7 ms·

The apollo program ran from 1961-1972, 11 years.[1] The total budget was ~260B in todays dollars.[1] That's ~24B per year in todays dollars. NASA's current b

The apollo program ran from 1961-1972, 11 years.[1] The total budget was ~260B in todays dollars.[1] That's ~24B per year in todays dollars. NASA's current budget is 22B[2], less than .5% of the federal budget. We sent 4 times that amount to Ukraine for the war by an emergency vote. Computing power has increased effectively infinitely, manufacturing automation & precision has increased incredibly. We are vastly richer than we were in 1972: our GDP has increased roughly 25X since then. The reason we have not gone back to the moon is because we have chosen not to do so. It is not hard, nor particularly expensive. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

colechristensen 2y ago
The reason we went to the moon was to prove that capitalism could do it better than communism. We've got nothing like that to prove now. Folks are working on making money doing things in space, and that's coming along nicely. NASA's scientific mission isn't particularly strongly served by having humans in a place. Not that there's no scientific value it's just much more expensive than robots and much riskier.
- ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
  >Not that there's no scientific value it's just much more expensive than robots and much riskier. And our ability to accept risk has decreased dramatically. 50 years ago the Boeing capsule would have been given the go ahead to detach without a second thought for instance. Basically going from 2 9s to 11 9s (or whatever NASA targets internally these days) is comically expensive. And I'd have to see a paper justifying human presence (besides trying to future proof society) as actually bringing more scientific value than robotic experiments.
  - oceanplexian 2y ago
    All the evidence you need is that even in the present day, advanced countries have repeatedly tried to send probes to the moon and failed, when we did it with humans in the 1960s. All the software in the world isn't as good as a trained pilot in a novel scenario (i.e. The first moon landing when Neil Armstrong changed the landing site at the last minute, or the events of Apollo 13).
    - vkou 2y ago
      The Soviets managed to send probes to the moon, and succeeded, with the automation and remote control systems of the 60s. Their manned lunar ambitions were hamstrung by the many failures of the N-1 rocket, which could not be made safe enough for human flight. (Or any flight, really.) The thing with probes is that you should send more than one every 5-10 years, if you do that, you'll learn something from the failures before everyone working on the project dies of old age. It's the moon, you don't need to wait for a once-a-decade transfer window to line up.
    - ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
      The U.S, and the Soviet Union, each landed probes on the moon in the 60s. And the Soviet Union even did a sample return in 1970. >All the software in the world isn't as good as a trained pilot in a novel scenario You can likely launch 5 (or more) autonomous missions rather than send humans. And that's assuming good spending, if you go by the $93 billion Artemis Program, likely 20 or more.
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    > And our ability to accept risk has decreased dramatically. Yes, recall that Apollo 1 incinerated the capsule crew, that would have canceled the entire program today, back then it was "press on..." We did continue with the Space Shuttle after its accidents, but that was decades ago now, and I'm sure that played into any discussions there might have been about extending the program.
    - jiggawatts 2y ago
      > that would have canceled the entire program today The US government just delayed the next Starship launch by 2 months because of incorrectly filed paperwork. It's not that SpaceX didn't file the paperwork... they just used the wrong form. This is why our feet are firmly nailed to the ground. If anyone actually cared to go to the Moon or Mars, then obstructionist bureaucrats like that wouldn't be in their jobs for very long.
      - cruffle_duffle 2y ago
        Somewhere there was a space that said “do not write in this space” and the person who filled it out wrote “okay”… the FAA got ‘em now, SpaceX.
  - cameldrv 2y ago
    I believe NASA is targeting something like 99.5% reliability with Starliner. I agree that ability to accept risk has decreased, but my guess is that Starliner in reality has more like one nine of reliability. If you look at the first flight test of Starliner, everyone talks about the timing problem that caused them to fail to achieve the proper orbit. What is more rarely discussed is that after this happened, they did a top to bottom code review while the Starliner was in orbit, and found a bug in the crew/service module undocking procedure that would have caused the service module to strike the crew module after undocking, most likely damage the heat shield, and cause the capsule to burn up on reentry. They applied a hot fix in orbit for this. Had the timer problem not happened, the code review wouldn't have happened and this wouldn't have been caught. With the number of gremlins that have come up on every Starliner flight, there are certainly many more lower probability defects that will eventually lead to a loss of crew. My general feeling is that the true reason NASA/Boeing is much less successful than in the 60s is because the NASA of that time attracted the very top talent that was young, energetic, and bright. These days that talent generally doesn't go to those places. IMO the main reason SpaceX has been so successful is that a lot of those people really wanted to work on rockets but didn't want to work for NASA/Boeing.
