Not the first time I've seen something like this actually. I've heard of a few cases where emergency agencies have run training scenarios based on a zombie apocalypse, not for the likelihood of the event but to get their command personnel thinking outside the conventional scenarios. Pretty valuable IMO given that effective response is not so much dependant on having pre planned scenarios for predictable events as in being able to respond to unexpected ones.

The main ones I can think of are a few cases of heat damage, where fires have been allowed to burn in more or less direct contact with them for several hours (one of the recorders on Comair had this happen, and there have been a few others).

My own scepticism on his target is mostly about SpaceX developing a soft landing capability in the time frame he's given. I fully expect to see Falcon XX flying by then (X will, IMO, fall by the wayside to a Falcon 9 Heavy variant with a Merlin 2 in each core, only disadvantage is loss of engine out capability), but soft land, particularly of any significant payload is another larger development project at least on the scale of building and flying Merlin 2 and Falcon XX. There is a limit to SpaceX's resources, and I think soft land in ten years goes beyond what they can realistically expect to afford in terms of engineering capacity. Now, if Blue Origin does everything Bezos is promising I think we have a very interesting possibility for a SpaceX powered Blue Origin developed lander... That said, while NASA seems satisfied I do have big questions about the reasons for Blue Origins' extreme secrecy. That said, I was among the people wondering about SpaceX's true capabilities after the early Falcon 1s all failed.

Take a look at how well this has worked municipally. There are still essentially parties, but no one bothers to vote anymore.

Been said already, but he's not saying design isn't real work, he's saying that design reviews aren't. Moreover, a design review or two makes sense, but for a supposedly minor program with not very much money at stake 60% of the actual MILESTONES being reviews is crazy. I grant that what may be happening is that NASA is reviewing the designs at these points to ensure reasonable progress, but as Quantum said, that is never what I have heard of these things being, and beyond that, a reasonable process would fix the actual targest before hand rather than saying "we'll have a review at this point and decide if we're happy with where you are then".

"Thanks to the crew of Challenger, Columbia and Apollo 1." Lets not forget the crews of Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11.

Let me just say, as a fencer, that that sounds truly awesome. Albeit a complete waste of time and effort, but still awesome.

RTFA. They fully intend to ignore the ordinance.

Agreed. There may well be (no, never mind, there definitely is) a failing in the teaching things like method and reasoning, but this is the great failing. The whole system is tailored to teach detail and intricacy, and to largely do so by rote. The only thing this will teach is the regurgitation of specific facts and techniques - it certainly won't impart any kind of understanding.

Exactly. The fact that there are supposedly MILLIONS of people with access to this network is the real problem. If it is really too much trouble to have any kind of need to know mechanism on this data it's time for a major review of what actually needs to be classified. The reality is that if the system hadn't been wide open to anyone with a need for any part of it this never would have happened.