The value of manned space flight?

[Tigris]

Ok let me stay scientific.

Other research paying off doesn't invalidate what I said. Why should I have checked on other research?

Because "This is so good it does X" is marketing speach and not useful without comparison.

When one posts a result like "X is good because it has result y" then one always needs to compare it with other similar things.
"This toothpaste helps reduce caries by 80%" is meaningless, when just brushing teath with no toothpaste reduces caries by 80%.

Or when a bank says "here you get 3% return of investment, this is incredible high", when all other banks give 5% or more is misleading.

The point you wanted to make was "Nasa is good investment it pays for itself", but yes this is invalidated, when other things are way better, because the money to invest is limited.

When you have an average return of investment of 500% when investing in science, than investing in a project with 300% is a net loss. If that would be a stock it would go down dramastically because it underperforms compared to others.

However, when looking at other really big projects like Cern, then NASA is still way better: Society | Future Circular Collider Cern only had a 115% return on investment over the years.

As an example - as a broad rule of thumb, approximately 90% of all pharmacological research fails to get through clinical trials. (citation here). Though there are some areas where success rates rise as high as 25%, there are other areas where success rates are even lower than 10%.

This is not how proofs work. You said as a general statement "Research pays of unpredictable".

This is mathematically equal to "All research pays of unpredictable". Since this is an all statement, this can be showed to be false with a counterexample: Counterexample - Wikipedia

Which companies with long research roadmaps are, but to give you a concrete example a quantum roadmap from 2021 which came to be: IBM's roadmap to build an open quantum software ecosystem | IBM Quantum Computing Blog

Again, broadly speaking, organizations have to take a "shotgun" approach to research - looking into may things, in order to find one that succeeds and pays off. One of the reasons why governments get into the business of funding research is that corporations often cannot tolerate such failure rates, as they need to make a profit, while governments usually do not.

On the other hand saying "one needs to use X" and then using 1 example to showcase it, is not a real proof: Proof by example - Wikipedia

Many business branches, not only pharmaceutics, take a "shotgun approach", like game developers in mobile, which often develop 10 games of which in the end only 1 will be fully released.

It may verry well be that pharmaceutics just think, like the mobile industry, that its more lucrative to do this shotgun approach, but that does not mean science needs to do that.

I mean the Nasa is one of the best examples. They had 1 goal to bring a person to the moon as fast as possible and focused on that. Research was 100% targeted and resulted in exactly what they wanted. Yes it brought some side benefits, but so does other research as well.

Also many business ideas only come to be because the company focuses. Best example ChatGPT. No shotgun approach, just pouring lot of ressources in 1 specific direction, so its not that companies only do scientific breakthroughs with a shotgun approach (and yes releasing a way better chatbot than anyone had before is a scientific breakthrough (no matter if it will be useful in the long term or not)).


So with this in mind, its a valid question if manned space flight is worth it to invest. Why not use that money for doing research which has some target goal which is in itself useful. It could have a much higher return of investment (also could have a lower one of course as cern shows, but that one is longtime not just 1 year), it can also deliver side discoveries, and when it succeeds it directly would have also a positive impact.


There are many current problems one could tackle instead, and with an not unsignificant fraction of 25 billions (manned space travel) one can do a lot.

 

[Ryujin]

When you have an average return of investment of 500% when investing in science, than investing in a project with 300% is a net loss. If that would be a stock it would go down dramastically because it underperforms compared to others.

This is not just false logic, but incredibly bad math at basic level. Anything that has a return on expenditure of more than 100% can never be a loss. Let's have MORE things that have more than 100% return, so we have more capital to use elsewhere.

 

[VashVet]

This is not just false logic, but incredibly bad math at basic level. Anything that has a return on expenditure of more than 100% can never be a loss. Let's have MORE things that have more than 100% return, so we have more capital to use elsewhere.

I was mind-boggled at that statement as well.

 

[Belen]

This is not just false logic, but incredibly bad math at basic level. Anything that has a return on expenditure of more than 100% can never be a loss. Let's have MORE things that have more than 100% return, so we have more capital to use elsewhere.

The entire logic of the statement was poor. The government wastes way more than 25 billion of dollars per year on projects that provide a zero or even negative return on investment.

The reality is that the “solve problems on Earth” crowd want that money because space is not important to them or their goals. They never seem to complain about waste or fraud that eat way more than 25 billion as long as that funding is going to things they support.

 

[The Firebird]

This is not just false logic, but incredibly bad math at basic level. Anything that has a return on expenditure of more than 100% can never be a loss. Let's have MORE things that have more than 100% return, so we have more capital to use elsewhere.

It makes sense to me...it's a claim about opportunity cost. There's a reason people invest in the market rather than in savings accounts, even though the savings accounts give a positive return.

"Why not spend more" makes sense and there is an argument for increasing the science budget. But given a fixed science budget, it may be that NASA is not the most efficient use from a purely economic perspective.

(There are other wrinkles, like maybe a moon landing is good PR and gets you more funding).

 

[Umbran]

It makes sense to me...it's a claim about opportunity cost. There's a reason people invest in the market rather than in savings accounts, even though the savings accounts give a positive return.

"Why not spend more" makes sense and there is an argument for increasing the science budget. But given a fixed science budget, it may be that NASA is not the most efficient use from a purely economic perspective.

And therein lies part of the difference - "from a purely (short term) economic perspective". (addition mine).

There is more to science than just economics.

(There are other wrinkles, like maybe a moon landing is good PR and gets you more funding).

PR isn't the only "wrinkle", by a long shot.

Science also produces new capabilities that aren't simply included in the pure economic picture. As an example I think mentioned upthread - research on bone loss in astronauts may lead to treatments for osteoporosis. Those treatments may not be the top-of-all money-makers, but that doesn't mean we don't want to have them!

Aiming at the greatest possible return on investment is a thing coprorations may do. Governments are not corporations - economic return on investment is nice to have, but is not a requirement.

In the broad analysis, we are getting space exploration for free. That should be sufficient to justify it.

 

[The Firebird]

In the broad analysis, we are getting space exploration for free. That should be sufficient to justify it.

Well, no...that is the point of analyzing opportunity cost.

 

[ART!]

What things? Worse for whom? Compared to when? In many measurable ways (lifespan, infant mortality, comfort, nutrition, education, individual rights, especially for women, violence, medicine, communication, sanitation, etc.) "things" are vastly better for most people than they were 100, 200, 400 years ago.

Heck, even just 50 years ago - or less. I'm reading Factfulness right now, by Hans Rosling, and it's about misconceptions we have about how bad things are.

 

[Umbran]

Well, no...that is the point of analyzing opportunity cost.

Relentless pursuit of profit is a corporate thing. That's why we have them. I'm okay with letting them do that job, within some limits.

But, that's not why we have governments. Their job is not to relentlessly pursue profits. So, we don't need them to look too deeply at opportunity costs. So, yes, a program that comes essentially free is fine. Leave it be, already.

Also, if we were to look at opportunity costs, a thing that does pay for itself, and is only about a third of a percent of the overall budget, is not going to be a great place to look for missed opportunities.

You're sounding like the employer who regularly hires a corporate jet, while cutting the budget for toilet paper in the office. If you wanna look for waste, it isn't found in 1-ply vs 2-ply.

 

[Morrus]

But, that's not why we have governments. Their job is not to relentlessly pursue profits.

You would make a terrible Ferengi.