> NASA understands sunk cost fallacy. I argue it doesn't in the way you want them to. They're cancelling it because it couldn't be saved. Projects _always_ th

> NASA understands sunk cost fallacy. I argue it doesn't in the way you want them to. They're cancelling it because it couldn't be saved. Projects _always_ that get approved are underestimated in cost with ballooning budgets the expectation. The point is, everyone is hoping the project is important enough AND expensive enough that congress will keep funding it because sunk-cost is almost ignored. JWST is the poster child of this concept. SLS likely to be next. I hate that SLS is moving forward in this manner, but I do believe 2 launch providers is better than 1...?