5 ms·

The OP is not necessarily talking about operation cost here. For the cost of what Facebook paid for WhatsApp I could launch 4.6 million kilograms into orbit on

The OP is not necessarily talking about operation cost here. For the cost of what Facebook paid for WhatsApp I could launch 4.6 million kilograms into orbit on a Falcon 9, which is essentially the cost of lifting the ISS. When you're talking about space, the cost of launching should be included in your asset cost, because otherwise you're million dollar satellite is worthless.

rwmj 13y ago
Facebook didn't pay it all in cash. They paid much of it in (soon to be) worthless Facebook stock. And this is the problem with the comparison. To fund a space mission, Facebook would have had to either try to realize the value through another huge stock sale, or it would have to use up its cash reserves. The first option is essentially impossible. The second would lead to massive lawsuits as well as having a very uncertain outcome (you think a bunch of web designers could really build a rocket?)
- Tloewald 13y ago
  Thanks for making this point. Buying a company with stock doesn't actually result in someone spending something to get something, it merely merges two companies and assigns ownership of the combined entity.
icefox 13y ago
I also flagged it. How much an asset is worth and how much the operating costs are very different things. It was a pointless comparison. Launching a satellite is just a cost like taking a plane trip across the country. The end result is that both might provide you with information that could return value, but the actual trip is a straight expense. I guess I could write an article comparing how crazy it is that [someone] bought a plane for [millions of dollars] when they should have known that there are many websites that will let them book a flight for [a few hundred]. Using this logic [someone] could have booked hundreds of flights for the same cost! If only they had known better.

rwmj 13y ago

Facebook didn't pay it all in cash. They paid much of it in (soon to be) worthless Facebook stock. And this is the problem with the comparison. To fund a space mission, Facebook would have had to either try to realize the value through another huge stock sale, or it would have to use up its cash reserves. The first option is essentially impossible. The second would lead to massive lawsuits as well as having a very uncertain outcome (you think a bunch of web designers could really build a rocket?)

Tloewald 13y ago
Thanks for making this point. Buying a company with stock doesn't actually result in someone spending something to get something, it merely merges two companies and assigns ownership of the combined entity.

icefox 13y ago

I also flagged it. How much an asset is worth and how much the operating costs are very different things. It was a pointless comparison. Launching a satellite is just a cost like taking a plane trip across the country. The end result is that both might provide you with information that could return value, but the actual trip is a straight expense. I guess I could write an article comparing how crazy it is that [someone] bought a plane for [millions of dollars] when they should have known that there are many websites that will let them book a flight for [a few hundred]. Using this logic [someone] could have booked hundreds of flights for the same cost! If only they had known better.