Author Topic: ASAP want NASA to avoid "going native" with CCP partners – SpaceX Latest  (Read 41541 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

Two articles in one. As explained on the SpaceX thread, I'm being very careful with the C2/C3 status - refer to the specific thread.

The other part of this is per ASAP meeting notes on commercial:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/09/asap-nasa-teams-avoid-going-native-commercial-spacex-latest/
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline HIP2BSQRE

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 14
Great article...

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Yes, a very good article. I guess ASAP is confirming the 'subversive' nature of the commercial environments ;)
« Last Edit: 09/27/2011 05:30 am by docmordrid »
DM

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Somehow I'm not surprised to see that some elements of NASA are treating these new commercial contractors as the "enemy".

I can only assume that NASA has the same concerns over fraternizing with "oldspace" contractors like LockMart and Boeing...  Right?
« Last Edit: 09/27/2011 06:17 am by Lars_J »

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
I wouldn't bet on it :P
« Last Edit: 09/27/2011 05:59 am by docmordrid »
DM

Offline AS-503

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
  • Orion Fab Team
  • Colorado USA
  • Liked: 317
  • Likes Given: 251
During Apollo and STS NASA had some seriously talented "folks" to oversee some of the contractors.

Bill Tindell was sent to MIT and lit a fire under their a** for software and hardware issues with the CM/LM flight (guidance) computers.

Sam Phillips roasted (see Sam Phillips Report) North American for not only the Apollo 1 fire but also the presumed ball-dropping of the Saturn second stage with regard to manufacturing and design.

Joe Shea and Rocco Patrone took turns virtually bullying Grumman over issues with the LM.

According to the book "Rocketdyne: Powering Humans Into Space", Rocco Petrone forced manangement "changes" (head rolling) at Rocketdyne several times during the development of the SSME.

As a side note Petrone's man-handling of the contractors during STS development *may* have played a role in the lack of transparency of the NASA safety culture that eventually led to January of 1986..... 

While I agree that NASA oversight has it's place, the historical pattern listed above does not imply "going native" on the part of the NASA personell with regard to the contractor.

Have things changed so much since the Cold War space days that these historical references have no current relevance?

Given how long we flew STS these historical references are actually the closest thing we have to compare with NASA/HSF/LV development, as STS and Saturn represent the last two vehicles we flew with crew.

Does NASA oversight really mean "oversight" or does it mean busting-balls?

If it is literally oversight, I could see the going-native complacency issue. But if oversight means busting-balls (like Saturn and STS) there will be no going-native on the part of the NASA overseer.
 

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Just my $0.02:

I'm put in mind of the alleged 'WWED' tee-shirts being worn by some NASA contractors and staff.  If NASA personnel are looking to the 'newspace' companies for inspiration, then there is a very real human risk that those responsible for ensuring safety standards are met will be looking at things through rose-coloured spectacles.

To take AS-503's stories into context, back during Apollo/Saturn and STS, there was a clear NASA-centric goal that could focus the mind and stop oversight staff from becoming too ensnared in the contractors' corporate culture, 'going native'.  Now, there is no big project and the real focus, in HSF terms, is on programs like CRS and CCDev.  There is thus no central goal that can keep the oversight staff focussed on NASA's requirements rather than the contractor's.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
During Apollo and STS NASA had some seriously talented "folks" to oversee some of the contractors.

Bill Tindell was sent to MIT and lit a fire under their a** for software and hardware issues with the CM/LM flight (guidance) computers.

Sam Phillips roasted (see Sam Phillips Report) North American for not only the Apollo 1 fire but also the presumed ball-dropping of the Saturn second stage with regard to manufacturing and design.

Joe Shea and Rocco Patrone took turns virtually bullying Grumman over issues with the LM.

According to the book "Rocketdyne: Powering Humans Into Space", Rocco Petrone forced manangement "changes" (head rolling) at Rocketdyne several times during the development of the SSME.

As a side note Petrone's man-handling of the contractors during STS development *may* have played a role in the lack of transparency of the NASA safety culture that eventually led to January of 1986..... 

While I agree that NASA oversight has it's place, the historical pattern listed above does not imply "going native" on the part of the NASA personell with regard to the contractor.

Have things changed so much since the Cold War space days that these historical references have no current relevance?

Given how long we flew STS these historical references are actually the closest thing we have to compare with NASA/HSF/LV development, as STS and Saturn represent the last two vehicles we flew with crew.

Does NASA oversight really mean "oversight" or does it mean busting-balls?

If it is literally oversight, I could see the going-native complacency issue. But if oversight means busting-balls (like Saturn and STS) there will be no going-native on the part of the NASA overseer.
 

Quit living in the past.  Apollo was different.  Money was not an issue and NASA owned the hardware.  There are just as many talented people since working contracts on many large programs.  There just hasn't been books written about them.  Also, the people you mention were the higher ups and not the line workers which this topic is about.
« Last Edit: 09/27/2011 01:49 pm by Jim »

Offline AS-503

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
  • Orion Fab Team
  • Colorado USA
  • Liked: 317
  • Likes Given: 251
Thanks for the perspective Jim.

