Your proximity to a catastrophe can affect how you react to it, writes Malcolm Gladwell in his book “David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants.” For those who experience a near miss, it can be traumatizing. For those who experience a “remote miss,” it can give them a sense of invulnerability.

Both reactions can be problematic, particularly if feelings of invulnerability lead to overconfidence or carelessness. We see a similar phenomenon in the workplace, where, according to the Harvard Business Review, leaders will vigorously pore over their failures but learn nothing from their success.

HBR further suggests that sometimes successful CEOs might just be lucky.

We need to keep this in mind following SpaceX’s recent very high-profile launch. The launch was successful, but pragmatic pessimists like myself couldn’t help but remember that this launch was sandwiched between the anniversaries of the Challenger and Columbia disasters.

With SpaceX’s powerful Falcon Heavy rocket launch (after a four-year delay), it’s clear the space industry feels closer to the final frontier than it has in decades. But we must caution former and current public officials, mesmerized by these endless possibilities, that the federal government must not tolerate risks in its space programs just because of one notable launch.

While promoting innovation should always be the government’s objective, by no means should Washington play favorites with a select few firms just because of a flashy vision and a charismatic frontman. In scientific endeavor, results and reliability matter, not flash.

This should never change — not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

Related: NASA Shielding Elon Musk’s Space X from Bad Press

New aerospace companies such as SpaceX serve the government well and show a lot of promise, but for the sake of our safety, they cannot be relied upon exclusively. Case in point: SpaceX’s January Falcon 9 launch.

We still don’t know exactly happened — it’s classified — but it’s believed the Zuma plummeted back into the atmosphere because it didn’t separate from the upper part of the rocket as it was supposed to. The company also had two known, expensive rocket explosions in 2015 and 2016.

Who do you think would win the Presidency?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

It’s not the Challenger or Columbia; no one died. But we do know that the Falcon 9 rocket is, at this time, an unreliable piece of technology. It’s a cause for concern if the government doesn’t mandate tighter safety protocols while chasing the dream of exploration.

Given that SpaceX is gearing up to send astronauts to the International Space Station by the end of the year with the same rocket, we need to be sure the company is taking all possible precautions. A disastrous mission doesn’t just kill the affected astronauts — it also destroys extremely valuable equipment and corrodes public support for space travel.

SpaceX might be getting a pass from many because of its high-profile leader: Elon Musk, who famously said he wanted to “die on Mars, just not on impact.” It’s hard not to find the handsome South African futurist compelling — they even name-dropped him on a recent episode of the new “Star Trek” series! But he’s not above scrutiny.

Related: Trump’s Chance to Create ‘America First’ Advisory Councils

A recent report from the Department of Defense’s inspector general found almost 200 deviations from quality standards at contractor sites, with over one-third described as “major nonconformities” that might lead to failure in quality controls.

NASA listed some major concerns in another recent report as well: deficiencies in the helium tanks that maintain the pressure of liquid oxygen supplies (similar to another SpaceX problem that destroyed an Israeli satellite in 2016). SpaceX also wants to take the risky shortcut of adding “densified” fuel to the Falcon 9 rockets shortly before take-off (after the astronauts have boarded!), which violates NASA procedure.

Musk is bound and determined to change the course of the future — no matter how many magazine covers he has to appear on, how much wealth he has to reap in government subsidies, or how many other innovators he has to keep from getting similar subsidies. While SpaceX should be used by the government whenever appropriate, the company still needs to be held accountable.

The hush-hush nature of the Zuma launch itself is also very concerning — this is the kind of event folks want to brag about, not cover up. One hopes that this means they’re making necessary changes for future launches and not rushing things, but we don’t know for sure, just as we’re unaware of whether the government is adequately addressing these known security concerns.

[lz_jwplayer video=dJAIYp8K]

Very small mistakes doomed the crews of the Challenger and the Columbia. The latter disaster could have been prevented by something as simple as a better PowerPoint presentation. But given the hostility of space, near misses are deadly.

If some political figures get their way and bearing risk becomes the newest pinnacle of the American space program, there could be more crews to mourn. An ounce of prevention could be a spacecraft’s worth of cure.

Jared Whitley is a political expert with more than 15 years of experience. He has worked in the U.S. Senate, the White House, and a variety of other political and media capacities.

(photo credit, homepage image: Elon Musk, CC BY 2.0, by JD Lasica; photo credit, article image: Elon Musk…, CC BY-SA 2.0, by NASA Kennedy)

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette.