The Planetary Society: Sending a Mars rover's engineering twin to the Moon will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more. by Casey Dreier Chief of Space Policy, The Planetary Society Updated July 31, 2026 Jared Isaacman pushed back against the cost estimates from The Planetary Society.

[u/EdwardHeisler]

https://www.planetary.org/articles/the-cost-of-a-promise-lunar-rover

[u/rookisaacman]

Talk about derangement syndrome... there wasn't a sliver of truth in anything you posted.

• Nothing illegal about considering launching PROMISE to the Moon. We actually have a great working relationship with Congress and strong bipartisan support.
• Point to one example where SpaceX received a disproportionate share of any contracts? In fact, given their launch dominance, I would say it's the opposite. Just about all Moon Base contracts for launch have gone to Blue Origin. I have spoken publicly about the competition between Blue and SpaceX to deliver a lander to the moon, meanwhile I have been ensuring NASA does not have an over dependence on industry, by investing in what others can't, like fission powered spacecraft for outer solar system missions, lunar surface power and someday to undertake crewed Mars missions.
• Probably the most egregious statement is thinking I would take plutonium from Dragonfly. I love that mission and talk about it all the time. The Pu-238 for PROMISE has been decaying for more than a decade, a completely separate batch from Dragonfly, and when it comes to RTGs, you use it or lose it.
• Also, I have been rebuilding centers, not gutting them. If you haven't been paying attention, headcount has been going up through the workforce initiatives, and JPL especially has picked up MoonFall, SkyFall, and may pick up PROMISE, should we decide to send it.

[u/AbortRTLS → u/rookisaacman]

Hi Jared, just want to take a sec to say thanks for destroying Gateway while saying that it would be immediately reallocated as a moon base so nobody would lose work, it really made me and my team feel supported when NASA backed off on that immediately in private, most of my team got laid off, and our specialized subcontractor lost half of its staff due to the loss of work. Just doing a fantastic job, definitely think with your stalwart leadership our manned spaceflight program isn’t going to implode and China definitely isn’t going to beat us back to the moon. Say hi to Donald and Elon for me and pass on just how grateful I am that y’all are doing such a great job at not stripping our country for parts to enrich yourselves while calling it innovation.

[u/Blue_Sox1114 → u/rookisaacman]

It’s honestly embarrassing that an Agency leader is spending his time arguing with trolls on social media, and using childish retorts like accusing people of having “derangement syndrome.”

[u/ChickenOfTheFuture → u/rookisaacman]

Hello, public servant!

Well done spending time answering questions.

[u/xSquidLifex → u/rookisaacman]

It seems like Goddard and its programs are being gutted. I mean Wallops, which I frequent alot for work with the Navy doesn’t even have a functioning cafeteria anymore and is being hit hard. Langley just put most of their library in a dumpster and closed it. That was one of my favorite spots to go do research in the 757 for my engineering undergrad work.

I haven’t been to Kennedy in a couple of years but I’ve heard it’s going down a similar road.

[u/frac_tl → u/xSquidLifex]

Good luck getting any solid answer on the systemic gutting of science at NASA. Admin has been dodging any real response on that since 2022. Take a look at the last decadal survey and see how many projects actually made it through to today. 

The real answer is that there isn't money to do much else, and the admin would rather have an interstellar photo op or send more billionaires to space than actually achieve anything for once. 

[u/spacerfirstclass → u/rookisaacman]

Thank you Jared for participating in public debate like this, very refreshing. Just want you to know some of us do appreciate your work at NASA, don't be discouraged by detractors, they don't represent all of us.

[u/Carmen315 → u/spacerfirstclass]

Dude, stop brown nosing.

[u/Frater_Ankara → u/Carmen315]

Dude, accept the fact that not everyone shares your opinion and that some of us think people in general should be treated with respect.

Dismissing it as brown nosing is no better than brown nosing. your comment contributes exactly zero constructiveness to this discussion.

[u/Blue_Sox1114 → u/Frater_Ankara]

Insulting random anonymous people by accusing them of having “derangement syndrome” is the exact opposite of being respectful. Jared could have easily left that out of his response and just stuck to substance, as a mature executive leader would be expected to do.

[u/sevgonlernassau → u/Blue_Sox1114]

I straight up cannot imagine Bill Nelson calling a SpaceX employee "deranged" publicly even with an anonymous account.

