http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a19056/sorry-the-f-22-production-line-is-dead/
It could be back
>>28628318
>restarting program would mean you'd have to pay 200 million per aircraft if they build 75 of them
why would you want it back, just buy twice the amount of F35's AND get a discount because of the effect of economies of scale.
unless they somehow cut it to being less than the F35 per aircraft it isn't worth it since the F35's production line is already operational.
You're better off investing in the Mitsubishi Shin Shin (Nips designing it to make up for what the F35 lacks in air interdiction) if you want another fifth gen fighter with western quality
>>28628318
Not when the F-35 is a better plane.
>>28628379
Exactly.
>>28628376
The planes shouldn't be worth that much anyway. They should be on the same cost level as motor vehicles.
>>28628489
I know what you're getting at, but the issue is that now it is far too expensive to produce F22's when F35's are a cheaper (albeit only slightly worse) replacement for the F22
>>28628379
>hurr da number is higher that means it's better
>>28628376
>Nips designing it to make up for what the F35 lacks in air interdiction
>F-35
>lacking in air interdiction
I don't think you know what you are saying
>>28628522
they want to make a more "pure air interdiction" fighter. F35 might be amazing at air interdiction but its a multirole.
probably should have worded the post better
>>28628376
>>28628539
The ATD-X / Shin Shin is just a tech demo for another fighter coming in the 2030s. That said, it's more of a light fighter than interdiction (air interdiction = deep air support / air-to-ground strikes in enemy territory). Hell, the ATD-X is even smaller than the F-16.
>>28628563
fuck
my bad.
I'll just drink more and post less.
is the F-35 as much of a piece of shit as everyone says it is?
>>28629170
>is it
No
>everyone says it is
No
>>28629170
No.
>>28629170
Development is an absolute nightmare and is costing a fuckload, but that's to be expected whenever the government funds any project of significance.
As for the plane itself, nobody knows for sure yet because it's still in dev. Shitting on it is a meme, but it'll probably be pretty fucking sweet.
>>28629170
The F-35 is legitimately okay, but it is also clearly inferior to the F-22 in almost every way. All the money poured into the F-35's development could have been better spent on building more F-22's. The remaining cash could have been spent towards beginning development of a Sixth Gen replacement for the F-15/F-22 to be introduced in 2040.
The hi-lo mix is a retarded concept and it should just be outright abolished.
>>28628318
I love the F-22, it's such a beautiful bird. I think the F-35 is kinda fugly, but it's the right plane at the right time.
The only thing I want are legions of B1-Rs datalinking missiles to F-35/F-22s up ahead.
>>28630231
>legions of BOne-Rs
>>28628376
>investing in vaporware the plane
>>28630264
>F-14s, F-4s, F-16s, a few hornets, a MiG-21, and a mirage 2000, all in formation with a B1 lancer.
What was the context for this?
Are you not screeching it too far? You will be already mass producing the new F-35, there is the new bomber you want and on top of that restart and produce more F-22? Worse, this is just the air force, add in all those new navy ships, particularly the new Ford carriers, and you will easily double your deficit. You know there is no such thing as unlimited money, right?
>>28630150
>tfw they will never just slap F-35 computers into an F-22 because "m-muh brand image" or some other lame excuse
>>28630287
Egypt
>>28630387
or the fact that it kills the pilot...
>>28630150
>The hi-lo mix is a retarded concept and it should just be outright abolished.
Its is not. But F-22- F-35 is not hi-lo mix. Its very hi-hi mix.
>>28630492
>But F-22- F-35 is not hi-lo mix.
The F-35 is only "hi" in comparison to Europoor fighters and slavshit. It pales in comparison to the F-22.
>>28630150
>The F-35 is legitimately okay, but it is also clearly inferior to the F-22 in almost every way.
It's not quite as fast or with crazy maneuverability, but it can haul more air to ground payload, and has significantly better sensors and comms.
>>28630639
>but it can haul more air to ground payload
This is wrong. The F-22 can carry more weight, internally and externally. In particular, the F-22 can carry more missiles internally, and even if it expends those, it has two heat-seeking missiles in side-mounted launchers to fall back on.
>has significantly better sensors and comms.
This is true. But if the money from the F-35 program had just been used to upgrade the F-22 instead, then the F-22 would have all those same advantages.
