Why India's Mars mission is so cheap – and thrilling • Hacker News Board

Re: Why India's Mars mission is so cheap – and thrilling

#151

Post by eric_cc » Thu, Sep 25, 2014, 4:10 PM UTC

nickik wrote: post #144

zizee wrote: post #24

Why do people always pass judgment on spending on things they don't agree with as if the money is destroyed. It's not like they pile all the cash onto the rocket and send it to space. Let's just forget for a moment that valuable skills and infrastructure are being created for India in this process and look at where the money is going. A large proportion of the expense of this mission goes to paying the wages of domes…

I dont agree, this is economly false. Im not particularly against investing in space stuff. > Let's just forget for a moment that valuable skills and infrastructure are being created for India This does not take into account what the money would have done otherwise. Since we can not know what the money otherwise would have been spent on its hard or impossilble to say it it is better for india. > A large proportion of…

While I can see what you're saying on an economic level, I can think of very few things more important than space on an objective level. On a personal level, I can think of nothing more important than space.

Re: Why India's Mars mission is so cheap – and thrilling

#152

Post by innguest » Thu, Sep 25, 2014, 4:17 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #149

nickik wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I generally agree with your post. However, > if something isn't immediately profitable, it won't be done, period, no matter the long-term benefits. This is not true. Many companys make huge amount of long term investments that will not be profitable for a while. Companys that fail to to do these kind of things will have long term problems when the market changes and they have nothing new to offer. > People like Elon…

> This is not true. Many companys make huge amount of long term investments that will not be profitable for a while. I guess it depends both on how long is the long term, and on the quantifiability of the returns of investment. There was a nice thread about it yesterday, with a wonderful quote: "My former boss (CTO of Panasonic) once told me that the only way to do real R&D is to have a monopoly that allows you to hi…

Not having to compete with anyone does not make a product cheaper, it makes it more expensive. Competition drives prices down. So the government having a monopoly over a service makes that service more expensive. Advertising is not a waste of resources, it is investment of resources - literally, money spent buying leads in order to try and convert them into customers.

> Look, capitalistic economy is a greedy optimization algorithm [...] if something isn't immediately profitable, it won't be done, period

Your "Look" and "period" intimidation tactics aside, what you are saying contradicts the way capitalism works. An enterprise only comes to be through savings, that are then invested. This in itself is inherently a long-term process that aims towards what will be profitable in the future. Capitalism only works through sacrificing short-term gains for long-term bigger gains. I have no idea where you got the skewed view that capitalism is myopic as you put it. Apple invests R&D on new products all the time and it funds it with its own money. If it had to pay taxes in the US it might not have been able to fund its own research, and then you'd see companies lobbying for R&D tax cuts, which then generate more waste through increased red tape.

> Tesla, he used his money to force this demand.

You're playing words games. Tesla bought rockets, that's it. He didn't "force the demand" for rockets, he increased it by 1 through wanting them. The essential difference is that Musk did not steal money from anyone in order to buy rockets. The government, on the other hand, steals from its constituents so that someone that did not earn the right to build a rocket can now build one. And obviously Tesla's rockets or whatever he's doing (I don't really care) will be better because he has an incentive to optimize his resources' allocation as it is his money on the line. A governmental agency has no such incentive to be wise with its funds since it never earned it and it can always request more.

Re: Why India's Mars mission is so cheap – and thrilling

#153

Post by innguest » Thu, Sep 25, 2014, 4:19 PM UTC

innguest wrote: post #133

zizee wrote: post #24

Why do people always pass judgment on spending on things they don't agree with as if the money is destroyed. It's not like they pile all the cash onto the rocket and send it to space. Let's just forget for a moment that valuable skills and infrastructure are being created for India in this process and look at where the money is going. A large proportion of the expense of this mission goes to paying the wages of domes…

- Everything the government does is more expensive than that same thing done by the free market (this is by definition, as the government creates bureaucracy around each of its endeavors) - Is the Mars mission the best allocation of those resources right now? - Could this money generate more wealth, or the same wealth faster, if it were allocated elsewhere? (for instance, savings generating higher interest rates and…

Why do people keep downvoting me? This is on point with the discussion and it is in the same tone of the surrounding conversation. The only difference I see is that I'm arguing the other side.

