3 ms·
Normally this makes sense, because you're asking why money was wasted. But, in this case if it's permanently bricked you will actually save money, because if Vo
by ajb 3y ago
Normally this makes sense, because you're asking why money was wasted. But, in this case if it's permanently bricked you will actually save money, because if Voyager 2 is bricked the team working on it is now redundant. It's not like they had an incentive to be incompetent and waste money - very much the opposite.
- account42 3y agoYou calculation only makes sense if you put zero value on operating a probe that far out in the galaxy - in which case you should be asking why there was a team working on it in the first place. But that value is not zero, and replacing it costs quite a bit - both money and time. Asking how and why this happened is a valid inquiry.
- ajb 3y agoUnder the assumption that it is bricked, the value is indeed now zero. I think where we differ is that you are assuming it will be replaced, but I don't think it will be. It's way past its design life so it was going to expire at some point. For science, I would want to do an enquiry anyway - I'm just commenting on the financial/accountability aspect.