>The proof point is how spacex I think this ignores some of history. The most glaring example is the strut failure that lost a launch. It is common practice in

>The proof point is how spacex I think this ignores some of history. The most glaring example is the strut failure that lost a launch. It is common practice in aerospace to test material coupons for structural specs for critical parts. SpaceX didn't and it cost them a rocket. Luckily it was uncrewed, but it forced them to layer on those quality requirements afterwards. They had to re-learn what much of industry was already doing but I bet if you asked them beforehand, they'd claim those weren't value-added requirements. With low probability events, it can be easy to conflate being lucky with being good. I will say I think NASA is probably too risk adverse. This gets more into a philosophical debate, but I think that stems more from NASA being as much about national prestige as science. There are many people at NASA who think the engineerinng and quality requirements are too much, but very few people want to stick their neck out and waive them. Maybe a hot take, but I think that's a big part of CCP: it allows private companies to skirt many of those requirements so civil servants don't have to make those decisions. When civil servants have raised the flag on some CCP issues, they've been told it's not their place because NASA is just buying a ride and it's up to the contractor to drive the design. It essentially allows them to get rid of those requirements and outsource responsibility for the increased risk. (This is also a somewhat similar dynamic with JPL that made the Ingenuity copter, although it tends to be less pronouced. JPL is quasi-NASA because it's mainly managed via CalTech)