[kiba]

They are engineering projects, rather than something that discovers something new, per se. Even so, extending our capability to explore space allow us to do more scientific research, rather than less of it. With the advent of electric vechicle, the money that went to buying gas and doing maintenance can be better spent on something else.

[_delirium]

Yeah, I think SpaceX's main win is that they're taking tech that has existed in various forms for decades, and updating/optimizing it. That's not quite the same as aerospace research, but it's useful. Of course, the research is also needed, or there would be no existing designs and prototypes to update/optimize, which is a big part of why they can do their work more cheaply.

[WalterBright]

Lots of research projects in the past were underwritten by rich people for the lulz, or by newspapers in exchange for exclusive stories to sell.

I've often wondered why big corporations, as marketing, don't finance something like launching another Hubble space telescope. The corporate logo would go on the side, the corporation could host a conference to collect and analyze the results, it would be fantastic PR (instead of those silly commercials and celebrity endorsements they spend so much money on).

[HarryHirsch]

I've often wondered why big corporations, as marketing, don't finance something like launching another Hubble space telescope.

It's because flagship spacecraft and things like the LHC are projects that require a budget of several billions and a 25-year commitment. This kind of budget is within reach only of a wealthy nation with stable finances and a stable political system.

I think the budget explanation also explains the pharmco crisis. It takes about a billion and a decade to bring a drug to market, and that's why you see statins, antidepressants and antidiabetics in the pipeline. Meanwhile, antibiotic resistances are going to be a public health crisis, and Chagas disease, sleeping sickness and malaria are major killers in the developing world. A new model is needed here; we don't need to try coroprate sponsorship in space when it's already failing on Earth.

[WalterBright]

> This kind of budget is within reach only of a wealthy nation with stable finances and a stable political system.

The LHC, yes, various probes, no. I read that the beachball Mars lander was $250m. Another Hubble could be built for far less than the original, because it is a known design.

These are well within the abilities of many billionaires and their corporations.

[HarryHirsch]

The beachball lander? That must be Mars Pathfinder. Pathfinder was just a technology demonstrator for the Spirit and Opportunity rovers, and the science return was rather thin - about a dozen spectrographic analyses of rocks, half a year's worth of weather data, and a few hundred pretty pictures.

The real mission was Spirit and Opportunity, and those two are a giant success. With USD 900 million the price tag is four times higher, and this is getting out of reach of even the ultrawealthy.

[WalterBright]

900m is well within the reach of even a decabillionaire. Especially one who wants to be famous.

Consider also the billions thrown around for acquisitions.

And consider that the rovers were on the national news for months. What's that kind of PR worth?