I'm not sure what role the word "fair" plays in this argument. Why is it unfair to learn from a predecessor's mistakes or take advantage of progress since then? What matters is actual results.
But even if you want to grade on a curve, there's something to be said for appropriate use of what you have. It's easy to argue that the Space Shuttle was not a good design, even given 1970's technology, due to political constraints.
I suppose you could ask, "given both political and technical constraints that NASA was operating under, was it a good design?" but I'm not sure what the goal would be of that question. Is anyone blaming individual engineers for management problems?
But even if you want to grade on a curve, there's something to be said for appropriate use of what you have. It's easy to argue that the Space Shuttle was not a good design, even given 1970's technology, due to political constraints.
I suppose you could ask, "given both political and technical constraints that NASA was operating under, was it a good design?" but I'm not sure what the goal would be of that question. Is anyone blaming individual engineers for management problems?