I understand what Dennis was doing and my point is there is no substitute of a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented position by Bell.

But, what is interesting is Dennis feels it all right for himself to take a ten year old costing effort (for something not even close to the current CEV designs) and use those numbers with it's lower and unrealistic costs and claim that shows the CEV costs are 60% over the actual needs! This while also claiming the commission hasn't defined the thing yet!

That's fine because we can also point out all major programs undertaken by NASA in the past few decades have been over budget by at least three times the costs first estimated so it is probably vastly underfunded if this holds true.