3 ms·
There's certainly a loss of value for our already built and paid for space station, if we're not able to use it.
by beerandt 7y ago
There's certainly a loss of value for our already built and paid for space station, if we're not able to use it.
- simias 7y agoThat's a sunk cost fallacy. If they don't have anything important to do on said space station it's better to leave it empty and save the money for other projects. Mind you, I don't know if that's the case but I'm just pointing out that the station being expensive doesn't justify pouring even more money into it if you don't have a clear objective.
- beerandt 7y agoIt maybe by sunk cost. But it's still lost value, at least based on design life and planned/committed-to experiments/ missions, which I believe are booked up through 2024. And I'm not sure sunk cost fallacy applies, especially in the context of SpaceX / Dragon. Although it could definitely apply to SLS. If you wanted to argue that extending the life beyond 2024 or whatever it is, then I would agree with you, sunk cost is irrelevant. I tend to only apply the term to something incomplete with run-away costs to finish. Or if something changes (demand-side) that renders said product to become obsolete before completion. I'd argue neither applies to the space station. Political whimsy shouldn't be a factor.