3 ms·
My mistake. Amortizing the numbers, it comes out to more like 2.5% annually. https://www.herkulesprojekt.de/en/is-there-a-master-plan/the-moon-landing.html http
by shadowgovt 3y ago
My mistake. Amortizing the numbers, it comes out to more like 2.5% annually. https://www.herkulesprojekt.de/en/is-there-a-master-plan/the-moon-landing.html https://www.herkulesprojekt.de/en/is-there-a-master-plan/the...
... so the question stands. How much are we willing to spend, and do we think it will actually damage either the economy or people's quality-of-life (when having a major industrial project in fact creates job and business opportunities, historically speaking)?
- AlbertCory 3y agoClever of you to acknowledge but then glide over the wild exaggeration there. Still wrong, though: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1022937/history-nasa-budget-1959-2020/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1022937/history-nasa-bud... 1965 NASA budget in billions: $5.25 (the peak year) 1965 GDP: $743 billion giving us a NASA budget of 0.007 of GDP, or 0.7%
- shadowgovt 3y agoApollo project is generally considered to have cost $25 billion, not $5 billion. Still, if we consider 0.007 of GDP in modern numbers, that's 2.65 trillion (2023) * 0.007 --> $18 billion. The fossil fuel industry receives $760 billion in subsidy. We're already spending more on energy; we're just spending it on the wrong energy.
- AlbertCory 3y agoYou need to just admit error, not pivot. 5B is for 1965 alone, the peak year. As I said. 25B is the total over all years.
- shadowgovt 3y agoError admitted. Now about the point, which is "How much should we be willing to spend on something that may be life-or-death for much of humanity?" Because, again, $760 billion in fossil fuel subsidy. A tenth of that for renewables.
- AlbertCory 3y agoOK, thanks. It was pretty easy to look up NASA budgets and GDP's. I haven't studied energy subsidies, though, so maybe someone else wants to jump in.