I think the situation here from NASAs perspective is that these were the choices: 1. Back a low risk moon mission that is basically a repeat of Apollo using pr

I think the situation here from NASAs perspective is that these were the choices: 1. Back a low risk moon mission that is basically a repeat of Apollo using proven, but extremely expensive tech that has a very low probability of failure. 2. Back a high risk strategy that relies on the development of new technology that can potentially deliver hundreds of tons of cargo to the lunar surface for a fraction of the cost of Apollo and support a sustained human presence on the lunar surface. This of course comes with a near 100% chance of significant delays and cost overruns, and also a high probability of total failure. IMO NASA made the obviously correct choice here and it's not close. This is exactly the kind of thing that I want my tax money spent on.