    - colechristensen 2y ago
      SpaceX lost several rockets in the beginning, NASA lost an enormous number of rockets in the 60s space era and several people. >My general feeling is that the true reason NASA/Boeing is much less successful than in the 60s is because the NASA of that time attracted the very top talent that was young, energetic, and bright. Are they much less successful? Less things are being paid for and things are happening at a slower pace because money.
  - sirtaj 2y ago
    The cost/benefit analysis was probably seen differently back then. At that point it was a space race against the Big Bad and winning was more important than a certain threshold of safety. Now? I can't see the benefit of risking the life of the Starliner crew. What would it prove now that NASA has had so many crewed launches and returns?
- TheRealPomax 2y ago
  But is there any scientific value? We ran enough missions that we're still looking at everything we brought back last time, what science would we be doing that we either haven't already done, or can do here on earth just fine without going to the moon for it?
  - Kim_Bruning 2y ago
    Well, the Moon is an entire world. We're still doing science on the planet Earth, because there's still plenty to learn, and we actually live here with billions of people. We've only sent a handful of folks to the Moon so far. We've literally barely scratched the surface, and only a few tiny patches of it as that. Exploring new places has always lead to all sorts of interesting new discoveries. No reason to think a whole new world mightn't hold a few interesting (and/or potentially lucrative) surprises.
    - TheRealPomax 2y ago
      Yeah but the Earth is a geologically active planet hosting life. The moon is neither of those things, it's a ball of rock in orbit that we can explore all of "several square feet at a time", so once you've done that a few times: what's left to do? Realistically? Sure: if we had the ability to actually send a proper mission that can drive around the entire thing, with a pop up lab (arctic research style) on the moon itself, that's a different matter, but we are nowhere near that level of proficient at space science yet, and going to the moon a few more times won't make a difference to that aspect.
      - Kim_Bruning 2y ago
        Arctic style base on the moon would be 200 to 500 metric tons of materials to ship. That's 2-5 SpaceX Starship return trips if/when they become operational in a few years time. There's a number of reservations wrt the practicality of SpaceX Starship of course. That said, it allows us to say there's at least one company projecting a 100 metric ton payload spacecraft in the near future (with prototypes already being tested). If/when they get it working, remember that SpaceX tends to mass produce their spacecraft, so it wouldn't be just a one off single landing by a one off single lander.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  This is the worst argument and I'm sick of hearing it. Do you seriously, honestly, think that there is nothing left for us to learn on the moon? Or that seeing humans doing things on the moon does not in any way inspire others to push forward in scientific endeavor? Such arguments demonstrate only a lack of curiosity and imagination.
  - robgibbons 2y ago
    It might sound cynical but it's accurate. There was a big political will to go to the moon because the USSR was beating us at every important space milestone. That galvanized the American government sufficiently to spend massive amounts of capital to win the space race. After a decade or two, and the loss of any real competition, the US lost the political will to keep pushing boundaries. The primary reason we don't still have the immediate capability to put people onto the moon isn't technical, it's political. We are only now reigniting that desire, and again, it's because of another great power starting to push things in space. It was CCCP pushing us then, it's the CCP now.
  - tomtheelder 2y ago
    I personally can't really imagine anything less inspiring than repeating a feat we managed over 50 years ago.
    - kevinventullo 2y ago
      How about: not even bothering to do that?
      - avmich 2y ago
        I'd offer better: not even being able to do that?
- euroderf 2y ago
  > We've got nothing like that to prove now. Just wait til China announces an effort to put humans on Mars.
GMoromisato 2y ago
In my opinion, simple inflation adjustment is not that accurate. In particular, notice that certain costs, like higher education, have increased significantly faster than inflation since the 60s. And since rocket science requires a highly educated workforce, you end up with higher salaries relative to the median. I'd actually like to see an analysis of the number of people working on the program. I bet Apollo had 2x or 3x more people working on it than Artemis. But I haven't done the math/research, so I could be very wrong.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  I think it's more like 10x. There were 400,000 working on Apollo and I doubt there's more than 40,000 working on Artemis.
