4 ms·

Because many small steps are required before every giant leap. I would like to point out that the current misadventure in the ME has cost at least $38,035,856,

Because many small steps are required before every giant leap. I would like to point out that the current misadventure in the ME has cost at least $38,035,856,006 in 32 days. And that won't receive half of the "this is a waste of money" critiques this mission will. And there are a ton of people who are against that excursion. Most people who will come across this will react with either extreme negativity or indifference. Very few people will react positively. This thread itself is evidence of that. This is a nerdy community filled with people who are deeply positive about space exploration and excluding my comments, the straw poll was, ~81 positive (48%), ~43 negative (25%), ~45 neutral (27%). Only a plurality of comments were positive. 88 comments were neutral or negative.

MarkusWandel 7mo ago
When I see numbers like that ($38 billion) thrown around I always wonder: Where did that money go? In the best case, it stayed in the economy in the form of salaries and such. In the worst case, it goes directly into an offshore pile of mega-wealth where it won't benefit the economy and likely won't even be taxed. Is there any way to determine where on this continuum this program stands? I'm guessing the 1960s space program, while incredibly expensive, was firmly on the "money stays in the economy" side.
- chromacity 7mo ago
  That kind of money, even if it goes to a single person, doesn't get taken out of the economy. No one puts it under the mattress. It's invested, so it's basically given to other people in exchange for a promise of equity / future returns. It might not be the allocation of capital we like, but it doesn't disappear.
  - gnatolf 7mo ago
    Well, there is a financial 'sink' - stockpiles and ammunition or other non-reusable military gear are basically the definition of money 'destroyed'. Their political value is almost non-existent actual money. If any, at all.
    - chickenbig 7mo ago
      > stockpiles and ammunition or other non-reusable military gear are basically the definition of money 'destroyed' Goods like longer-lasting food, medical supplies or a strategic oil reserve are not wasted. The money that went into supplying them has gone back into the economy, and they serve a more strategic purpose than the market participants could have borne (i.e. societal insurance policies). The same could also be said of military stockpiles, and continuing to buy them sustains a capability that is hard to get back once lost.
    - NetMageSCW 7mo ago
      Those stockpiles weren’t created by putting money into a shredder and getting ammunition out. They were created by paying for the materials and labor. At that point the government’s money is frozen and stockpiled, but the economy still has the money that was spent.
  - karmakurtisaani 7mo ago
    > No one puts it under the mattress. It's invested, so it's basically given to other people in exchange for a promise of equity / future returns. You make wealth concentration sound like a good thing somehow. This was publicly collected tax money, that will go on to enrich some already rich douchebag.
    - NetMageSCW 7mo ago
      How will it go on to enrich someone else?
      - karmakurtisaani 7mo ago
        Invest in a company, collect dividends or capital gains.
- losvedir 7mo ago
  A lot of it is in between: it goes to building things that get unbuilt shortly after.

MarkusWandel 7mo ago

When I see numbers like that ($38 billion) thrown around I always wonder: Where did that money go? In the best case, it stayed in the economy in the form of salaries and such. In the worst case, it goes directly into an offshore pile of mega-wealth where it won't benefit the economy and likely won't even be taxed. Is there any way to determine where on this continuum this program stands? I'm guessing the 1960s space program, while incredibly expensive, was firmly on the "money stays in the economy" side.

chromacity 7mo ago
That kind of money, even if it goes to a single person, doesn't get taken out of the economy. No one puts it under the mattress. It's invested, so it's basically given to other people in exchange for a promise of equity / future returns. It might not be the allocation of capital we like, but it doesn't disappear.
- gnatolf 7mo ago
  Well, there is a financial 'sink' - stockpiles and ammunition or other non-reusable military gear are basically the definition of money 'destroyed'. Their political value is almost non-existent actual money. If any, at all.
  - chickenbig 7mo ago
    > stockpiles and ammunition or other non-reusable military gear are basically the definition of money 'destroyed' Goods like longer-lasting food, medical supplies or a strategic oil reserve are not wasted. The money that went into supplying them has gone back into the economy, and they serve a more strategic purpose than the market participants could have borne (i.e. societal insurance policies). The same could also be said of military stockpiles, and continuing to buy them sustains a capability that is hard to get back once lost.
  - NetMageSCW 7mo ago
    Those stockpiles weren’t created by putting money into a shredder and getting ammunition out. They were created by paying for the materials and labor. At that point the government’s money is frozen and stockpiled, but the economy still has the money that was spent.
- karmakurtisaani 7mo ago
  > No one puts it under the mattress. It's invested, so it's basically given to other people in exchange for a promise of equity / future returns. You make wealth concentration sound like a good thing somehow. This was publicly collected tax money, that will go on to enrich some already rich douchebag.
  - NetMageSCW 7mo ago
    How will it go on to enrich someone else?
    - karmakurtisaani 7mo ago
      Invest in a company, collect dividends or capital gains.
losvedir 7mo ago
A lot of it is in between: it goes to building things that get unbuilt shortly after.