Scuttle and rebuild - faster. And no, it shouldn't be faster to build a new ship that to repair a damaged one.
I think sometimes it very well may be faster/cheaper to build a new one, depending on the manufacturing capabilities of the colony sponsoring the shipyard doing the work.
Hello.
This topic caught my attention, and made me think of the USS Cole, the US destroyer that was bombed by terrorists in a small boat off the coast of Yemen in October 2000. So I looked it up.
The Cole's keel was laid in late February 1994, it was launched a year later, and commissioned in 1996. Now I don't know if it could have been pressed into service sooner, but its first actual deployment wasn't until 1998, so that makes it 4 years between the start of construction and first actual use.
The bombing happened in October 2000, and the ship was brought back to Mississippi for repair. In April 2002 she was recommissioned, and in November was deployed for the first time since the recommissioning. So that's about 2 years for repair and redeployment.
Now this is just one example that I looked at; anecdotal at best, and in this particular case a major structural repair required 50% of the original construction time. What if there had been two holes in the hull? Would the US Navy have decided to scuttle the ship, or could the shipbuilders have made a case that once you're inside the structure, fixing two holes isn't really twice the work of fixing just one hole? I don't know.
Can we reasonably compare naval ships with space ships? I think maybe to a point we can. Both types can be big and heavy, must be equipped with powerplants, weapons, defenses, sensors, and support modules. Their crews must be trained. Ship and crew must then be put through trials. Ships on (or under) water must be watertight, while ships in space must be airtight.
We make these decisions personally, too (or they are made for us by our insurance companies); for example after car accidents or a fire in your house.