3 ms·
That'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 project
by simias 7y ago
That'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.