- MrDrMcCoy 2y ago
  The quality of our education has fallen in addition to the rising costs.
  - Suppafly 2y ago
    >The quality of our education has fallen in addition to the rising costs. Maybe as an average because more people are being educated, but I find it hard to believe that our top students now are any less educated than the top students in the past.
    - osnium123 2y ago
      Our top students today may very well be less educated than their counterparts from the 1960s be because grade inflation has increased significantly and therefore our top students are not challenged as much.
      - edmundsauto 2y ago
dogsfordays 2y ago
[flagged]
credit_guy 2y ago
> We sent 4 times that amount to Ukraine for the war by an emergency vote. Not sending money to Ukraine means people die. Not sending a man to the Moon? People would just wonder why.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > Not sending money to Ukraine means people die. Yes, and lose their freedom, and it greatly increases the risk that many more will die and lose their freedom.
  - aeternum 2y ago
    Sending money also increases the risk of nuclear war in which even more people will die and lose their freedom.
    - avmich 2y ago
      > Sending money also increases the risk of nuclear war In which way?
      - willcipriano 2y ago
        1. Increase conflict between you and a nation with nuclear weapons 2. Make nation with nuclear weapons more desperate 3. Make nation with nuclear weapons more angry If the point is to prevent nuclear war you must either prevent nukes or prevent war. This accomplishes neither.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        avmich 2y ago
        > 1. Increase conflict between you and a nation with nuclear weapons How? The nation with nuclear weapons probably understands that it will suffer a lot in a nuclear war, or will likely get hit with nuclear weapons itself, right? > 2. Make nation with nuclear weapons more desperate So what? It may be desperate, but can't use nuclear weapons because - see pt. 1. - it may think it will hit itself with nuclear weapons. Ok, maybe not even nuclear weapons - but that nation may also understand that it won't stand long against focused non-nuclear attack. > 3. Make nation with nuclear weapons more angry Nations, really, aren't people, saying they are angry is complicated. Maybe leaders will become more angry, but what could they do? Ok, even if everybody will get more angry, so what? > If the point is to prevent nuclear war you must either prevent nukes or prevent war. This accomplishes neither. You can't prevent nukes - they exist in the world - and can't even guarantee you can prevent war, but you should carefully estimate what bad and good consequences your actions will have. Is it better to try to stop an aggressor? What may happen if you do? What may happen if you don't?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lm28469 2y ago
How much would it cost to do it again in the same exact way though ? It basically amounted to a trash can with an apple watch on top of a V2 rocket
- recursivedoubts 2y ago
  i would bet money that an apple watch has more computing power than was available to all of NASA, and maybe the entire US government, at the time
  - hinkley 2y ago
    Faster than a Cray 2.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    The latest (series 9) Apple Watch has (up to) 2 GB of RAM and can do billions of instructions per second. In 1966, the mainframe to use was the CDC 6600, able to do ~3 million instructions per second (MIPS), with kilobytes, possibly a megabyte of RAM. The US government had a good number of mainframes, of a wide variety, but they wouldn't be able to reach the Apple Watch's computing power.
Veedrac 2y ago
It's not just that we have $25/y now and had ~$24B/y then, to suggest it is practical. Costs are also vastly reduced over those benchmarks. Starship HLS cost the government under $3B. For that same price you could buy 30 Falcon Heavy flights at wholesale rates. New Glenn looks to launch soon and we don't know its price but it should be competitive, and it's a plenty capable ship. Of course, depending on these as Artemis does now would only improve prices, not timelines, but it's not like commercial options are all a year old. Marginal launch has been approximately free in Artemis terms for a good while now, possibly even back in the pre-SpaceX dark ages when US launch was a monopoly flying on Russian engines with a billion dollar a year protection racket tax. Ultimately it comes down to most of the money NASA spends on Artemis being spent on rent seeking by large old space companies that know job losses would look politically disastrous, captured in cost-plus contracts with hiring mandates, tech reuse mandates, and financial incentives not to execute. NASA is spending about as much on a mobile launch tower going overbudget on a cost plus contract as they have on Starship HLS. Guess which one had Congresspeople giving empassioned speeches about NASA's unreasonable spending habits!