Are downvotes votes of disagreement? If so, everyone should be able to downvote.

Re: Why India's Mars mission is so cheap – and thrilling

#154

Post by innguest » Thu, Sep 25, 2014, 4:35 PM UTC

zizee wrote: post #24

Why do people always pass judgment on spending on things they don't agree with as if the money is destroyed. It's not like they pile all the cash onto the rocket and send it to space. Let's just forget for a moment that valuable skills and infrastructure are being created for India in this process and look at where the money is going. A large proportion of the expense of this mission goes to paying the wages of domes…

You misunderstand money.

Step by step:

- Government charges people taxes.

- Government uses tax money to pay scientists and equipment.

- Government makes tax-over-tax profits by charging taxes again on scientists salaries (which were already paid with tax money, but now will be charged tax again) and on equipment purchases (sales tax will be charged on equipment that is already being bought with tax money). Everything the scientists spend their income on will also be taxed again.

This is just a ruse so government makes more money. It fools people every time.

Re: Why India's Mars mission is so cheap – and thrilling

#155

Post by innguest » Thu, Sep 25, 2014, 4:44 PM UTC

donw wrote: post #31

zizee wrote: post #24

Why do people always pass judgment on spending on things they don't agree with as if the money is destroyed. It's not like they pile all the cash onto the rocket and send it to space. Let's just forget for a moment that valuable skills and infrastructure are being created for India in this process and look at where the money is going. A large proportion of the expense of this mission goes to paying the wages of domes…

Exactly. Projects like this generate huge amounts of value for a country -- not only because they help to push money around the economy, in terms of salaries and invoices paid to rocket-building companies -- but also in terms of the skills gained by everybody that works on the project, as well as the international capital of being a spacefaring country. Right now, launching satellites in the US is a pain in the ass,…

> Projects like this generate huge amounts of value for a country

Wow, I'm interested. Let's hear them!

> they help to push money around the economy (worker salaries and equipment invoices)

But that already happens with any new enterprise. Any new company created helps push money around through employee salaries and equipment invoices. What's special about a space mission in this regard?

> but also in terms of the skills gained by everybody that works on the project

But that already happens naturally in the free market. We have an explosion of tech jobs now that are increasing everyone's skills. It's almost a given now that an employee must be computer literate. Advances in technology have required that people have more skills. What's special about a space mission in this regard?

> as well as the international capital of being a spacefaring country

A.k.a. bragging rights. Do you really think international investors care if a country is throwing rockets when deciding to invest in that country? That they are that frivolous?

Re: Why India's Mars mission is so cheap – and thrilling

#156

Post by hangonhn » Thu, Sep 25, 2014, 4:53 PM UTC

tn13 wrote: post #32

zizee wrote: post #24

Why do people always pass judgment on spending on things they don't agree with as if the money is destroyed. It's not like they pile all the cash onto the rocket and send it to space. Let's just forget for a moment that valuable skills and infrastructure are being created for India in this process and look at where the money is going. A large proportion of the expense of this mission goes to paying the wages of domes…

On top of that ISRO is a profit making organization [1]. ISRO regularly launches satellites for other countries and makes money in the process. ISRO's expertise is also helpful to advance India's defense capabilities which could have otherwise remained hostage to USA's Military Industrial Complex. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antrix_Corporation

The US doesn't really supply weapons to India. India develops it domestically, collaborates with Russia, or buys it from Russia.

Re: Why India's Mars mission is so cheap – and thrilling

#157

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Sep 25, 2014, 5:02 PM UTC

innguest wrote: post #152

TeMPOraL wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is not true. Many companys make huge amount of long term investments that will not be profitable for a while. I guess it depends both on how long is the long term, and on the quantifiability of the returns of investment. There was a nice thread about it yesterday, with a wonderful quote: "My former boss (CTO of Panasonic) once told me that the only way to do real R&D is to have a monopoly that allows you to hi…

Not having to compete with anyone does not make a product cheaper, it makes it more expensive. Competition drives prices down. So the government having a monopoly over a service makes that service more expensive. Advertising is not a waste of resources, it is investment of resources - literally, money spent buying leads in order to try and convert them into customers. > Look, capitalistic economy is a greedy optimiza…

In general, I think you might consider [0] a beneficial read; it pretty much answers all your questions and debunks your points. For me, your comments sound a lot like libertarianism turned into religion. A lot of dogmas that sound nice, but are trivially easy to be shown false.