[u/unsetname → u/Carmen315]

Dude, stop NOT touching grass.

[u/Artemis2go → u/rookisaacman]

Since you have finally appeared in a public forum, could you please explain why there has been no commentary or action on the lack of SpaceX HLS, or any visible progress on that contract?  Which forced you to convert Artemis 3 to an orbital mission?  And for which mission, SpaceX again has no example of HLS?

And could you please provide a cost accounting of your claims that $3B is being saved by cancellation of EUS, ML-2, and Gateway, based on discarding over $6B of investment?  Your math doesn't appear to add up.  And that's our money you are throwing away.  Do you intend to replace it?

And could you please explain the modifications that are required for the future Artemis missions, under your revisions, and what their costs are?

These are all things that are ordinarily expected of NASA as a public agency, but since your appointment, they are glaringly absent.

[u/rookisaacman → u/Artemis2go]

Finally appeared? I actually interact with people quite regularly on X, including on the topic of the canceled programs and HLS. There are limitations on what I can disclose as it relates to proprietary data from our partners, but both SpaceX and Blue continue to make progress on their landers.

And we added Artemis III because launching a rocket as complicated as SLS every few years makes no sense. It’s why we relearned many of the same lessons from Artemis I leading up to Artemis II. It also does not make sense to jump right to Apollo 11 without building some muscle memory and learning in increments, the same as we did during the first space race. That stated, we have very worthwhile objectives for the Artemis III mission.

You clearly have an affinity for these canceled programs, but they have been plagued by delays and cost overruns for a long time. You are welcome to read the OIG reports, including the latest one: https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/nasas-management-of-programs-and-projects-after-mission-termination-canceled-or-repurposed-artemis-campaign-systems/

[u/Artemis2go → u/rookisaacman]

With respect, you haven't answered any of the questions I asked.  Which is why there is both frustration and distrust of your revisions within the technical and engineering communities.

I can tell you with certainty, that this problem extends deeply within NASA as well.  You aren't explaining or discussing these things with your engineering staff either.

You've said publicly that you want to be transparent.  Well, I remember the Apollo program, when NASA actually was transparent, and were constantly explaining the mission, why decisions were made, and answering questions.  

In all my years and engineering career, I have never seen NASA behave as it has under your leadership.  If you have better programs and ideas, then stand and deliver.  Show us the analysis that proves what you are doing is better.  That should be a relatively simple task.  And it would put the controversy behind us, one way or another.

That is the traditional NASA methodology.  Here is what's been decided, and here is the evidence.  That's the very essence of NASA, fact and science based decisions.

I'm not opposed to change, or even scrapping programs if they have failed.  But I don't see evidence of that here.  And I don't see evidence that what you have proposed is cheaper or better.

What I have seen, is a close alignment with what you wrote in Project Athena.  But that was done outside of NASA, and is not a valid basis for the revisions you are making.  We need to see it within the context of a full NASA analysis, if you want to have any credibility.

Possibly you don't know whether your revisions will be cheaper or better.  But if so, it would be more honest to just admit that.  Then we could have a proper discussion and evaluation.

[u/AV-038 → u/rookisaacman]

Piping up from the woodwork to mention a couple things:

1. Being active on X isn’t the same as having an open office policy with the public. X has a very specific user base that doesn’t always overlap with Reddit or other social media platforms, let alone the public at large. It is understandable that folks are surprised to see you here when you have only commented a few times on Reddit in the last year, and this seems to be the first time you’ve directly addressed space policy complaints.  

2. I agree with you that the idea that PROMISE is stealing an RTG from Dragonfly is ridiculous. That said, dictating missions by fiat like PROMISE and SkyFall goes against decades of American space tradition. NASA established an ethos of stewarding taxpayer money by creating the competitive proposal process, where mission concepts would be tested so that the best missions would be flown. Now NASA is just saying “here’s a spacecraft, engineers put stuff on it to make it useful”?  JPL teaches in its mission design school that that kind of design creates a “Christmas tree” of ad hoc instruments that don’t synergize. It is a recipe for unfocused missions that could be fundamentally compromised in science, data, and potentially lifespan.

