3 ms·
Sunk cost implies future costs being spent in excess of value. Costs already spent: - Design - Part manufacturing - Final assembly Costs remaining:
by ethbr1 2y ago
Sunk cost implies future costs being spent in excess of value.
Costs already spent:
- Design
- Part manufacturing
- Final assembly
Costs remaining:
- Testing
- Operations
Future costs which will be spent anyway:
- Launch
Which begs the question... why not skip testing?
Worst case, it's non-functional or fails to land, in which case you don't have to spend the operational costs.
- playa1 2y agoI was thinking the same thing. Skip the extra testing and yolo that thing to the moon.
- readthenotes1 2y agoI got an old lawn mower in my garage that might work as well. Should we send that instead?
- damiankennedy 2y agoOnly if it can send back pictures of itself.
- cratermoon 2y agoIs it electric? Because an ICE isn't going anywhere on the lunar surface.
- readthenotes1 2y agoWell, we'll suss that out during test phase, right?
- TrainedMonkey 2y agoBecause failure is not acceptable due to bad optics and politics of public agencies.
- mrandish 2y agoYep. This was my first thought too.
- irjustin 2y agoIt would need an internal champion to make happen and I don't think anyone wants to attach their name onto this kind of yolo. If it fails it dooms your career, or at least that's how it would be perceived.
- londons_explore 2y agoMy guess is a bunch of rumours are spreading that many of the important tests would fail if done, requiring a redesign and far bigger expenses.
- lucb1e 2y ago> Sunk cost implies future costs being spent in excess of value. Isn't it (future_costs + expenditures_so_far > value) rather than (future_costs > value)? If I expect to win 10 euros from the lottery and put in 9 euros already, then buying another 2-euro lottery ticket is a loss because spending 11 for an expected gain of 10 is a loss even if those extra 2 euros to gain a potential 10... or am I falling for the fallacy now? Is this like the monty hall thing where the answer changes if you're given a chance to change your mind halfway through (in that you'd not spend 11 up front, but now that you spent 9, maybe spending the remaining 2 to minimize the loss is a good idea)?
- floydnoel 2y agoavoiding sunk cost is the idea of not attaching value to the money already spent. if you expect to get $10 for spending $2 more dollars, that would not be a sunk cost fallacy. if you expect to get $10 and you need to spend $11 more dollars, that could be a sunk cost fallacy. where it gets difficult is if you previously spent $10,000 and you need to spend $10 more to get $11. at that point it can feel like a good bargain compared to the total losses. that's the sunk cost fallacy.
- shiroiushi 2y ago>why not skip testing? The article did mention that instruments on the lander would be removed and repurposed for other missions, so I guess they wanted to save money there instead of sending the lander as-is with a high probability of it not functioning at all, and all the hardware being a total waste.