8 ms·

How is consuming billions of dollars of the time of talented specialists a good thing in and of itself? There's an argument that it's the best possible thing t

by bcoates 13y ago

How is consuming billions of dollars of the time of talented specialists a good thing in and of itself? There's an argument that it's the best possible thing they could be doing, or that India's space program is extremely cost effective, etc. But an expenditure is a loss not a gain--otherwise we could make ourselves rich by breaking all the windows in the world.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
kamakazizuru 13y ago
I really tried to understand this - but completely fail to. Can you try and make any sense at all? How in the world is something productive - that leads to mankind as a whole gaining knowledge and information AND to India bolstering national pride and marketing itself as a Space logistics provider to the world - even remotely comparable to breaking windows? Geez - by your logic everyone should keep money in their mattress and go to bed.
- fspeech 13y ago
  The leading comment stated that expenditure is not cost. In that context the response is to the point. Your argument that it is a cost-benefit analysis is of course correct. But that is consistent with arguing that one can not simply wave the cost away as if it is not real.
- anopows 13y ago
  I think what he refers to is the broken window fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window It is not about, if the US space program was better/worse than the Indian one. But that we don't know the alternative outcome of a lot of smart people working, not on the space program, but on many different fields that could lead to a greater outcome than this one project (the work would be less visible to the public than one shiny big project but in the end there is (in my opinion) more gain for the people, because the market responds generally better to the needs of people than a bureaucracy)
  - kamakazizuru 13y ago
    yes but that makes a large assumption that those smart people would rather work on something else. there isnt much stopping them from going elsewhere and working on space programs - if thats what they'd rather do. this way the country is atleast keeping those folks around - and making sure the money stays within the economy.
    - anopows 13y ago
      I will link to mikeash comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6692694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6692694 Money is not equal wealth. You can spend money in a circle of two people a thousand times, that doesn't make the two richer. Or you can add 0's at the end of all bills, that doesn't make anyone more rich either. I think it's more reasonable if we focus on wealth and not on money in this discussion.
jlgreco 13y ago
> How is consuming billions of dollars of the time of talented specialists a good thing in and of itself? Well, I didn't say that it is, I just argued that it wasn't a negative thing. Wealth was not destroyed or sent away to some far off land, just shuffled around within the same country. I will say that it is now though: One of India's greatest assets is their production of quality engineers and scientists. The more money they can dump into engineering and scientific endeavors, the better. Unlike breaking windows and then replacing them with identical windows, programs such as these actually create something: experience and expertise. In evoking the broken windows parable, you are mistaking a rocket for a window. Space programs do not destroy wealth to move money around. Perhaps if we senselessly knocked down a few buildings every time we built a rocket, you might have a point; space programs aren't "cash for clunkers", we aren't destroying wealth (old cars) to encourage the exchange of money (buying new cars).
- fspeech 13y ago
  Opportunity cost is the equivalence of wealth lost.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    The opportunity cost of giving money to the ISRO is lower than what they would have done with that money otherwise. Money sent to the ISRO is an investment in India's domestic STEM talent. There are few better ways they could have possibly spent that money.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Wealth was destroyed and sent to some far off land, specifically to space and to Mars. The wealth is not the money, it's the spacecraft. The return may well be worth the cost, but it's wrong to say that wealth was simply moved around within India. Money was moved around within India. Wealth was concentrated into a small package and then blasted into space, never to be seen again.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    "the vast majority of money spent on space exploration is spent on earth." The wealth, or money, represented by the physical spacecraft is a rounding error. The thing isn't made of gold bullion. Wealth was used to develop and exercise engineering talent. Wealth was converted into talent, not a spacecraft. Those engineers were not sent to mars, some largely inconsequential piece of metal was. The wealth remains on earth, in India. If I spend money to take a bunch of CS classes at community college, then at the end of that do `rm -rf ~/files/school/cs`, did I just delete wealth? Of course not. The wealth was not concentrated into that directory, it was not lost or destroyed when I sent it off into oblivion.
gsk 13y ago
An oft-repeated well-meaning but rather ignorant objection. Read this http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html
mkr-hn 13y ago
History. It's rare to put a lot of smart people on the same program and not produce something with enormous social and commercial benefit. DARPA's little side project still produces new things decades after the initial investment.