colechristensen 2y ago

The reason we went to the moon was to prove that capitalism could do it better than communism. We've got nothing like that to prove now. Folks are working on making money doing things in space, and that's coming along nicely. NASA's scientific mission isn't particularly strongly served by having humans in a place. Not that there's no scientific value it's just much more expensive than robots and much riskier.

ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
>Not that there's no scientific value it's just much more expensive than robots and much riskier. And our ability to accept risk has decreased dramatically. 50 years ago the Boeing capsule would have been given the go ahead to detach without a second thought for instance. Basically going from 2 9s to 11 9s (or whatever NASA targets internally these days) is comically expensive. And I'd have to see a paper justifying human presence (besides trying to future proof society) as actually bringing more scientific value than robotic experiments.
- oceanplexian 2y ago
  All the evidence you need is that even in the present day, advanced countries have repeatedly tried to send probes to the moon and failed, when we did it with humans in the 1960s. All the software in the world isn't as good as a trained pilot in a novel scenario (i.e. The first moon landing when Neil Armstrong changed the landing site at the last minute, or the events of Apollo 13).
  - vkou 2y ago
    The Soviets managed to send probes to the moon, and succeeded, with the automation and remote control systems of the 60s. Their manned lunar ambitions were hamstrung by the many failures of the N-1 rocket, which could not be made safe enough for human flight. (Or any flight, really.) The thing with probes is that you should send more than one every 5-10 years, if you do that, you'll learn something from the failures before everyone working on the project dies of old age. It's the moon, you don't need to wait for a once-a-decade transfer window to line up.
  - ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
    The U.S, and the Soviet Union, each landed probes on the moon in the 60s. And the Soviet Union even did a sample return in 1970. >All the software in the world isn't as good as a trained pilot in a novel scenario You can likely launch 5 (or more) autonomous missions rather than send humans. And that's assuming good spending, if you go by the $93 billion Artemis Program, likely 20 or more.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  > And our ability to accept risk has decreased dramatically. Yes, recall that Apollo 1 incinerated the capsule crew, that would have canceled the entire program today, back then it was "press on..." We did continue with the Space Shuttle after its accidents, but that was decades ago now, and I'm sure that played into any discussions there might have been about extending the program.
  - jiggawatts 2y ago
    > that would have canceled the entire program today The US government just delayed the next Starship launch by 2 months because of incorrectly filed paperwork. It's not that SpaceX didn't file the paperwork... they just used the wrong form. This is why our feet are firmly nailed to the ground. If anyone actually cared to go to the Moon or Mars, then obstructionist bureaucrats like that wouldn't be in their jobs for very long.
    - cruffle_duffle 2y ago
      Somewhere there was a space that said “do not write in this space” and the person who filled it out wrote “okay”… the FAA got ‘em now, SpaceX.
- cameldrv 2y ago
  I believe NASA is targeting something like 99.5% reliability with Starliner. I agree that ability to accept risk has decreased, but my guess is that Starliner in reality has more like one nine of reliability. If you look at the first flight test of Starliner, everyone talks about the timing problem that caused them to fail to achieve the proper orbit. What is more rarely discussed is that after this happened, they did a top to bottom code review while the Starliner was in orbit, and found a bug in the crew/service module undocking procedure that would have caused the service module to strike the crew module after undocking, most likely damage the heat shield, and cause the capsule to burn up on reentry. They applied a hot fix in orbit for this. Had the timer problem not happened, the code review wouldn't have happened and this wouldn't have been caught. With the number of gremlins that have come up on every Starliner flight, there are certainly many more lower probability defects that will eventually lead to a loss of crew. My general feeling is that the true reason NASA/Boeing is much less successful than in the 60s is because the NASA of that time attracted the very top talent that was young, energetic, and bright. These days that talent generally doesn't go to those places. IMO the main reason SpaceX has been so successful is that a lot of those people really wanted to work on rockets but didn't want to work for NASA/Boeing.