>>28630701
The F-22 can carry more missiles, yes, but it's limited to 1000lbs class A2G ordinance and only has 4 external stations. The F-35 can do 2000 pounders and has six.
>This is true. But if the money from the F-35 program had just been used to upgrade the F-22 instead, then the F-22 would have all those same advantages.
Coulda woulda shoulda. The F-22 was never meant for ground attack, and the tech just didn't exist back then.
>>28630701
>>28630786
Then, instead of restarting production of the same F-22, use what was leaned and build a new version, which would be kind of a gen 5.5 plane.
>>28630803
So, what, you're suggesting we cancel an excellent plane we've already built ~200 of to go completely back to the drawing board?
>>28630823
No, new planes only, as OP implied.
>>28630835
With 2400+ F-35s we'll have more than enough air power to cover the gaps left by low F-22 presence, buddy.
A reminder
>>28630949
>entire 30 year history of Space Shuttle program is $196 billion
>5 shuttles built
>each shuttle had to practically be rebuilt after every single expensive as fuck mission
>F-35s aren't even operational yet
>already over 7 and a half times the cost
>>28631016
Imagine what 1.5 Trillion do to our stagnated space program.
>>28630949
Are those sums in constant dollars?
Because apollo got a larger percentage of the taxpayer budget year on year than the shuttle.
>>28629170
The people who say that are lying to you in ways that are obvious when you think about some of the physics involved.
They are liars, they are arguing in bad faith (because they never wanted the program in the first place), they should never be trusted.
>>28629202
>Development is an absolute nightmare
You can of course tell us about why exactly it is a nightmare? Even in some general buzzwordy terms.
>>28630949
That's so disengenuous, between not accounting for inflation, and not doing apple-to-apple comparisons that I must call you a lying little shit
>>28631016
1.5 Trillion is the estimate for the lifetime cost of procurement, including money that has not yet been spent.
Nice try, you dishonest shit
>>28630949
>>28631016
>not accounting for the fact that only 6 space shuttles were ever built, with only 5 of them actually performing orbital missions.
>not accounting how over that 30 year timespan, only 135 missions had been flown, averaging to about 4-5 missions a year.
>not accounting how there's supposed to be 2000+ F-35s at the peak of operation.
>not accounting how the USAF/USN/USMC practically fly their planes every day for training and missions, and multiple man hours of maintenance are required per flight hour of each and every one of said 2000+ planes.
Yeah you have have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
>>28631102
And how do you know that they haven't fucked up the estimates yet again and it won't end up being 3 or 4 trillion once it's all said and done?
>>28631016
Posting video because why not.
>>28631119
That cuts both ways How do you know they haven't fucked up the estimates yet again and it won't end up being less than 1 trillion?
>>28631201
It absolutely does not cut both ways, especially not in the past 20 years.
>>28631016
>already over 7 and a half times the cost
This is where you are wrong. that 1.5T dollar figure is the total cost of the program, plus maintenance, spread out over 55 years.
>>28631253
>1.5T for 55 years of sliding from "kinda good" to "your fighter uses PILOTS?!?"
>>28630150
the F-35 has better air-to-ground capabilities. Better sensors and avionics (although I think the F-22 still has a better radar for air-to-air, IIRC). Better reliability. Almost half the price. Carrier and STOVL capability in various versions. Lots of compatibility with upgrades and future-proofing.
The F-22 is the better air superiority fighter. But the F-35 has a valuable role being much cheaper and more capable at ground attack.
Think F-15 vs F-16. Would you say they should have just built more F-15's instead of the F-16? No, the F-16 was an awesome multirole cheap fighter to complement the air superiority expensive F-15.
>>28630231
you'll get that. The greatest abilities of the F-35 are the datalinking and avionics combined with its sensors. You'll have an F-35 all stealthed-out at 45k feet using it's sensors to track ground targets dozens of miles away while orbiting B-1's or whatever other aircraft that they want to use fires standoff weapons like the JSOW or SDB from dozens of miles away.
>>28630803
the F-22 is already worlds better than any other air-to-air fighter in the entire world. Spending another trillion or two dollars on an entirely new program to make a 6th gen fighter is retarded. Better to spend a few billion making more jets that won't be obsolete for another 50 years.
