I know Columbia, and Challenger were caused by complacency and those that believed issues were not a problem ignoring the few that raised concerns. I believe Rutan was fined indicating violating some form of safety protocol. NASA failed due to what I consider a lack of vigilence not violation of known safety protocols. I believe a launch temperature rule was violated for Challenger, but it was considered conservative not a proven limit. NASAs lack of vigilence is routine human nature in my experience in the chemical industry. When bad things don't happen people assume they won't and I have been frequently criticized for worrying too much when trying to make sure everything operates optimally not just within tolerance. When dealing with dangerous processes I believe that any deviation from desired operation should be treated as a potential threat unless proved otherwise. Unfortunately ignoring problems until they hit you over the head is far more common than going the extra mile.

I'll agree orbital assembly could quite possibly be improved, I just don't believe in assuming it will be. I believe you should rely on what has been proven to work as much as possible when pushing the limits of what is possible. Change only what you have to. This is why I was really Drawn to Zubrin's plan. I saw a real commonality of engineering approach to my own. He adressed so many issues that seemed to be show stoppers with common sense small steps instead of radical new technologies that NASA seemed to be waiting for. I believe space exploration helps us push technology and that is one of it's benefits, but our primary goal should always be to accomplish a mission not develop spinoffs and radical new technologies. Develop them as needed not as a goal of the mission.

Regards,
Mark