3 ms·
For (what I feel is) a more useful figure, let's look at NASA: > Annual budget ... when measured in real terms (adjusted for inflation), the figure is $790.0 b
by taspeotis 13y ago
For (what I feel is) a more useful figure, let's look at NASA:
> Annual budget ... when measured in real terms (adjusted for inflation), the figure is $790.0 billion, or an average of $15.818 billion per year over its fifty-year history. [1]
So WhatsApp is like 1.2 years worth of NASA.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
- rwmj 13y agoWe're talking space exploration, not going round and round in circles 200 miles away (OK with a bit of robot exploration on the side at a tiny fraction of the cost).
- agentultra 13y agoI thought the article and the whole blog to be a rather fun and cheeky counter-point to the argument that space exploration is too expensive. As a total of US budget, NASA's expenses represented less than one half of one percent in 2012. We've spent more money on things other than space exploration that, depending on who you ask, has far less social value.
- maxerickson 13y agoIt's possible to coherently argue against multiple types of spending. Given the vagaries of Congress, arguing against any spending you don't like is probably even a more sensible strategy than arguing first against the ones you like the least.
- DanielleMolloy 13y agoTo put it into one more perspective: ESA's Rosetta mission[1] ran over more than 20 years now and had a total cost of $1.4 billions (spacecraft, launch, instruments, lander, operations), which is 1/14 of WhatsApp. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(spacecraft) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(spacecraft) (wake-up of the probe happened this January)