To respond to a particular point,

> Not having to compete with anyone does not make a product cheaper, it makes it more expensive. Competition drives prices down. So the government having a monopoly over a service makes that service more expensive.

True in many cases, especially if you only care about end-buyer price, but false in others. Some things fail spectacularly when you make them competitive. Things like basic research, things like exploiting a limited pool of shared resources, things like schools and prisons - they all go to hell when you try to run them on free-market rules. Some would say medicare is another similar thing. The market price is not the only important metric; some others are: quality, accessibility, efficiency, externalities.

> Advertising is not a waste of resources, it is investment of resources - literally, money spent buying leads in order to try and convert them into customers.

Who, were you not to convert them, would go to the competitor. It's a total waste of resources - you spend money (and more importantly, fuel and man-hours) trying to one-up your competitor, he does the same; on average, you still get the same amount of clients, only both of you wasted resources on a stupid zero-sum game. You'd both be better off if you agreed to not run any more ads that it take for people to discover you exist; yet since you can't agree on that, you're stuck in a zero-sum game.

[0] - http://www.raikoth.net/libertarian.html

Re: Why India's Mars mission is so cheap – and thrilling

#158

Post by jonknee » Thu, Sep 25, 2014, 5:03 PM UTC

nickik wrote: post #144

zizee wrote: post #24

Why do people always pass judgment on spending on things they don't agree with as if the money is destroyed. It's not like they pile all the cash onto the rocket and send it to space. Let's just forget for a moment that valuable skills and infrastructure are being created for India in this process and look at where the money is going. A large proportion of the expense of this mission goes to paying the wages of domes…

I dont agree, this is economly false. Im not particularly against investing in space stuff. > Let's just forget for a moment that valuable skills and infrastructure are being created for India This does not take into account what the money would have done otherwise. Since we can not know what the money otherwise would have been spent on its hard or impossilble to say it it is better for india. > A large proportion of…

> The money would alternativly also have been spent on thing bought in india, also gone into the pockets of shops and other things. This money would also have been taxed, just the same as it is now.

Maybe, or maybe it wouldn't have been. They could have spent the same money on imports.

Re: Why India's Mars mission is so cheap – and thrilling

#159

Post by cjcole » Thu, Sep 25, 2014, 5:12 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #131

idreams wrote: post #123

proud to be an Indian!!

Did you do anything to contribute? If not, then there's nothing you can be proud of. It's like saying "proud to be white" when Neil Armstrong first stepped on the moon.

Shifting "Indian" (nationality) to "white" (racial grouping) in your analogy is disingenuous and inflammatory.

Policing other people's entirely natural and unobjectionable pride and joy is annoying and tiresome.

("American" would have been a better substitution, but maybe you judged it to be less effective as a rhetorical hammer?)

Re: Why India's Mars mission is so cheap – and thrilling

#160

Post by tomp » Thu, Sep 25, 2014, 5:32 PM UTC

cjcole wrote: post #159

tomp wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you do anything to contribute? If not, then there's nothing you can be proud of. It's like saying "proud to be white" when Neil Armstrong first stepped on the moon.

Shifting "Indian" (nationality) to "white" (racial grouping) in your analogy is disingenuous and inflammatory. Policing other people's entirely natural and unobjectionable pride and joy is annoying and tiresome. ("American" would have been a better substitution, but maybe you judged it to be less effective as a rhetorical hammer?)

> ("American" would have been a better substitution, but maybe you judged it to be less effective as a rhetorical hammer?)

Probably, but I'm not American, so I didn't think of that. The only other commonality I have with Armstrong is being a man, but I don't think you would approve of that any more.