Let us be clear about what happened on the Mun. An ascent engine failed. Three kerbals were on the surface of another world with no way home. NASA launched a rescue mission - RETRIEVAL - and recovered them. All three came back. Zero crew lost. The press called it heroic. The Herald called it "the mission the program will be remembered for." KFD calls it the closest this program has come to killing three people.
The engine failed. The engine. On a vehicle carrying crew. The ascent engine - the one part of the lander that absolutely, categorically, without exception has to work - did not work. NASA's response was to launch another vehicle, which also used an ascent engine, which also had to work, and this time it did. That is not a success. That is a near-miss followed by a gamble.
We are glad they came home. We have said this. We will say it again: we are glad they came home. But a program that normalizes "the engine failed but we rescued them" is a program that has decided engine failure is acceptable as long as a rescue is available. What happens when the rescue fails? What happens when the rescue vehicle's engine fails? KFD asked NASA. We received a statement about "redundancy protocols." Redundancy is not a substitute for an engine that works.
Fill the pothole. Fix the engine. Stop almost killing people.