3 ms·
It 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 th
by beerandt 7y ago
It 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.