4 ms·

I don't understand. $50K being asked by professors and PhD students? They certainly enjoy funds orders of magnitude more. $50K is like two YC startups' seed mon

I don't understand. $50K being asked by professors and PhD students? They certainly enjoy funds orders of magnitude more. $50K is like two YC startups' seed money. Why do they want it? Can't they self-fund it? Or do they just want other people to share the glory? Isn't the equipment shown in the video worth as much, or probably more?

notahacker 13y ago
$50k is also a rounding error in the budgets of national space agencies and private sector players in the space industry, many of whom might be interested in a magical and revolutionary propulsion technology that could - if possible to extend to larger satellites - dramatically increase the design life of existing satellites and reduce the risk of failing to attain the desired orbit.
- robotresearcher 13y ago
  The piles of money at NASA, DOE, etc. are already allocated to things. They employ a lot of people on strategic projects. There is extreme competition for the small fraction that is available for new bids at any one time.
nhangen 13y ago
"While we have obtained some external funding, this mission may never happen without your help." I suppose I get it, but I thought Kickstarter campaigns required a deliverable end result as a result of contributions?
- maxerickson 13y ago
  What do you mean by deliverable? "There will be a camera for science" is an end result.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    He means a link between, you donate, they make product. You donate, they achieve X with your money. This one reads more like, "We have vague plans and lots of money but we need more, please contribute to our slush fund". As best I can tell, the direct impact of the kickstarter funds will be paying for a camera to put on a launch vehicle to watch the CAT engine, but it's not very clear.
    - nhangen 13y ago
      You said it better than I could. Exactly this.
robotresearcher 13y ago
Why do people think funding science is easy? "They certainly enjoy funds orders of magnitude more." Certainly? If they had the money already they wouldn't be asking for it. Perhaps they have had this proposal declined once or twice by the agencies. Science is very competitive and the majority of proposals are not successful: 10% acceptance rates are not unusual. It's also highly winner-take-all since winning funding tends to generate output which tends to attract more funding. "$50K is like two YC startups' seed money." Which is loaned in expectation of a return. Science funding is a gift in the hope of a long term strategic advantage. The government doesn't just hand out $50K to Prof. Doe on request. Besides, $50K would barely support one PhD student-year with 50% overhead and tuition. Researcher profs spend a large proportion of their time on grant writing and only the best are successful, and while it does come in large chunks when it comes (in the US), the expected value of each application is not high. It's much easier for the currently in-vogue fields than others. It's also hugely easier if you have a little industrial funding, as there are many matching programs. This means getting the attention of the industrial players, if there are any in your field. Very time consuming!

notahacker 13y ago

$50k is also a rounding error in the budgets of national space agencies and private sector players in the space industry, many of whom might be interested in a magical and revolutionary propulsion technology that could - if possible to extend to larger satellites - dramatically increase the design life of existing satellites and reduce the risk of failing to attain the desired orbit.

robotresearcher 13y ago
The piles of money at NASA, DOE, etc. are already allocated to things. They employ a lot of people on strategic projects. There is extreme competition for the small fraction that is available for new bids at any one time.

nhangen 13y ago

"While we have obtained some external funding, this mission may never happen without your help." I suppose I get it, but I thought Kickstarter campaigns required a deliverable end result as a result of contributions?

maxerickson 13y ago
What do you mean by deliverable? "There will be a camera for science" is an end result.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  He means a link between, you donate, they make product. You donate, they achieve X with your money. This one reads more like, "We have vague plans and lots of money but we need more, please contribute to our slush fund". As best I can tell, the direct impact of the kickstarter funds will be paying for a camera to put on a launch vehicle to watch the CAT engine, but it's not very clear.
  - nhangen 13y ago
    You said it better than I could. Exactly this.

robotresearcher 13y ago

Why do people think funding science is easy? "They certainly enjoy funds orders of magnitude more." Certainly? If they had the money already they wouldn't be asking for it. Perhaps they have had this proposal declined once or twice by the agencies. Science is very competitive and the majority of proposals are not successful: 10% acceptance rates are not unusual. It's also highly winner-take-all since winning funding tends to generate output which tends to attract more funding. "$50K is like two YC startups' seed money." Which is loaned in expectation of a return. Science funding is a gift in the hope of a long term strategic advantage. The government doesn't just hand out $50K to Prof. Doe on request. Besides, $50K would barely support one PhD student-year with 50% overhead and tuition. Researcher profs spend a large proportion of their time on grant writing and only the best are successful, and while it does come in large chunks when it comes (in the US), the expected value of each application is not high. It's much easier for the currently in-vogue fields than others. It's also hugely easier if you have a little industrial funding, as there are many matching programs. This means getting the attention of the industrial players, if there are any in your field. Very time consuming!