>>28630949
that's the entire program cost. R&D, testing, manufacturing, prototypes, supplies, armaments, operation, maintenance, etc. They've never tracked other aircraft that way, but for all we know, something like the F-15 or F/A-18 has racked up a program cost that's comparable.
If we look at unit cost, the F-35 is going to cost less per plane than the newest versions of the F-16E/F being sold to countries right now.
>>28631278
>implying the F-35 is only "kinda good" right now, and not "better than every other comparable aircraft or comparable prototype"
>implying drones will take up 100% of combat missions within 50 years.
you're sadly mistaken on both points.
>>28631384
>Would you say they should have just built more F-15's instead of the F-16?
Yes. Why not? It's true that the F-16 turned out pretty good, but that doesn't change the fact that it was unnecessary. A larger number of F-15s would have have been better.
>>28631633
the F-15 is more expensive, less reliable, and not as purpose-built to be multirole.
>>28631399
Working solely with birds that can be taken off mission with just jamming is dumb, too.
http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/20/air-force-drones-had-a-record-number-of-crashes-last-year/
>>28631693
And as F-15K shows it's not cheaper than just building F-35s as planned.
>>28631693
The F-16 wasn't purpose-built as multi-role either. Originally, it was supposed to just have heatseekers and a gun, nothing else. No hardpoints strong enough to carry bombs. No long-range missiles.
>>28631706
yeah. Not to mention that having a pilot in the seat, in the aircraft, in the combat zone is still way more situational awareness than a drone, i don't care how many sensors and cameras you put on it.
>>28631786
silly. Maybe some original blueprints and plans had it that way, but the YF-16 prototype was already using sparrows (not just sidewinders), and it was slated to be a multirole fighter-bomber before large-scale production for the USAF started.
The F-15 only got ground-attack capability with the F-15E, which only entered production several years after the F-15C and D had already been in production.
Please don't compare the two. The F-16 was intended to be multirole from before production, the F-15 was modified to be a strike fighter after production had been going on for years.
>>28631964
>The F-15 only got ground-attack capability with the F-15E
The F-15 had about the same ground-attack capabilities as the F-16A - it could carry unguided bombs. Hell, the first production F-15As were even configured to carry b61s
>>28631036
Underrated Post....
>probably be on MARS already.
>>28631119
That's not what you posted, you backpedaling faggot. Don't try and deflect that you caught red handed by playing games with burden of proof
>>28632396
>>28632368
Reminder that a similar estimate for current fleet being replaced by F-35 over the same time frame is around 4 trillion. And that we have not spent that 1.5t, it's an estimate.
>>28628517
Who are you quoting?
>>28632418
Source for that?
>>28632642
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/06/27/massive-cost-estimate-for-fighter-program-is-misleading/#2715e4857a0b3e2dfbf02452
>>28628318
This is a weird question who nobody here probably knows the answer to, but if the Air Force decided to replace the F-22's vulcan with a GAU-22/A then how many 25x137mm rounds would the F-22 be able to hold with the same size magazine as the current raptor? I know that the F-35A holds 180 rounds for its gun. Would the Raptor be able to hold more of the same caliber? I also think the GAU-22/A itself is slightly smaller than the Vulcan but I'm not sure.
>>28632697
Thank you. This goes in my list of aircraft sources for future arguments.
>>28632700
Not really going to happen. The 20mm is fine for air to air. The 25 is for high precision bursts against ground targets.
>>28631102
Except those numbers are adjusted for inflation. Get rekt faggot.
>>28632113
you're simply wrong. Just do the research.
the F-15A-D was first really modified to do ground attack by the Israelis, when they added datalink pods and shit for Operation Wooden Leg. True air-to-ground capability only came with the F-15E variant, which is a long period of time after the initial design of the F-15.
The F-16 received the LANTIRN pod and Harpoon missiles with Block 20, Block 15 already had seen upgrades to its air-to-ground capability. The fact that as early as Block 15 already saw upgrades being put into its air-to-ground capability clearly shows that one of the original intents for the aircraft is air-to-ground missions.
