What Can 2 Astronauts Stuck in Space Teach Us About Economics?

An eight-day mission has unexpectedly turned into an eight-month saga—offering us a fascinating case study on a few basic economic principles.

Thank you for reading Monday Morning Economist! This free weekly newsletter explores the economics behind pop culture and current events. This newsletter lands in the inbox of more than 5,300 subscribers every week! You can support this newsletter by sharing this free post or becoming a paid supporter:

---

Butch Wilmore (top) and Suni Williams(bottom) inside the International Space Station on July 2, 2024. [Source: NASA via AFP - Getty Images]

In June, NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams embarked on what was supposed to be a quick eight-day trip to the International Space Station (ISS) aboard Boeing’s Starliner—a spacecraft that was Boeing’s bid to reenter the high-stakes world of human spaceflight. The plan was straightforward: dock at the ISS, run a few tests, and return to Earth. However, things didn’t go as planned.

Shortly after launch, the Starliner encountered a series of technical hiccups—malfunctioning thrusters and helium leaks among them. These glitches threw NASA into a classic dilemma: should they risk a potentially dangerous return to Earth, or extend the astronauts’ mission until a safer option was available?

NASA opted for the latter, choosing safety over speed. Wilmore and Williams will now remain on the ISS until February 2025, when a SpaceX Crew Dragon vehicle can safely bring them home. An eight-day mission has unexpectedly turned into an eight-month saga—offering us a fascinating case study on a few basic economic principles.

Tradeoffs and Opportunity Costs

When faced with the Starliner’s technical issues, NASA faced a series of critical tradeoffs. The most obvious was the decision between risking the astronauts’ return on a spacecraft with known flaws or extending their stay on the ISS until a safer option became available. Each of these choices came with significant opportunity costs—a key economic concept that involves the benefits lost when one alternative is chosen over another.

If NASA had opted to bring Wilmore and Williams back on the Starliner, the opportunity costs would have included not just the potential risks to their safety but also the loss of valuable data that could have been gathered during their prolonged stay on the ISS.

However, the decision to keep the astronauts in space until February 2025 also came with its own set of opportunity costs. With Wilmore and Williams occupying seats on a future SpaceX Crew Dragon return mission, NASA effectively bumped two other astronauts from that mission, impacting the overall scheduling and crew assignments for the ISS. This decision not only alters the logistics of future missions but also impacts the stockpile of resources available on the ISS set aside for future missions.

There are also the costs to the astronauts themselves. Prolonged stays in space affect astronauts’ mental and physical health, as the environment is both isolating and physically demanding. NASA’s Frank Rubio, who holds the record for the most consecutive days in space, has reached out to Wilmore and Williams, offering encouragement and advice to help them stay positive.

Ignoring Sunk Costs

One of the most important economic principles influencing NASA’s decision is the concept of sunk costs—money that has already been spent and cannot be recovered. Boeing has invested about $1.6 billion in the Starliner program since winning a NASA contract in 2014. Despite this hefty investment, NASA had to resist the “sunk cost fallacy,” where past expenses might tempt decision-makers to push forward with a flawed mission simply because of the money already spent.

Sound economic reasoning calls for ignoring sunk costs when making decisions about the future. Instead, decision-makers should only consider opportunity costs. For NASA, this meant setting aside the significant resources already poured into Starliner and prioritizing the astronauts’ safety and the mission’s success.

By opting to keep the astronauts on the ISS until a more reliable spacecraft could bring them home, NASA avoided the trap of letting past investments dictate present decisions. This approach underscores a broader lesson: whether in space exploration, business, or personal finance, the key is to cut losses when necessary and concentrate on future outcomes rather than trying to justify past spending.

Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft that launched NASA’s Crew Flight Test astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams to the International Space Station is pictured docked to the Harmony module’s forward port. This view is from a window on the SpaceX Dragon Endeavour spacecraft docked at the port adjacent to the Starliner. [Source: NASA]

Final Thoughts

The next time you’re faced with a tough decision, take a moment to weigh the tradeoffs and opportunity costs at play. Are you focusing on future benefits instead of clinging to past expenditures? Are your choices maximizing value, even if it means walking away from something you’ve already invested in? NASA’s decision to extend Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams’ stay on the ISS serves as a powerful reminder that sound decision-making means looking forward, not back, and always being aware of all of the costs involved.

Ultimately, the astronauts’ extended mission will likely yield valuable data and insights—both for NASA and for Boeing as it works to resolve the Starliner’s challenges. While this scenario is far from ideal, it perfectly highlights how applying economic principles can help us navigate even the most unexpected and complex situations.

• Frank Rubio holds the U.S. record for the longest single spaceflight with his 371-day mission [Associated Press]

• The International Space Station costs about $3 billion per year for NASA to operate [NASA]

• 280 individuals representing 23 countries and 5 International Partners have visited the International Space Station [NASA]

• The majority of astronauts sent to space (86%) complete the journey with at least one orbit around the Earth [Astronomy Magazine]

• There are no age restrictions for the astronaut program, but candidates in the past have ranged between the ages of 26 and 46, with the average age being 34 [NASA]