  - colechristensen 2y ago
    SpaceX lost several rockets in the beginning, NASA lost an enormous number of rockets in the 60s space era and several people. >My general feeling is that the true reason NASA/Boeing is much less successful than in the 60s is because the NASA of that time attracted the very top talent that was young, energetic, and bright. Are they much less successful? Less things are being paid for and things are happening at a slower pace because money.
- sirtaj 2y ago
  The cost/benefit analysis was probably seen differently back then. At that point it was a space race against the Big Bad and winning was more important than a certain threshold of safety. Now? I can't see the benefit of risking the life of the Starliner crew. What would it prove now that NASA has had so many crewed launches and returns?
TheRealPomax 2y ago
But is there any scientific value? We ran enough missions that we're still looking at everything we brought back last time, what science would we be doing that we either haven't already done, or can do here on earth just fine without going to the moon for it?
- Kim_Bruning 2y ago
  Well, the Moon is an entire world. We're still doing science on the planet Earth, because there's still plenty to learn, and we actually live here with billions of people. We've only sent a handful of folks to the Moon so far. We've literally barely scratched the surface, and only a few tiny patches of it as that. Exploring new places has always lead to all sorts of interesting new discoveries. No reason to think a whole new world mightn't hold a few interesting (and/or potentially lucrative) surprises.
  - TheRealPomax 2y ago
    Yeah but the Earth is a geologically active planet hosting life. The moon is neither of those things, it's a ball of rock in orbit that we can explore all of "several square feet at a time", so once you've done that a few times: what's left to do? Realistically? Sure: if we had the ability to actually send a proper mission that can drive around the entire thing, with a pop up lab (arctic research style) on the moon itself, that's a different matter, but we are nowhere near that level of proficient at space science yet, and going to the moon a few more times won't make a difference to that aspect.
    - Kim_Bruning 2y ago
      Arctic style base on the moon would be 200 to 500 metric tons of materials to ship. That's 2-5 SpaceX Starship return trips if/when they become operational in a few years time. There's a number of reservations wrt the practicality of SpaceX Starship of course. That said, it allows us to say there's at least one company projecting a 100 metric ton payload spacecraft in the near future (with prototypes already being tested). If/when they get it working, remember that SpaceX tends to mass produce their spacecraft, so it wouldn't be just a one off single landing by a one off single lander.
anigbrowl 2y ago
This is the worst argument and I'm sick of hearing it. Do you seriously, honestly, think that there is nothing left for us to learn on the moon? Or that seeing humans doing things on the moon does not in any way inspire others to push forward in scientific endeavor? Such arguments demonstrate only a lack of curiosity and imagination.
- robgibbons 2y ago
  It might sound cynical but it's accurate. There was a big political will to go to the moon because the USSR was beating us at every important space milestone. That galvanized the American government sufficiently to spend massive amounts of capital to win the space race. After a decade or two, and the loss of any real competition, the US lost the political will to keep pushing boundaries. The primary reason we don't still have the immediate capability to put people onto the moon isn't technical, it's political. We are only now reigniting that desire, and again, it's because of another great power starting to push things in space. It was CCCP pushing us then, it's the CCP now.
- tomtheelder 2y ago
  I personally can't really imagine anything less inspiring than repeating a feat we managed over 50 years ago.
  - kevinventullo 2y ago
    How about: not even bothering to do that?
    - avmich 2y ago
      I'd offer better: not even being able to do that?
euroderf 2y ago
> We've got nothing like that to prove now. Just wait til China announces an effort to put humans on Mars.