So provide a source that:
A) proves the F-15 was also designed for multirole capability
B) the F-15 received any significant upgrades to air to ground capability with the same kind of expediency that the F-16 did
>>28632766
My question was purely theoretical. I want to know which aircraft has more gun capacity in terms of ammo weight and space. Raw stats would suggest that the F-22 has about 27% greater capacity, meaning that if it were given the GAU-22/A it could theoretically hold 220 or fewer 25x137mm rounds without any major redesign.
http://www.pmulcahy.com/ammunition/autocannon_ammunition.html
If they DID reopen production for the F-22, that seems like a reasonable upgrade to make.
>>28631186
>shock cones forming
diamonds
>>28632875
like the other guy said, they probably won't bother. Unless they want to make a variant of the F-22 that's better at hitting ground targets with a gun. But I doubt it. Only reason to upgrade the F-22 would be with better a2a capability and upgrade the avionics and sensors to the same standard as the F-35. With the US buying thousands of F-35's, they won't need any F-22's doing ground attack.
>>28632854
Those numbers include inflation. Without inflation it's 1/3 less:
http://defense-update.com/files/member/JPO-SAR-14.PDF
>>28631220
In the past 5 years it has.
>>28631786
No, that's what Pierre Sprey wanted it to have; the original F-16 had a radar, could use radar guided missiles and drop bombs.
>>28632368
So far NASA has received ~2x as much as the JSF program since the program began.
>>28632901
I don't think its a stretch at all that after:
>developing software to make this the most accurate gun a fighter plane has ever had
>developing special APEX ammunition to make it the most powerful gun that a fighter plane has ever had
That they would include this gun on all future fighters for as long as fighters have guns.
Either that or omit the gun completely.
>>28631186
What are those little things on the RCS ports that tear open?
![space-shuttle-oms-enginea[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/PEHSibV.jpg "space-shuttle-oms-enginea[1].jpg")
>>28633046
RCS ports:
>>28633009
yeah, maybe. I haven't heard enough about what makes the GAU-22/a so special, but if it really is that much of an improvement, then I can easily see it being retrofitted on other aircraft.
What I'd be interested most in is if it can get kills on light armored vehicles from longer range. The A-10 needs to get into a dive, and be around a mile or two away to fire off a burst. If they could get a gun with software and ammo that can get kills on unarmored and lightly armored vehicles from further away, that would be awesome.
>>28631186
Hard to believe that the thing only really shat out water and aluminum oxide.
Great.
It seems that the Chinese will be the only ones left who will serial produce heavy twin engined stealth fighters in 2016-2017.
>>28629170
It's not worth its price tag.
>>28633511
>price tag less than modernized F-16's
>price tag half of F-22
so, what WOULD be worth the price tag???
>>28633511
What's the alternative? The F-35 is comparably priced against other modern fighter jets while having much greater capabilities such as all-aspect stealth and one hell of a sensor package. There is no alternative out there that would net the same advantages for a lower price.
>>28633598
it makes my brain hurt when I hear that Trudeau wanted to cancel Canada's F-35 contracts and start a new competition/bid process for a replacement fighter but explicitly exclude the F-35.
What do they think would work better? a fucking Rafale or Eurofighter??? Because those are pretty much the only two comparable options, and they will both end up almost the same cost but with less functionality. What, they would buy upgraded F-15, F-16, or F/A-18 from the US? Good luck with that. Like I said, modernized variants of the F-16 are being sold for more than the projected unit cost of the F-35.
Seriously, I hope this stupid anti-war pacifist ignorant liberal government doesn't cancel the F-35 for us.
>>28633502
Damn shame that heavy fighter has a t/w less than 1.0 and carrys the same amount of bvr missles (eventually less) than the comparitivly diminutive f-35
>>28633635
Pretty sure his defense minister has said the F-35 is still on the table
>>28633638
Even if the J-20 stays like this with over-large missiles and underpowered engines, it will still have a combat range superiority, most probably a larger radome diameter and carrying more sensors internally.
>>28633661
Yup. Weedman may be a collection of memes taking the form of a person, but at the very least it looks like the cabinet that he selected have merits beyond their diversity.
>>28633635
The only logic I can see for choosing the Rafale is if for some reason you absolutely have to get the planes quickly and you just don't want to wait for the F-35 to go into full production in 2019.
But why would such a state of urgency exist?
>>28633568
Nice fanfic
>>28633694
>But why
Because it was 2015.
>>28633678
>combat range superiority
Chinese jet engines are not known for their efficiency.
