3 ms·
That the price was 10 billion does not mean the cost was that. They might even make a profit since they sell the sponsorships, broadcasting rights and tickets n
by tinco 14y ago
That the price was 10 billion does not mean the cost was that. They might even make a profit since they sell the sponsorships, broadcasting rights and tickets not to mention the stimulus of the local economy.
Sinking 2 billion into something that yields no direct monetary profit, that's a bold move for any country. They did not even sell broadcasting rights!
- lonnyk 14y ago>Sinking 2 billion into something that yields no direct monetary profit, that's a bold move for any country. You need to look at what is spun off from the projects. If you look at that I'm sure the 2 billion will seem like a pitance. http://spinoff.nasa.gov/spinoff/database http://spinoff.nasa.gov/spinoff/database
- arethuza 14y agoSomehow I suspect the long-term economic benefits of investing in the technology capable of sending the Curiosity rover to Mars are greater than those from building some sports buildings that are pretty much exactly the same as some built 4 years ago in another city and will be repeated again in another 4 years in some other city.
- drgath 14y ago> Sinking 2 billion into something that yields no direct monetary profit, that's a bold move for any country. Correct that there is no direct return on investment. However, some experts have claimed for every dollar spent on the Apollo program, we got $10 back in public benefit. It's really difficult to measure this stuff accurately, but the point to take away is that there is quite a lot to gained in technology, PR, and cash by doing inspiring & challenging science.
- evincarofautumn 14y agoThat’s why solving hard technical problems can be a good business move—it’s not necessarily the solutions themselves, but the by-products of creating those solutions that have lasting value.