The reason we can’t build the same thing as before is because the tooling is all gone, the set up of tools used to make those parts no longer exists. Half of designing a large complex thing is setting up all the machinery to actually produce what you want, testing and checking and dialing everything in, verifying that what you’re getting out is with in tolerances and will fit together properly. Building test segments and measuring how the behave and then going back and readjusting all the tools to account for differences and altering the design to match what you can actually make. Also all the people who knew the ins and outs of the old designs and manufacturing processes to make them are retired (and probably have forgotten some stuff) or dead. Recreating those production lines, manufacturing methods, retesting and dialing it all in, it would be expensive and time consuming, more so than just building something new based on modern manufacturing techniques and using already produced parts.
And we have been doing that… but it’s not getting nearly the same level of funding the Apollo program had, nor the same level of political commitment. Between 1963 and 1971, nasa’s budget was on average double what it is today (accounting for inflation) and they were allowed to focus most of that on a single project for that whole 8 year period. Compare that to today where nasa has hundreds of different projects ( ISS, near earth science satellites, mars rovers, probes to asteroids and outer planets, Artemis) and their goals and plans get whiplashed about every 4 years each time the administration changes. Not to mention Boeing routinely running over budget and over time and forcing nasa to foot the bill for their fuck ups. Blue origin and space X are also behind schedule on their lander projects as well.
So why were we able to do it back then and can’t now? NASA got the funding they needed, got to focus most of it on a single project and got to make a long term plan and stick with it, and private companies were much less willing to screw them over for a quick buck.
To put that number in perspective, there are 1.3 million active personnel with in the DOD right now, and a 1.5 pound live lobster costs about 34$. So, that’s enough for 1 in 5 active duty personnel to have a lobster with in the given time frame.
I’d say that 9 million dollars on an expensive food category over several months isn’t that much when we’re talking a population of 1.3 million (active duty personnel with in the DOD). But then again, that money probably wasn’t evenly distributed, I doubt they’re serving lobster dinners to all the privates at fort polk. So, some officers are getting some big lobsters once or twice a month. That’s probably a bit much, lobster is a treat, not something to be on the regular rotation.
Ultimately though, all these luxury expenses are just a drop in the bucket of over all spending. Everything when described as a line item will be massive. We could force every officer to live on dog food and it would barely make a dent in the expenditure. Ultimately, the budget is the result of the shear scale of the organization. The only really way to reduce the spending is to decrease the scale of the organization, and that requires reducing what it is expected to do. That means closing some bases, reducing overseas commitments, and giving up capabilities.
The discussion that needs to be had is around what the organization should be focusing on, what the people of the US want it to be doing. Like, maybe, we don’t want it bombing random countries at the whim of a president. The ability to do that off the cuff is quite expensive.