Should we disregard safety on their account, too?
And a nitpick, NASA was the pioneer, and pushed hard during the cold war to develop ICBM tech, the failure rate then was more in line with the goals. As its just minor economic and exploration roles now, with less polarizing military applications, we see less frantic push. I.e. killing a few people to prevent ww3 > next internet sat/artists on mars/astroid mining. Its not a fair comparison.
Individuals have very different risk tolerances, often based on their deepest values. But I don't think we should say it's wrong to want to e.g. go to Mars, even if there's an 90% chance of failure. It's a reasonable tradeoff to make.
If you succeed, you'll be hailed as a new civilization's Pilgrims, and will continue in that culture's oral history for as long as it exists. Children will sing songs about your feats, and dress up in crude facsimiles of your space suits on Landing Day. Adults will proudly trace their genealogy to members of your party, and speak admiringly about the values you instilled. Many people would trade their lives for a 10% chance of such a fate. As a society we should let them.
NASA did not develop ICBM technology; the USAF did. NASA used ICBMs in their early days, particularly Atlas missiles. There may well have been some cross-pollination of basic rocket design technology. But NASA was not in the business of making ICBMs and had nothing to do with MAD or the nuclear triad.