• An_Ugly_Bastard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Interstellar grossed over $700,000,000 at the box office. How much money will Chandrayaan-3 make?

    Just showing how pointless this comparison is.

    • Lmaydev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s very hard to put a price on scientific advancement like this.

      It often involves development of new technologies, talent and facilities that can generate money for decades.

      The actual profit generated can be insanely large. Like the original NASA missions. They gave us so much technology. They are likely responsible for billions of future profit derived from the tech.

      Consumer products like wireless headsets, LED lighting, portable cordless vacuums, freeze-dried foods, memory foam, scratch-resistant eyeglass lenses and many other familiar products have all benefited from space technology research and development. Modern laptop computers are direct descendants of The Shuttle Portable Onboard Computer (SPOC), which was developed in the early 1980s for the space shuttle program.

      • Phanatik@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Worth pointing out that the scientific advancement would generate billions that NASA will only see a fraction of.

        • GaleFromCali@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          1 year ago

          Isn’t NASA funded by tax payer’s dollars? I guess you can look at it as a government funded non-profit research lab that it’s mission statement is to generate technological advancements for the general public’s benefit.

        • Lmaydev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Indeed. As they are publicly funded that money comes back in the form a taxing the profits private companies make from the technology, rather than directly into their pockets.

        • Lmaydev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          But even training those personnel and building facilities can lead to more breakthroughs later. It’s why it’s so hard to put a price on scientific endeavours.

      • Quokka@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Eh I can get water from my tap, I won’t buy any of that funky moon water.

  • TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, if you ignore all the R&D costs up to now, including the cost of the 2 failed attempts that came before. And comparing it to house prices isn’t great either, they’re comparing the sale price of a house with the cost price of a rocket. It didn’t cost £200M to build that house that sold for £200M.

    Still though, it’s a great achievement, and keeping a relatively low budget is impressive.

    • steltek@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why include R&D up to this point? Do we say Mars Pathfinder (Sojourner) actually cost billions because we include previous Mars missions?

      I think it’s just a bad article. They throw out numbers but don’t say how they got them.

  • lowleveldata
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well ya they went to stars that’s much more far away to make that. Has no one watched the movie?

  • ChrislyBear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Really? I don’t think so!

    In absolute values, sure, but They didn’t adjust for the difference in purchasing power between India and the US. Yes, the purported INR 6,150,000,000.- can be converted directly into USD 74,400,732.- using the current exchange rate of INR 82.66 for USD 1.

    BUT, if you take into account the difference in purchasing power of the two economies and use a conversion rate that eliminates the differences in price levels between countries (https://data.oecd.org/conversion/purchasing-power-parities-ppp.htm, 24.059 between India and US in 2022) then INR 6,150,000,000.- come out to be equal to USD 255,621,597! This value you can now compare to the production cost of movies in the US etc.

    But what can you expect from those young “journalists” from the independent… they should be ashamed of themselves.

    Edit: You could also take the Big mac index and compare it (https://www.economist.com/big-mac-index) and the 75 million would become about 165 million.

    • bassomitron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, people always forget that purchasing power is a very important detail when you compare currency economies either in present day or historical contexts.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why is purchasing power relevant here? They’re not talking about how much the country can afford, but how economical they are in achieving their goals.

      • ChrislyBear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Purchasing power refers to how much goods you can buy with your currency. As you can imagine you can buy less with 100$ in the US than in India, where everything is cheaper. If you take purchasing power into account you convert everything into a “standard amount of stuff”. And using a conversion based on “the same stuff” you’ll get a different currency conversion factor.

        India achieves their goal still very economically, but it’s not 75mil, it’s 255mil. The equivalent amount of stuff that costs INR 6.15billion if you buy it in India costs USD 255million if you buy it in the US.

  • ★ 𝐘𝖔𝖕𝖕𝖆★ @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have worked with many Indian engineers. They keep going like a fucking train. I felt like they already knew all the about the project even before they got hired.