Critics will likely raise the question of its cost, safety, and reliability. Financially, its cost is high, with annual budgets in the billions and no direct reward to the public whose taxes fund NASA's budget. Because we are going through difficult financial times, difficult choices must be made. For example, reducing manned and even unmanned flights is becoming a necessity. Especially with so many other programs considered essential to government spending, programs such as health care, infrastructure, and the military. NASA's budget for 2016 is $18.5 billion. This is a good increase from the $18 billion Congress passed in the 2015 budget. That's nearly $1 billion more than the amount spent in the 2014 budget. But the NASA's budget represents only 0.4% of the total. The amount spent on the program since its inception is less than that spent on the 2008 bank bailout (Source: “Mission Aborted,” New York Times, October 11, 2015). The progress and growth of the economy over the past three decades has its origins in the space program. Military applications alone could provide a return on investment, with technologies such as satellites, GPS and missiles. Additionally, the space program has advanced such things as transistors, printed circuits, computerization and miniaturization technologies to the private sector at an unprecedented rate, not to mention the commercialization of cell phones, GPS and even satellite radio. Much of the technology was created through the space program and advanced methods of constructing objects requiring a high rate of precision. Using or collaborating with commercial companies also offers a viable opportunity to make space travel and exploration less expensive. One of the main arguments against funding NASA is that the private sector can innovate, develop and implement similar projects more quickly and for much less money than a government.