I was thinking just that as I typed my original post. That's why I added the comment/question about relevance today.

You've got an exellent point about good (current) talent and the fact that there are no books about those people.


Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
I can only assume that NASA has the same concerns over fraternizing with "oldspace" contractors like LockMart and Boeing...  Right?

Good question.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Anyways, this is a big to do about nothing.  NASA and the DOD have resident offices at most of their contractors.

LSP has presence at Decatur, Denver, Hawthorne, Dulles, Chandler, and VAFB.

In the late 90's/early 00's, ISS, STS, X-37, and LSP had resident offices in Huntington Beach.

JSC has an Orion resident office in Denver.

Back in Apollo days, NASA had resident offices in Canoga Park, Downey, Bethpage, Seal Beach, Michoud, Huntington Beach, etc

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
The info from the article gave me the impression that ASAP had as much “concern” aimed at NASA itself as it did for commercial in that the two represent two part of the same problem: HSF Certification Requirements implementation. Commercial is advancing development rapidly and NASA’s writing of the requirements is behind. If this condition continues commercial will have complete vehicles before NASA figures out what it wants “Certification Requirements”. They would then be faced with writing waivers for their requirements or paying through the nose for a new design and waiting a few more years for the hardware to be built. In that case unless it’s a major safety issue they would do waivers, making a good deal of the HSF Certification Requirements more of a like-to-have than a must-have.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Anyways, this is a big to do about nothing.  NASA and the DOD have resident offices at most of their contractors.

I think the fuss was about rotating the NASA people and doing so only for CCP, and not for SLS + MPCV.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Anyways, this is a big to do about nothing.  NASA and the DOD have resident offices at most of their contractors.

I think the fuss was about rotating the NASA people and doing so only for CCP, and not for SLS + MPCV.

The difference is that ASAP is applying the contractor built but NASA operated historical problems about quality and safety onto the commercial built and commercial operated scenario. If you are the operator you are going to have more concern over quality and safety. There is no historical data for this new scenario as to what the quality and safety levels will be, so ASAP is applying what has happened in the past like on Apollo where designs sometimes outpaced safety requirements and the only defense against unsafe designs were the PIT personnel expressing concerns to the contractors at the contractors informal design workgroup meetings.

Offline Chris Bergin

Thanks Hip and Doc! :)

Yeah, it's ASAP and we know they like to be negative cats, but I can actually say I've seen it, in a very small way, where guys have become involved with new companies and have become very defensive over them over time.

So as much as I've still got my bottom lip sticking out over ASAP's Shuttle stance (and that'll be part of another article), this does seem like a reasonable suggestion.

The valid point brought up is why just CCP. And would it actually be a problem to rotate someone who may have just got a very good hold on how they are doing, only for a new guy to join mid-stream.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
BTW, ASAP is a really unfortunate acronym for a safety panel...
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline D_Dom

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 655
  • Liked: 481
  • Likes Given: 152
If this condition continues commercial will have complete vehicles before NASA figures out what it wants ... making a good deal of the HSF Certification Requirements more of a like-to-have than a must-have.

Pardon me for taking liberties with your quote, hopefully the point was not lost. I know this will be a challenge moving forward, flight hardware transitioning from development to production status yet we still do not have HSF Certification Requirements.

Space is not merely a matter of life or death, it is considerably more important than that!

Offline D_Dom

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 655
  • Liked: 481
  • Likes Given: 152
would it actually be a problem to rotate someone who may have just got a very good hold on how they are doing, only for a new guy to join mid-stream.

Requires a delicate balancing act indeed. Excellent communications between PIT members is essential. Having been on both sides of the fence, so to speak, I can tell you that consistent application of the contract is most important. Sufficient detail must be present in the contract so that both sides are working from the same sheet of paper. NASA and the contractors will interpret the contractual language through their own eyes, rose colored spectacles or not.
Space is not merely a matter of life or death, it is considerably more important than that!

Offline D_Dom

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 655
  • Liked: 481
  • Likes Given: 152


LSP has presence at Decatur, Denver, Hawthorne, Dulles, Chandler, and VAFB.

In the late 90's/early 00's, ISS, STS, X-37, and LSP had resident offices in Huntington Beach.

JSC has an Orion resident office in Denver.

Back in Apollo days, NASA had resident offices in Canoga Park, Downey, Bethpage, Seal Beach, Michoud, Huntington Beach, etc

Wish I wasn't claiming ignorance on such a public forum but can you expand the acronym "LSP" for me?

I remember the Huntington Beach offices in the late nineties and had some interaction with NASA at that time. Seems to me they traveled quite a bit back and forth, Space Station was designed, built and tested in so many different facilities. Was it a program decision to rotate or a response to the demands of schedule?
Space is not merely a matter of life or death, it is considerably more important than that!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Launch Services Program

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0