GMoromisato 2y ago

In my opinion, simple inflation adjustment is not that accurate. In particular, notice that certain costs, like higher education, have increased significantly faster than inflation since the 60s. And since rocket science requires a highly educated workforce, you end up with higher salaries relative to the median. I'd actually like to see an analysis of the number of people working on the program. I bet Apollo had 2x or 3x more people working on it than Artemis. But I haven't done the math/research, so I could be very wrong.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bryanlarsen 2y ago
I think it's more like 10x. There were 400,000 working on Apollo and I doubt there's more than 40,000 working on Artemis.
MrDrMcCoy 2y ago
The quality of our education has fallen in addition to the rising costs.
- Suppafly 2y ago
  >The quality of our education has fallen in addition to the rising costs. Maybe as an average because more people are being educated, but I find it hard to believe that our top students now are any less educated than the top students in the past.
  - osnium123 2y ago
    Our top students today may very well be less educated than their counterparts from the 1960s be because grade inflation has increased significantly and therefore our top students are not challenged as much.
    - edmundsauto 2y ago

dogsfordays 2y ago

[flagged]

credit_guy 2y ago

> We sent 4 times that amount to Ukraine for the war by an emergency vote. Not sending money to Ukraine means people die. Not sending a man to the Moon? People would just wonder why.

mmooss 2y ago
> Not sending money to Ukraine means people die. Yes, and lose their freedom, and it greatly increases the risk that many more will die and lose their freedom.
- aeternum 2y ago
  Sending money also increases the risk of nuclear war in which even more people will die and lose their freedom.
  - avmich 2y ago
    > Sending money also increases the risk of nuclear war In which way?
    - willcipriano 2y ago
      1. Increase conflict between you and a nation with nuclear weapons 2. Make nation with nuclear weapons more desperate 3. Make nation with nuclear weapons more angry If the point is to prevent nuclear war you must either prevent nukes or prevent war. This accomplishes neither.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - avmich 2y ago
        > 1. Increase conflict between you and a nation with nuclear weapons How? The nation with nuclear weapons probably understands that it will suffer a lot in a nuclear war, or will likely get hit with nuclear weapons itself, right? > 2. Make nation with nuclear weapons more desperate So what? It may be desperate, but can't use nuclear weapons because - see pt. 1. - it may think it will hit itself with nuclear weapons. Ok, maybe not even nuclear weapons - but that nation may also understand that it won't stand long against focused non-nuclear attack. > 3. Make nation with nuclear weapons more angry Nations, really, aren't people, saying they are angry is complicated. Maybe leaders will become more angry, but what could they do? Ok, even if everybody will get more angry, so what? > If the point is to prevent nuclear war you must either prevent nukes or prevent war. This accomplishes neither. You can't prevent nukes - they exist in the world - and can't even guarantee you can prevent war, but you should carefully estimate what bad and good consequences your actions will have. Is it better to try to stop an aggressor? What may happen if you do? What may happen if you don't?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

lm28469 2y ago

How much would it cost to do it again in the same exact way though ? It basically amounted to a trash can with an apple watch on top of a V2 rocket

recursivedoubts 2y ago
i would bet money that an apple watch has more computing power than was available to all of NASA, and maybe the entire US government, at the time
- hinkley 2y ago
  Faster than a Cray 2.
- fragmede 2y ago
  The latest (series 9) Apple Watch has (up to) 2 GB of RAM and can do billions of instructions per second. In 1966, the mainframe to use was the CDC 6600, able to do ~3 million instructions per second (MIPS), with kilobytes, possibly a megabyte of RAM. The US government had a good number of mainframes, of a wide variety, but they wouldn't be able to reach the Apple Watch's computing power.

Veedrac 2y ago

It's not just that we have $25/y now and had ~$24B/y then, to suggest it is practical. Costs are also vastly reduced over those benchmarks. Starship HLS cost the government under $3B. For that same price you could buy 30 Falcon Heavy flights at wholesale rates. New Glenn looks to launch soon and we don't know its price but it should be competitive, and it's a plenty capable ship. Of course, depending on these as Artemis does now would only improve prices, not timelines, but it's not like commercial options are all a year old. Marginal launch has been approximately free in Artemis terms for a good while now, possibly even back in the pre-SpaceX dark ages when US launch was a monopoly flying on Russian engines with a billion dollar a year protection racket tax. Ultimately it comes down to most of the money NASA spends on Artemis being spent on rent seeking by large old space companies that know job losses would look politically disastrous, captured in cost-plus contracts with hiring mandates, tech reuse mandates, and financial incentives not to execute. NASA is spending about as much on a mobile launch tower going overbudget on a cost plus contract as they have on Starship HLS. Guess which one had Congresspeople giving empassioned speeches about NASA's unreasonable spending habits!