There's a massive oversupply of people who want to do science vs science that people will pay to have done. Supply and demand are balanced by making the environment so toxic that most leave. Hence 'recovering.'

A pity some of our new billionaires don't make a hobby out of funding genuine science research. Rather than, say, adventures in space tourism.

Agreed. If Musk had wanted to make a science contribution, he might have launched one of these [1] instead of a Tesla.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LARES_(satellite)

Would they have allowed their satellite to be launched on an untested platform?

That's the idea of putting a 'worthless' payload up first.

A tungsten or brass (LAGEOS) sphere covered in optical and radar retroreflectors is cheap and inert. The major cost for that type of mission is the launch.

Given 3-6 months, $<1M all-in, and a team of engineers and scientists, it would be quite possible to get something ready to rock. Such an instrument would allow an ever-improving test of solar-system dynamics for many millenia.

If Elon is reading and plans to do something similar again, get in touch ([email protected]). We'll make science happen.

Or, just launch a dense one of these: http://www.landfallnavigation.com/davis-emergency-radar-refl...

Agreed. I'm not a Musk fanboy, but most rockets are initially tested with inert dummy payloads. The choice wasn't between a Tesla and a science satellite, but between a Tesla and sand.

The problem is that each professor trains more than a dozen PhDs over their career but they open up only one spot once they retire. Exponential growth in scientists isn't sustainable, no matter how many billionaires like science.

It’s worth noting that this isn’t an iron-clad law of nature. We could train fewer students and hire more staff scientists, for example, but the people who decide such things are largely the folks who “made it” so....

I think "tourism" is probably a bit unfair, but it sure wouldn't hurt to see more people go the way of D. E. Shaw.

It's really sad that the only ways to fund science seem to be charity and war.

what if scientists actually considered being economically competent? There is no law of nature that holds that scientists must be aloof savants.

I think setting up machinery and waiting for discoveries like this one can be compared to being patient at the slot machines; it is essentially economically equivalent to gambling. Eventually, as a person living in society you may run out of quarters before you hit the "jackpot." Yes, you can use your quarters today on other things in society that are more guaranteed to bring you more quarters, but, we don't know what kind of "jackpot" is waiting for humanity until we hit it. This makes a sad, difficult decision in the life of a scientist, which is why we should have more rich people funding (since a lot of them have gambling problems any way, ie: stock market, brothels, etc)

edit: to sum up, this would be an efficient economy at scale. Some one with money already puts someone with expertise to good use :)

This drives me nuts. If a quaint, ivory tower environment ever existed at all, it’s long, long gone. Science these days is incredibly fast-paced and competitive (for better or worse) and running a successful lab takes a similar level of managerial chops, hustle, and luck to running small business.

If you have actual suggestions, please do share them, but taking the mickey out of people trying to figure out the universe on $45k/yr is just mean.

Value capture in science is a known hard problem. Snide comments suggesting that it is tractable do not make it so.

The US may never have come to be what it is today if all Columbuses were bound to their homes.

I'm not in astro, but have a physics degree. It's pretty well known that only a few of us get to stay in basic research after we finish our degrees. Most of us have to make the transition to some "real world" activity. Some have an easier time of it than others.

While it's also well known that you don't go into certain fields to make the big bucks (astrophysics, viola da gamba performance, etc.), a corollary is that you do go into those fields because they're highly addictive. So, referring to it as "recovering" might be appropriate.

Disclosure: The people I know who are astrophysicists, and violists da gamba, both now have successful careers as software developers.

Yes: I've a physics degree as well, but I'm a sci/tech journalist now. I'm sometimes asked to talk to physics students as an example of someone using their degree as the basis of a career outside academic research.

Presumably he's out in industry making the big bucks now.