[dr_orpheus]

> I think NASA doesn't do a good job sometimes tolerating risk and then everything is treated as needing safety-levels of risk mitigation without considering that a 1/100th cost reduction will not generate as much in parts failures.

I do absolutely understand this impression of NASA. But I also think it gets inflated because the highest profile NASA missions that you hear about in the news are the most expensive and least risk tolerant missions. But there is pretty large spectrum in terms of cost caps and risk tolerance to NASA mission classes. I think generally in order of descending cost/risk tolernace it is: Human Spaceflight, Flagship (i.e. JWST, Mars Rovers), New Frontiers (Juno falls here), Discovery, Explorer, Mid-Explorer (MidEx), Small Explorer (SmEx), Venture.

For an example in the Venture class you can look at something like CYGNSS. Constellation of 8 spacecraft to better understand dynamics of hurricanes by looking at ocean wind speeds. This is done by mapping doppler delay of reflected GPS signals off of waves in the ocean. Important science, super cool technology with mostly automotive grade parts. ~$150 million for the whole mission that lasted about 7 years.