>more sensors and biggar radar
Perhaps, but at the cost of everything else, nor do we know the quality or really any details of them.
>>28633729
>Chinese jet engines are not known for their efficiency.
And you know that because?
The WS-10 is basically a CFM-56 development and comparable with the F-100. Both have the same amount of compressor stages and equal fuel burn.
But that's not important, as the J-20 is most probably equipped with an AL-31F-M2 rated for 145 KN.
>>28633748
>But that's not important, as the J-20 is most probably equipped with an AL-31F-M2 rated for 145 KN.
Oh, they have a russian engine meant for the russian airforce as an upgrade, thats still basically in testing.
Oh yes, thats what the chinese have.
>get a grip
>>28633863
China provided major funds to the AL-31F M1 and M2 development, partly because the J-10B series 1 received the M1 and the J-20 1st batch to receive the M2.
Same with the S-400, basically. Which is why China was the first one to get them as a foreign country.
>>28633661
yeah after Trudeau won a majority government, the defense minister was asked about it and he didn't take the F-35 off the table, he just gave a non-answer and said he was focused on replacing the CF-18
>>28633692
at least the Sihk that he affirmative-actioned into his cabinet as defense minister actually has military experience like a badass. Hopefully it turns out ok.
>>28633698
projected unit cost for the F-35 once production is in full swing is around 100 mil IIRC.
>>28633919
>China provided major funds to the AL-31F M1
Yes
>and M2
Nope.
>the J-10B series 1 received the M1
Yes
>-20 1st batch to receive the M2.
Nope.
You are talking out of your ass, friend, nor do you have anything to back up your claims.
>>28633956
In 2012 dollars, they expect it to cost $82.00 million for aircraft ordered in 2018. In today's dollars, that's $84.65 million.
Cheapest it's expected to reach is $62.85 million (in 2012 dollars) in the 2nd last year of it's production.
>>28633956
I read what he said and it sounds like he knows the F-35 is the best option. He just doesn't want to say it yet. And honestly, why should he? Just wait till 2020 then buy the fighters. By then the price will be so low it will seem idiotic to pick anything else. Surely the CF-18s can survive 4 more years.
>>28628318
So let me get this straight:
The F-22 needs its stealth coating to be constantly reapplied, but the F-35 will never need recoated because the material is baked into the airframe's skin?
>>28630150
>All the money poured into the F-35's development could have been better spent on building more F-22's.
All the money spent on F-35 also might make F-22 maintenance costs sustainable. F-35 expected life cycle costs are around 250 million per plane. F-22.... double that.
F-22 as plane is brilliant. Same can't be said about it as project. Almost everything went wrong in project management and USAF predictions of future. To start with they failed with their bet on future of fighter missions, F-22 is designed around one mission, that isn't really relevant. Next thing is their processor choice, avionics of F-22 were designed around processor that never became that common and their later choice of saving some money by delaying spareparts order made that whole lot more expensive mess.
>>28630287
Photo op after exercise with Egyptians or just because a carrier group transited Suez canal... or both. You missed Alphajet, Mirage 5 and AMX.
>>28634133
That is correct. If the F-35's RAM is damaged than that means the skin has been damaged. The F-22 might get the new treatment eventually.
>>28634106
Jets don't get made overnight; if Canada doesn't begin negotiating an order by ~2018, they likely won't have a fleet before the CF-18s are dead. Generally the JSF purchase cycle is a 2 year overlapping one; so if you order a batch of jets in 2018, it won't be delivered until 2020. Also, Canada has to negotiate to get it's spot in the production queue - if they decide to get the F-35 in 2020 and say "okay, we want the jets now, we need 65 of them by 2022 when we retire our Hornets" they're not going to get the answer they want.
Even ignoring the production cycle, one of the longest parts about changing over a fleet is training - if you swap your fleet entirely in just 2 years, your entire fleet is inexperienced and you're going to be somewhat ineffective in the years it takes to get senior pilots ready. Australia's had pilots training on F-35s since 2015 and it won't be getting it's first F-35s sent back to Australia until 2018.
>>28634133
>>28634193
Yes and no - stealth coatings have different layers. On stealth jets, under your radar absorbing layers you have a reflective layer which ensures that radar waves can't penetrate through your composite skin and reflect internally off of bolts, etc. On older jets, that was a thin layer of something like silver, but they wouldn't get it to bond reliably to the jet / RAM, so it would delaminate and be a massive pain in the ass. The F-35 has some sort of conductive material interwoven with the carbon fiber and carbon nanotube strands in it's composite. That means that it can't delaminate, which solves that massive issue.
