I actually disagree with you. For one, consider that Starship is ultimately intended for manned spaceflight... yet SpaceX is still trying things and blowing st

I actually disagree with you. For one, consider that Starship is ultimately intended for manned spaceflight... yet SpaceX is still trying things and blowing stuff up (or imploding or...) From my armchair perspective I think the risk adversity criticism is justified. NASA should take much more risk even in human spaceflight... in the early stages of platform development. First see if you can build the damn thing and build it repeatedly. Later, after that period, reduce risk and prove out and refine things to the human spaceflight standard. If you jump immediately to, "my God people are suppose to fly on that thing!" well, you're probably going to pay the Russians a lot of money for a fairly long time. I do agree with you that the political management becomes a real issue. Politicians and bureaucrats are naturally disposed to a certain cravenness about such issues once they get to significant positions of power (senior execs of many companies do, too). But I think a charismatic leader that's out in front of the messaging could pull it off.