working on that are experts, they

by RicDan 3y ago

I find it fascinating that people in 2023 argue with „resource constraints“ when talking about scientific projects. Those guys working on that are experts, they wouldnt do much else, the money spent on this is comparatively a joke in comparison to other spendings with much more questionable reasoning, and starting to question the gain of a project in the scientific space is never really an argument; it lies within the basic idea of science to question and reach out of our comfort zone

p-e-w 3y ago
> starting to question the gain of a project in the scientific space is never really an argument It most certainly is, at least in the real world. The ISS has cost more than $150 billion so far. That's not "a joke", it's the GDP of a mid-size country. I very much do hope that everyone involved is asking themselves hard questions about whether this expense is justified by whatever has been gained in return. Science is not a magical la-la-land where people have the right to piss away truckloads of public money on projects they feel are important, simply by virtue of invoking vague platitudes about the "need for humanity to know". There are an endless number of scientific projects all looking for resources to fund them. If (potential) gain isn't the right criterion for prioritization, then I don't know what is.
- smallnix 3y ago
  It's also about curiosity and fun. The public can fund something they find interesting for the sake of it.
- scrollaway 3y ago
  > The ISS has cost more than $150 billion so far. Wow, a whole three "midlife crisis ceo twitter buyouts".
  - bshipp 3y ago
    It'd be cathartic if our kids referred to a gigantic financial blunder in the billions of dollars as pulling an "Elon".
- robga 3y ago
  > The ISS has cost more than $150 billion so far. The UK's "High Speed 2" project is currently budgeted to cost about $125 billion for its ~300mi extent. I very much do hope that everyone involved is asking themselves hard questions about whether this expense is justified by whatever has been gained in return. The UK is not a magical la-la-land where people have the right to piss away truckloads of public money on projects they feel are important, simply by virtue of invoking vague platitudes about the "need to reduce journey time from 71 to 52 minutes". The ISS seems like a bargain.
  - no_wizard 3y ago
    Science spending is small in comparison to the the subsidies that get handed out every year to just the banking industry
  - RicDan 3y ago
    And people only looking at the ISS as a "science experiment" are seriously misunderstanding the social impacts as well, especially when it comes to operations that span multiple countries and the relations between them. It's a public spot of cooperation that helps us not only when it comes to science, but when it comes to agree with each other.
mynonameaccount 3y ago
It's never really an argument for you and yet we are still arguing. SETI is a waste of money. I guess those experts will have to just sit and twiddle their fingers because "they wouldnt do much else". Money wasted is money wasted, doesn't matter how much it is. Sure, for people like you, it's easy to waste other people's money.

by RicDan 3y ago

p-e-w 3y ago

> starting to question the gain of a project in the scientific space is never really an argument It most certainly is, at least in the real world. The ISS has cost more than $150 billion so far. That's not "a joke", it's the GDP of a mid-size country. I very much do hope that everyone involved is asking themselves hard questions about whether this expense is justified by whatever has been gained in return. Science is not a magical la-la-land where people have the right to piss away truckloads of public money on projects they feel are important, simply by virtue of invoking vague platitudes about the "need for humanity to know". There are an endless number of scientific projects all looking for resources to fund them. If (potential) gain isn't the right criterion for prioritization, then I don't know what is.

smallnix 3y ago
It's also about curiosity and fun. The public can fund something they find interesting for the sake of it.
scrollaway 3y ago
> The ISS has cost more than $150 billion so far. Wow, a whole three "midlife crisis ceo twitter buyouts".
- bshipp 3y ago
  It'd be cathartic if our kids referred to a gigantic financial blunder in the billions of dollars as pulling an "Elon".
robga 3y ago
> The ISS has cost more than $150 billion so far. The UK's "High Speed 2" project is currently budgeted to cost about $125 billion for its ~300mi extent. I very much do hope that everyone involved is asking themselves hard questions about whether this expense is justified by whatever has been gained in return. The UK is not a magical la-la-land where people have the right to piss away truckloads of public money on projects they feel are important, simply by virtue of invoking vague platitudes about the "need to reduce journey time from 71 to 52 minutes". The ISS seems like a bargain.
- no_wizard 3y ago
  Science spending is small in comparison to the the subsidies that get handed out every year to just the banking industry
- RicDan 3y ago
  And people only looking at the ISS as a "science experiment" are seriously misunderstanding the social impacts as well, especially when it comes to operations that span multiple countries and the relations between them. It's a public spot of cooperation that helps us not only when it comes to science, but when it comes to agree with each other.

mynonameaccount 3y ago

It's never really an argument for you and yet we are still arguing. SETI is a waste of money. I guess those experts will have to just sit and twiddle their fingers because "they wouldnt do much else". Money wasted is money wasted, doesn't matter how much it is. Sure, for people like you, it's easy to waste other people's money.