Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by sambeau 5458 days ago
Interesting points from Prof. Brian Cox:

  * NASA costs less than 0.13% of  GDP 
    and provides 9x return on investment

  * The entire Shuttle Program cost approximately 
    the same as the UK bank bailout

  * The Iraq conflict so far has cost significantly 
    more than a manned mission to Mars
Source:

https://twitter.com/profbriancox/status/88955884390195202

https://twitter.com/profbriancox/status/88956654539902976

https://twitter.com/profbriancox/status/88957802281840640

2 comments

I nearly vomitted when I read this story on NPR saying that we've spent more on air conditioning in the Afghan war -- around 20 billion -- than NASA's yearly budget.

Fucking politicians.

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-w...

Edit: I understand that the 20 billion figure includes the cost of infrastructure needed to put that air conditioning in place -- fuel for transport, roads that will be unmaintained or actively destroyed soon after the U.S. leaves, etc. Each piece is more frustrating than the last.

I wonder how he comes to the conclusion of 9x return. I think that we ought to invest in dragons instead and that they would bring returns in orders of magnitude greater than any space program, plus they live longer.

Source: http://blog.mises.org/6512/socialist-calculation-versus-magi...

Your link isn't even about NASA, it's just an ideological discussion (and not a particularly coherent one). For reference, here's a list of NASA spin-offs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off

It's not hard to see the multiplier effect of our investment in NASA.

Like I said in another related post, the Ludwig von Mises Institute is not the place you go for coherent discussions. The sooner we drop it as a source of discussion arguments, the better.
The 9x return is nonetheless unsourced and likely to be the results of some fuzzy accounting.
Downvoted for referring mises.org.