And money is not the critical constraint: the groups $35 million per year budget is a trivial slice of the NASA pie, but on a dollars-per-line basis, it makes the group among the nation's most expensive software organizations.
And that's why. Money is no object for them. In the "real world", money matters. People need to get paid because eating is good, and sleeping with a roof over your house is good, and having clothes to wear is good, and...
That's a completely unrealistic and utopian idea about software development. Some of the practices can certainly be used (and should be), but their level of detail is extremely extreme.
At the end of the day you've got to ship a product - bugs and all. A friend of mine is the CEO of a well known software company and says ship at 80% and get the other 20% from feedback. It works for him and the company does well. I think he's right.
It was an interesting article, but not very informative. If anything, it's damaging to software development because it gives unrealistic expectations that can only be met in a glass bubble - the kind of bubble you get from an exclusive government contract and lots of money.
No matter what, at the end of the day shipping the product is where you're going to start making money. That's going to put food on people's tables and keep them developing. There are no coders with empty plates. Developing software like that for most companies is a great way to ensure products don't ever get shipped. I've seen them before - ventures that spend all their money on development and zero on marketing. They never ship and end up in bankruptcy.