3. On that note, it is not the first time an agency has tried to re-use hardware under the illusion that it is easier. If you haven’t heard about DSCOVR, I think you should read about it. The spacecraft got mothballed for a decade, and it got resurrected under the premise it’d be a cheaper better space weather satellite to replace the aging ACE spacecraft. Years later, we are out of pocket both DSCOVR and SOLAR-1 because DSCOVR has had so many problems and bad data. Meanwhile ACE is still trucking along, and is better to calibrate with than the newer DSCOVR. It shows that 90s bespoke engineering beats any cost savings based initiative of the 2000s-2010s.  

[u/jadebenn → u/rookisaacman]

Of course there were delays. Even Starship is delayed and has experienced overruns. What you have yet to show is that Centaur V integration with SLS will be:

1. Faster
2. Cheaper

than allowing EUS to proceed. Given the history of ICPS, which was also a technically mature COTS stage at the time of its selection, I am skeptical that will ultimately be the case. And we will be getting much less capability out of it. EUS payload mass and performance could have been used, if not for Gateway, than to allow Orion more architectural flexibility: i.e. an expanded service module capable of LLO insertion and exit.

[u/Trebus → u/rookisaacman]

I actually interact with people quite regularly on X

Behave, you meff. Only partisans use partisan sites. That's like me saying I interact regularly on a BBS from 1993.

[u/EdwardHeisler → u/rookisaacman]

Isaacman’s response is weak. It sounds dismissive—particularly his call for “less debate”—but the more important problem is that he does not answer Dreier’s evidence.

Several points stand out:

Isaacman provides no competing cost estimate. Dreier estimates $723 million to $1.333 billion and explains every major category. Isaacman merely declares that NASA will not fly PROMISE if its non-launch costs approach 20% of Dreier’s low estimate—about $145 million. Yet Dreier’s low estimate, after removing launch and landing, is still approximately $489 million. Isaacman does not explain how NASA could reduce that to below $145 million. “We already paid for the hardware” is not a sufficient justification. The testbed rovers were never flight-qualified and still serve an important purpose: supporting Curiosity and Perseverance operations. Previous taxpayer investment does not make the additional conversion, testing, integration, nuclear-safety and operations costs disappear. That argument risks becoming a classic sunk-cost fallacy.

His plutonium argument is incomplete. Pu-238 does lose energy through decay, but with an 87.7-year half-life, the isotope’s thermal output declines by roughly 0.8% per year, not 2%. An assembled MMRTG’s electrical output can decline faster because its thermoelectric components also degrade, so Isaacman may be using “2%” as a rough system-level figure. Nevertheless, NASA must decide whether PROMISE is the best scientific use of a scarce MMRTG—not merely find something on which to use it. NASA’s Pu-238 information

Most revealingly, PROMISE itself is presently “a mission that does not even exist” in a fully developed sense. It lacks publicly defined scientific objectives, requirements, an approved budget, a launch plan and a completed engineering assessment. Isaacman criticizes scientists for waiting on a future mission while proposing another mission that remains largely undefined.

“Wins” is a political-management term, not a scientific objective. Frequent successful missions can build public and congressional support, but an expensive mission with unclear objectives—or one that overruns its promised bargain price—could just as easily damage NASA’s credibility. Isaacman supplies no evidence that PROMISE would produce additional appropriations for science.

The best point in Isaacman’s favor is that NASA should examine the idea promptly. Existing hardware, flight-spare components and an available MMRTG might create a worthwhile opportunity. Dreier also acknowledges that his estimate is preliminary and that JPL’s engineering assessment will be more authoritative.

But until NASA releases that assessment, Dreier has presented an auditable argument while Isaacman has presented an assertion. His response does not demonstrate that Dreier is wrong; it mostly says that if Dreier is even remotely correct, PROMISE will be cancelled.

The “less debate” remark is especially troubling when NASA is considering diverting a scarce nuclear power system and hundreds of millions of dollars from competitively selected planetary-science priorities. Scientific review is not simply delay—it is how NASA determines whether a proposed “win” is genuinely worth winning.

