🚀 go-pugleaf

>When fighter development from concept to flying prototype cost less
>than $100,000, normally funded internally by the company, and took
>less than a year, planes were simpler then, that was an acceptable 
>approach. 

I think The SR-71 cost a little bit more than $100,000.  Even
if you fail to account for inflation.


>Now with development costs running into the billions, and 
>usually taxpayer funded, the financial risks of a failed project have 
>become too high to take such a cavalier approach.

This is a self-fulfilling prophesy.  Your "failure-oriented
management," with its army of beancounters and its endless
review and approval cycle is what caused development costs
to run into the billions.  It prevented failures, either,
only reduced the number of successes.  

The old produced the P-39 *and* the P-51.  The new, improved,
"scientific" system produced the A-12.

The old system produced Project Apollo. The new system produced
the Space Shuttle.

In the old system, there was a saying, which you no doubt hate: 
"Nothing succeeds like success."  

In the new system, nothing succeeds like failure.


>You wouldn't do a cheap and dirty Hoover Dam or Golden Gate bridge
>saying that if it failed you'd just shrug and go on to the next
>project. 

Once again, you should read more history.  Both projects had their 
share of Gary Coffmans, standing on the sideline, carping and saying
it was impossible, while men with real vision got the job done. 


________________________________________________________________

"This so-called atomic bomb will never work.  And I speak as an
expert on explosives." -- a former US Navy Admiral, who no doubt
wishes to remain nameless.