If one contrasts the bang for the buck between the 'usual NASA suspects' and the performance of SpaceX, there is a lesson there. In addition, the NASA Mil-SPEC

If one contrasts the bang for the buck between the 'usual NASA suspects' and the performance of SpaceX, there is a lesson there. In addition, the NASA Mil-SPEC process is rooted in a far past era that insisted on x-rays of every resistor and part for making sure nothing ever failed. This is the old For want of a nail... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Want_of_a_Nail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Want_of_a_Nail Modern parts manufacture now makes parts with 7 or higher 9's of reliability. 6 nines = 1 in a million fails, so a spacecraft with a million resistors is a 50:50 effort and so on. This hunt for more 9's has led Nasa down a cost rabbit hole, exacerbated by these fees+ contracts. Of course, there are also overlays of accounting and admin verification that can add 25-50% to a project, esp small runs. On the other hand, we see mention of 60% of Russian weapons fail in various ways in Ukraine - training, bad parts, ruble theft. I have read stories that maintenance crews in Russian warehouses have sold as many as 50% of the diesel engines as well as gold plated circuit boards and edge connectors have been sold by employees for scrap - as well as ruble diversions for $600,000,000 Italian yachts - I think the SpaceX method is the best.