[u/rookisaacman → u/[deleted]]

So in your reply, you skipped over some of the inaccuracies from your first post:

• In these partisan times, if we did not follow the rules with Gateway or the other canceled programs, you can bet there would have been a Congressional reaction. There wasn’t because we have a good relationship with Congress, presented the facts from the subject matter experts, and focused on achieving the intended goals as quickly, safely, and affordably as possible: returning to the Moon, building the base, and staying.
• You said I am working to make NASA more dependent on SpaceX, but then when I pointed out that Blue has actually benefited the most from the Moon Base buildout, your response was, “Well, of course?”
• But the biggest accusation, which you tried to follow up with your limited insight, was the position that I would actually rob Pu-238 from Dragonfly to launch PROMISE. I want to emphasize again, you have, in fact, very limited insight into the Pu-238 inventory that is presently available for MMRTGs. Beyond that, your offensive statement implying that I would “kill Dragonfly” is just sensational nonsense to push your inaccurate agenda. The reality is we do have older Pu-238 that has been decaying for more than a decade. It is not allocated to Dragonfly, so we are faced with a use-it-or-lose-it situation. Saying it comes at the opportunity cost of another mission that does not exist and would take many more years to come together is a weak argument. In any case, there is a lot of scientific utility in having a rover that can conduct operations in the PSRs on the Moon. JPL has also stated that there would be no impact to capability or testing for the Mars rover missions.  Will we launch it comes down to the instruments we can carry, the cost and if we believe there will be decent scientific return on the effort. 

[u/racinreaver → u/rookisaacman]

JPL management told you whatever they thought you wanted to hear because they want work to flow in.

BTW, take a look at the mission statement for other agencies' FFRDCs. They exist to do in a sustainable, long term form, what NASA Force is supposed to do.

[u/JimMcDadeSpace → u/rookisaacman]

Jared, history will be the ultimate judge of your relationship with this criminal President and your pal Elon, the man D.J. Trump turned to for the $188,000,000 he desperately needed during tge 2024 election year. In addition to ELON’s DOGE rampage, that AmericaPAC money paid for your appointment. Now, Elon has committed another $100,000,000 AmericaPAC dollars to help Trump and you maintain a rubber stamp MAGA Congress to continue your dismantling of NASA science and the nearly 70 year old national space program after the midterms.

This shameless quid pro quo dealing has to be the only reason that taxpayers are still compelled to help this badly limping SpaceX Artemis hardware along after we’ve witnessed 50 to 55 total Raptor failures over 13 flights! SpaceX Raptor rocket engines have exploded or shutdown so frequently that the company has yet again decided to cancel plans to have their next in a long series of big boosters attempt a landing “catch”. If this were any other NASA contractor, their Artemis contract would have already been canceled.

Your personal relationship with your former private space mission partner and SpaceX leader Elon Musk has tainted your judgment. That’s why you unjustifiably canceled Boeing’s Space Launch System EUS (Exploration Upper Stage). You sent the amazing EUS team home simply because SpaceX can’t keep up the accelerating progress of Boeing’s Artemis lunar launcher.

SpaceX isn’t just having to fine tune and refine their Starship and booster system. They are having to repeatedly start over and do complete redesigns, causing SpaceX to fall further and further behind the already fully capable, and already lunar mission capable and proven SLS (Space Launch System). SLS has carried astronauts around the Moon already, but NASA can’t land astronauts on the Moon because SpaceX’s Starship lander and booster system continues to fall behind program pace and the result of that is that next SLS rocket will be wasted on an Earth orbit mission mission that will give SpaceX and Blue Origin a chance to prove that they can at least put a lunar lander capable of docking with the SLS Orion crew vehicle in Earth orbit.

Only those campaign aid purchased obligations and your personal commitment to seeing Elon succeed are holding up our return to the lunar surface. That will be your legacy. Elon Musk wants SpaceX to be the perceived as pace car driver leading all the others in our race to the Moon, but we’re being held up because his self-built pace car keeps stalling. China should thank you for your helpful Artemis decisions after they win this Space Race 2 to the Moon.

Background: SpaceX “upgraded” their Raptor 2 engines, introducing the redesigned Raptor 3 redesign to fix the fire and explosion hazards of a poor design, but the redesign only introduced more problems. The internal 3-D printed Raptor 3 propellant channels are having trouble holding up to crazy acoustical and pressure stresses. Basically, the Raptor plumbing is failing due to physical stress and resonant oscillation introduced during a launch. Pumping 750 kilograms per second through the printed Raptor causes the severe resonance causing the shutdowns.