The RAM itself is also made from newer materials which aren't part of the skin, but are far more durable - it's meant to last about 8 years or so of operational use before it needs a recoating - that means that when the jet goes into the depot every ~5 years for routine scheduled deep level inspection and maintenance, they'll run it through the robotic paint shop and make the coating new again.
>>28628517
In the entire history of plane threads I have never heard this once. Not once ever.
https://pando.com/2014/12/18/the-war-nerd-more-proof-the-us-defense-industry-has-nothing-to-do-with-defending-america/
https://pando.com/2015/09/24/war-nerd-why-f-35-albanian-mushroom/
>>28630304
You could pay for all of it on the funds going to illegals annually
>>28633635
Trudeau is a retarded liberal puppet
He'll get nothing of what he wants
And they'll probably buy the F-35 anyways.
>>28634852
> this is what /k/ actually believes
>>28630523
The only useful thing in that was internal storage.
>>28633009
>M61
That's really old
>>28634626
>>28634193
F-22s are already getting the F-35's RAM.
http://archive.airforcetimes.com/article/20110406/NEWS/104060302/Raptor-to-use-F-35-radar-absorbent-coatings
>>28635924
Cool, that'll make the maintainers' lives easier.
>>28634639
>Gary Brecher
>Not a Kremlin shill
>>28636217
>He doesn't buy the obvious bullshit from the state department!
>must be a commie spy terrorist sleeper agent!
>>28637420
>the MIC is real!!!
>>28631036
Fuck this makes me aroused
>>28637514
why didn't they make the f22 have a fulcrum based thrust vectoring nozzle? the swivel aspect of the f35 seems way more unreliable, and expensive in comparison. plus it would have given it the whole hi-lo aspect they wanted, alongside having it in marine role with VTOL capabilities.
>>28637710
>word salad
The only thrust vectoring on the F-35 is for STOVL mode on the B, freindo. And they only did pitch axis on the F-22 because it's the only really useful angle.
>>28637742
isn't the B VTOL
>>28637778
The F-35B can't take off vertically when fitted with a decent payload (neither could the harrier) thus the term STOVL (short-take-off-vertical-landing) is more preferred now.
>>28637778
>>28637896
And operationally speaking STOVL profile doesn't eat as much fuel, so it can maximize flight time.
>>28633694
>But why would such a state of urgency exist?
Multiple nations laying claim to the arctic, including Canada, a nation whom has no real defensive capabilities to speak of, as there is no political will to defend our land, or claimed land.
>>28631036
A space shuttle sized F-35
>>28628489
>motor vehicle
You realise that luxury performance cars (Veyron, LaFerrari, agera) can cost several million $ right? Now consider that your average jet is about 10 times as massive and has far more sophisticated tech in it.
>>28630639
The radar in an F-35 is the same as that found in an F-22 except with cray AtG capability.
>>28633748
Read a book
>>28637420
Sure, the fact that Brecher writes for Russian newspapers and peddles far-left conspiracy bullshit means he's completely reliable!
>>28641779
Pando is not a russian newspaper, its independent, and if some of his articles end up on some russian government magazines is because he sells the copyright, not because he works for them.
>>28628318
How true is this chart?
>>28642103
>by Haisam Hussein
Well the numbers are accurate since they're easily cross-referenced with public-domain information, but the narrative is fucking retarded and wrong.
>>28641118
>Implying the radar is the only sensor that matters
>>28642103
well, judging by that bar graph, 1500 is a little over half of 11500, which is about 1/6th of 32000.
>>28642103
wayy off.
Osprey costs ~$110mil a piece
F35 per hour is around ~$140k
my guess is that chart is from 2007ish inflation and also just cost of jet fuel
>>28642156
>F35 per hour is around ~$140k
Maybe right now while they're in testing, limited spares production, etc., that's not what operational costs will be.
>>28631278
>implying the f-35's of the 2050s won't have been upgraded to be optionally manned
>>28631036
waste 1.5 trillion dollars?
NASA has stagnated because they spent the last 60 years engaging in makework projects