by bcoates 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

kamakazizuru 13y ago

I really tried to understand this - but completely fail to. Can you try and make any sense at all? How in the world is something productive - that leads to mankind as a whole gaining knowledge and information AND to India bolstering national pride and marketing itself as a Space logistics provider to the world - even remotely comparable to breaking windows? Geez - by your logic everyone should keep money in their mattress and go to bed.

fspeech 13y ago
The leading comment stated that expenditure is not cost. In that context the response is to the point. Your argument that it is a cost-benefit analysis is of course correct. But that is consistent with arguing that one can not simply wave the cost away as if it is not real.
anopows 13y ago
I think what he refers to is the broken window fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window It is not about, if the US space program was better/worse than the Indian one. But that we don't know the alternative outcome of a lot of smart people working, not on the space program, but on many different fields that could lead to a greater outcome than this one project (the work would be less visible to the public than one shiny big project but in the end there is (in my opinion) more gain for the people, because the market responds generally better to the needs of people than a bureaucracy)
- kamakazizuru 13y ago
  yes but that makes a large assumption that those smart people would rather work on something else. there isnt much stopping them from going elsewhere and working on space programs - if thats what they'd rather do. this way the country is atleast keeping those folks around - and making sure the money stays within the economy.
  - anopows 13y ago
    I will link to mikeash comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6692694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6692694 Money is not equal wealth. You can spend money in a circle of two people a thousand times, that doesn't make the two richer. Or you can add 0's at the end of all bills, that doesn't make anyone more rich either. I think it's more reasonable if we focus on wealth and not on money in this discussion.

jlgreco 13y ago

> How is consuming billions of dollars of the time of talented specialists a good thing in and of itself? Well, I didn't say that it is, I just argued that it wasn't a negative thing. Wealth was not destroyed or sent away to some far off land, just shuffled around within the same country. I will say that it is now though: One of India's greatest assets is their production of quality engineers and scientists. The more money they can dump into engineering and scientific endeavors, the better. Unlike breaking windows and then replacing them with identical windows, programs such as these actually create something: experience and expertise. In evoking the broken windows parable, you are mistaking a rocket for a window. Space programs do not destroy wealth to move money around. Perhaps if we senselessly knocked down a few buildings every time we built a rocket, you might have a point; space programs aren't "cash for clunkers", we aren't destroying wealth (old cars) to encourage the exchange of money (buying new cars).

fspeech 13y ago
Opportunity cost is the equivalence of wealth lost.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  The opportunity cost of giving money to the ISRO is lower than what they would have done with that money otherwise. Money sent to the ISRO is an investment in India's domestic STEM talent. There are few better ways they could have possibly spent that money.
mikeash 13y ago
Wealth was destroyed and sent to some far off land, specifically to space and to Mars. The wealth is not the money, it's the spacecraft. The return may well be worth the cost, but it's wrong to say that wealth was simply moved around within India. Money was moved around within India. Wealth was concentrated into a small package and then blasted into space, never to be seen again.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  "the vast majority of money spent on space exploration is spent on earth." The wealth, or money, represented by the physical spacecraft is a rounding error. The thing isn't made of gold bullion. Wealth was used to develop and exercise engineering talent. Wealth was converted into talent, not a spacecraft. Those engineers were not sent to mars, some largely inconsequential piece of metal was. The wealth remains on earth, in India. If I spend money to take a bunch of CS classes at community college, then at the end of that do `rm -rf ~/files/school/cs`, did I just delete wealth? Of course not. The wealth was not concentrated into that directory, it was not lost or destroyed when I sent it off into oblivion.

gsk 13y ago

An oft-repeated well-meaning but rather ignorant objection. Read this http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html

mkr-hn 13y ago

History. It's rare to put a lot of smart people on the same program and not produce something with enormous social and commercial benefit. DARPA's little side project still produces new things decades after the initial investment.