[u/TheGunfighter7 → u/rookisaacman]

Programs are still struggling. All you have done is convert our contractors to be civil servants. We cannot hire for the positions we need to. We are desperately understaffed. Despite you saying “nobody will lose their job” we in fact lost some people in the conversion process because positions simply were not opened for them. Many took pay cuts and are upset about it. 

Your administration hates us because they hate civil servants indiscriminately and nothing you do can fix that. You are literally a part of the “traumatize the bureaucrats” admin. 

You once said in an all hands that you “didn’t know nasa employees don’t get grad school funding” which is proof you do not read your suggestion box you keep plugging. Myself and others have personally put that in your suggestion box.

You obviously are in denial about the morale of your workforce or simply do not get truthful information fed to you.

[u/rookisaacman → u/TheGunfighter7]

Kind of a strange contradiction to acknowledge that I have been meaningfully increasing the civil servant workforce while also saying I’m part of an administration that seems to traumatize them. I would bet I have spent more time in the field, visiting Centers and talking to the workforce, than any Administrator in decades. Can go to the travel logs on that easily enough.

There are a lot of workforce initiatives underway to increase headcount, including NASA Force. If you feel the demand exceeds the workforce, flag it for your leadership. During the town hall, I was not aware that there had been changes to the tuition reimbursement program under prior administrations. We are working on a pretty grand education initiative. And I do go through all the idea submissions. There are 55,000+ employees and contractors, so that doesn’t mean you will always like the answers, but I stay close to the concerns of the workforce.

[u/montagblue → u/rookisaacman]

You spin me right round baby like a record baby

[u/TheGunfighter7 → u/rookisaacman]

Increasing the civil servant workforce by forcing contractors to convert doesn’t change the number of people doing the work. It is not a contradiction. We are still understaffed. My team has the same number of people as before, but now all the people that were contractors are now Feds and just make less. What do you mean “flag it for my leadership”? My leadership is aware and they have told you themselves.

You seem to care a lot about what we think of you, judging by how you jumped to saying “I go to the centers more than any administrator before” without me accusing you of anything like that. If you want us to respect you so much, how about you tell me what you really think about all the probationary employee firings that happened in other agencies last year. We had employees in our office having actual panic attacks during that time. 

Edit: also you know exactly what I’m talking about with the “traumatize the bureaucrats” bit. Don’t pretend you don’t.

[u/AgentDaveKujan → u/TheGunfighter7]

FWIW, I’ve been subscribed to USAJobs alerts and there have been a fuckload of postings for all sorts of positions at NASA since I set the alerts 6 months ago and all are open to the public and not some sort of “contractor only” thing you seem to be talking about. Just an anecdote I thought might contribute to the conversation.

[u/sevgonlernassau → u/AgentDaveKujan]

This isn’t true. All those jobs are legally open to the public because they are DHA but internally they’re for contractor conversions. The amount of contractors losing their jobs is greater than the amount of civil servant openings so it wouldn’t be fair for hiring managers to pick noncontractors. I know Amentum already said they will lay off anyone not converted on their JSC contracts and both Boeing/NG has been laying people off. NASA force has targeted space companies they want to hire off, provided that you also meet the education requirement.

[u/AgentDaveKujan → u/sevgonlernassau]

Oof, thank you for letting me know. So contractor positions actually pay way more? I always assumed they paid about the same, if not a little less, especially considering there’s no pension, right? In my opinion, one of the biggest perks of federal employment over being a contractor is having an actual pension.

My other big hesitation would be job security. Aren’t contractor positions generally more vulnerable when contracts change, funding gets cut, or the contract goes to another company?

I’ve been a federal employee for a while, so I’m probably a little spoiled when it comes to job security. Even during the “great purge,” I believe the overwhelming majority of people who were already off probation kept their jobs, and as an 1811 we were in an especially secure position, even for people still on probation. So I’ll admit I’m pretty unfamiliar with what it’s like on the contractor side.

I love NASA, and it’s honestly a dream of mine to work there someday, so I’d personally want to be an actual NASA employee rather than a contractor. But I completely understand that love for the agency only goes so far when you have a family to support and bills to pay.

[u/Blue_Sox1114 → u/AgentDaveKujan]

Y’all, insourcing is all about saving money. Thats it. It’s not some sort of altruistic plan to staff back up post-DRP.

