> Adding hardware is a minus.

It's a cost, which is why I'm trying to understand what the ROI would be.

> Good enough is good enough.

In cases like this, yes, but ... planes do crash due to mechanical failure and it's not unusual for there to be confusion from instrumentation where visual confirmation could help.

I'm sure there are at least a few camera placements that would be worthwhile.

To answer your earlier question, not to split hairs, but I disagree with "always". You can inadvertently increase risk when trying to reduce it, or unwittingly prioritize things that offer less bang for your buck. That's why risk analysis is important.

I don't disagree that adding data can increase risk. I'm just not seeing the argument against exterior cameras.

I think it's probably just considered not worthwhile enough at the moment. We'll probably get them one day. Rockets have cameras, after all.

I want to be clear I'm agreeing with you that some cameras would be useful in general. I think my only disagreements are that eyeballs are fine for this scenario, and that "more" isn't always meaningfully useful or necessarily better.