4 ms·

450M just for building the robot seems a bit steep; its not like they're actually getting it to the moon for that price. How much cheaper is it than just sendin

450M just for building the robot seems a bit steep; its not like they're actually getting it to the moon for that price. How much cheaper is it than just sending 3 dudes in a tin can to just dig the holes themselves? Edit: I guess NASA says manned missions will cost billions. Still seems like half a billion is a lot for a glorified DJI drone thats only gotta make it to the moon lol. Regardless, money spent towards any space project tends to be money well spent, so compared to all the other spending I'd like to complain about, this isn't even on the radar.

esalman 2y ago
The risk of losing 3 dudes is greater than $450m.
- AcerbicZero 2y ago
  Risk avoidance has its place, but fear didn't get us to the moon the first time and I'm confident it wont work this time either.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  You're probably right in this specific example, or at least you're probably in-line with NASA's leadership's thinking. I am willing to bet that other parts of society (e.g. traffic planners and automobile manufacturers) have a much lower cost of human life.
  - __s 2y ago
    For NASA the cost of dead people includes bad PR
    - rvnx 2y ago
      Not really, SpaceX would just sell that as an unscheduled disassembly + “we collected data”. It’s widely accepted that you may die going to space in experimental vehicles, nobody ever said it would be safe, and nobody can reasonably think it is risk-free. Apollo 1 folks died, not a problem for reputation of NASA.
- doytch 2y ago
  People put valuations on lives all the time in risk analysis and I've never seen a cost even close to $100m. DOT puts it at 13.2m: https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-...
  - rvnx 2y ago
    Finding someone who agrees to go to the moon with a risk of 1 out 2 of dying, and 1 of 2 of becoming a historical hero is really doable. Plenty of volunteers, and no need for 100M USD. People go to war for less than 50K USD.
    - talldatethrow 2y ago
      The odds of dying in a war are less than 1 in 2, and for joining the military in general it is far far less.
      - rvnx 2y ago
        ?! I was like, "oh really?" and I checked... you're right, "a German soldier had approximately a 1 in 3 chance of dying during the WW2 conflict" Dying to protect a political system vs dying to advance science, better pick science.
        talldatethrow 2y ago
        And that is an exceptional example. For most modern wars or major conflicts it's nowhere near as bad as 1 in 3.
      - BJones12 2y ago
        In WWII young men volunteered to join RAF bomber crews and faced an almost 1-in-2 chance of dying, with a far higher chance of getting wounded or captured.
    - esalman 2y ago
justinator 2y ago
If the documentary, "Armageddon" taught me anything, they'll do it if you just agree that they never have to pay taxes again, they can sleep in the Lincoln bedroom, and that you will cancel out a few parking tickets.
tjohns 2y ago
You're paying for provably guaranteed reliability. When you're paying billions per rocket launch, you simply can't afford to have your robot break down on day 1 because of a software bug or because a component was accidently installed upside down. (Also, "only gotta make it to the moon" makes it sound like that's a trivial task. There's a lot to unpack in that small sentence.)
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  You can if you send 10 cheap robots instead of one half-billion dollar one.
  - p0wn 2y ago
    weight
choilive 2y ago
I think you underestimate the engineering complexity a bit of these rovers :)
com2kid 2y ago
The very first Apple Watch cost a billion dollars to make. Costs got quickly amortized after that first unit. If NASA was in the habit of building hundreds of robots at a time, the cost per unit would drop dramatically.
- DaoVeles 2y ago
  When you put it in that context, the rovers look like an absolute bargain!
antonvs 2y ago
> a glorified DJI drone Where "glorified" means "can withstand temperature, radiation, and dust conditions that would brick a DJI drone in short order.

esalman 2y ago

The risk of losing 3 dudes is greater than $450m.

AcerbicZero 2y ago
Risk avoidance has its place, but fear didn't get us to the moon the first time and I'm confident it wont work this time either.
ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
You're probably right in this specific example, or at least you're probably in-line with NASA's leadership's thinking. I am willing to bet that other parts of society (e.g. traffic planners and automobile manufacturers) have a much lower cost of human life.
- __s 2y ago
  For NASA the cost of dead people includes bad PR
  - rvnx 2y ago
    Not really, SpaceX would just sell that as an unscheduled disassembly + “we collected data”. It’s widely accepted that you may die going to space in experimental vehicles, nobody ever said it would be safe, and nobody can reasonably think it is risk-free. Apollo 1 folks died, not a problem for reputation of NASA.
doytch 2y ago
People put valuations on lives all the time in risk analysis and I've never seen a cost even close to $100m. DOT puts it at 13.2m: https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-...
- rvnx 2y ago
  Finding someone who agrees to go to the moon with a risk of 1 out 2 of dying, and 1 of 2 of becoming a historical hero is really doable. Plenty of volunteers, and no need for 100M USD. People go to war for less than 50K USD.
  - talldatethrow 2y ago
    The odds of dying in a war are less than 1 in 2, and for joining the military in general it is far far less.
    - rvnx 2y ago
      ?! I was like, "oh really?" and I checked... you're right, "a German soldier had approximately a 1 in 3 chance of dying during the WW2 conflict" Dying to protect a political system vs dying to advance science, better pick science.
      - talldatethrow 2y ago
        And that is an exceptional example. For most modern wars or major conflicts it's nowhere near as bad as 1 in 3.
    - BJones12 2y ago
      In WWII young men volunteered to join RAF bomber crews and faced an almost 1-in-2 chance of dying, with a far higher chance of getting wounded or captured.
  - esalman 2y ago

justinator 2y ago

If the documentary, "Armageddon" taught me anything, they'll do it if you just agree that they never have to pay taxes again, they can sleep in the Lincoln bedroom, and that you will cancel out a few parking tickets.

tjohns 2y ago

You're paying for provably guaranteed reliability. When you're paying billions per rocket launch, you simply can't afford to have your robot break down on day 1 because of a software bug or because a component was accidently installed upside down. (Also, "only gotta make it to the moon" makes it sound like that's a trivial task. There's a lot to unpack in that small sentence.)

CamperBob2 2y ago
You can if you send 10 cheap robots instead of one half-billion dollar one.
- p0wn 2y ago
  weight

choilive 2y ago

I think you underestimate the engineering complexity a bit of these rovers :)

com2kid 2y ago

The very first Apple Watch cost a billion dollars to make. Costs got quickly amortized after that first unit. If NASA was in the habit of building hundreds of robots at a time, the cost per unit would drop dramatically.

DaoVeles 2y ago
When you put it in that context, the rovers look like an absolute bargain!

antonvs 2y ago

> a glorified DJI drone Where "glorified" means "can withstand temperature, radiation, and dust conditions that would brick a DJI drone in short order.