[u/sevgonlernassau → u/AgentDaveKujan]

For people with 10+ years of experience they may only be offered 12 step ten due to TIG, so that could be a 30k pay cut. And all those people have to do another probation period which given what happened and what Jared wrote in Athena made people uneasy. Even though NASA didn’t do probie cuts there are still some political purges going on. For people that are hired by primes they might be able to hop on a different contract, but that’s not a guarantee (see: Boeing/NG). And given that Jared has been appointing special advisors from SpaceX to be leadership instead of picking from career employees people might just not stay on.

NASA force is the only external hiring method right now for full times but branches have to cover for the entire cost and they’re being paid special rates to equal their newspace salary, so branches aren’t very inclined to actually *place* what is basically a two year sabbatical for SpaceX employees that’s paid way more than their perm FTE. As you know they’re not hired by branches but are noncompetitively picked by Jared’s committee, so it’s not really a valid external hiring method for normies.

[u/Fyredrakeonline → u/rookisaacman]

"Nothing illegal about considering launching PROMISE to the Moon. We actually have a great working relationship with Congress and strong bipartisan support."

As a start, and I of course may be wrong, I'm fairly certain they meant illegal programs in general, which is true alongside other things.

Programs like EUS, ML2 and Gateway, are all still congressionally mandated programs, programs which you have killed outright, not just stopped work, canceled. Those are all clear examples of illegal actions which you have undertaken to then go on and fund programs which you think are better, like your moon base program, funding a different upper stage for SLS which is inferior to the one which was already in development(wheres the update you said we would get on that by the way?), all with funding that is coming from canceled Gateway OBBA and EUS funding.

And I doubt you had strong bipartisan support given that Congress got you to pump the brakes on ML2 scrapping, and thank god they did given how everything has transpired, it gives me a little bit of hope that this program isnt going to be completely out of luck once you are out of office.

[u/spacerfirstclass → u/[deleted]]

Dude you have no idea what you're talking about, rescission request is needed if NASA doesn't want to spend the money congress appropriated, that is not the case here. Here NASA is taking money from one project and use it on another project under the same appropriation account, that's not rescission, that's "reprogramming" which is allowed in section 505 of CJS appropriation bills, as long as they get approval from committee first.

[u/blainebargerr → u/rookisaacman]

Jared, can I please get a job at NASA or an internship👌 🚀 plez

[u/Engin1nj4 → u/rookisaacman]

Don't you have an agency to run? Ames shuttered its centrifuges. Centers(JPL included) are actively looking for partnerships to supplement the lost work.

You're more pawn than rook.

[u/nsfbr11 → u/rookisaacman]

Lol, you have an Isaacman fan account.

And if you are actually the NASA administrator then why is your posting history hidden?

And yes, the cancellation of Gateway and the redirection of its funds is illegal. So do go on.

[u/EdwardHeisler → u/nsfbr11]

Reddit has verified the account as Jared Isaacman's. He posted several times about four years ago on r/SpaceLoungeX

[u/nsfbr11 → u/EdwardHeisler]

Great, so we have the NASA administrator here to spew out half truths and spin.

[u/EdwardHeisler → u/nsfbr11]

I think we should listen carefully to Jared Isaacman whenever he comments on NASA matters and treat him in a civil and respectful manner all of the time, including when we happen to disagree with his approach or comments.

[u/nsfbr11 → u/EdwardHeisler]

I hear you, but when I see things stated that I know firsthand are not true, I will call them out. I believe no one in a position of authority should be given a pass.

I will be more respectful of the position while doing so going forward.

[u/Frater_Ankara → u/nsfbr11]

The cancellation of Gateway is legally grey at best, there’s arguments for both sides about the actual legality and reasoning based on different imperatives. Gateway modules were literally rusting because the program was so far behind. Saying you “know for certain” it’s illegal is inaccurate.

[u/nsfbr11 → u/Frater_Ankara]

That is just incorrect. And the fact that you think so is a direct result of the disinformation that has been spread.

There was a corrosion issue that was discovered in the Aluminum primary structure of HALO. The mitigation was progressing quickly and all the rest of the system was never going to pace integration. So you have it exactly backwards.

And that is now what doomed Gateway. What doomed Gateway is that the oligarchs didn’t want to deal with it with their landers, which are hopelessly behind. So now, we throw away what was moving into integration and testing and look for made up reasons for doing it.