Of public relations and filtered stories: My point is that when I watched Curiosity go through EDL, I was watching it live, in realtime (or just about)--indeed, I made sure the family schedule was cleared to share in the adventure. If the sky-crane hadn't worked, or the vehicle(s) had otherwise crashed, we'd have known right then.If corporation Z was running the show, they might have chosen to keep the EDL under wraps until safely on the martian surface, and then shared the good news.People get excited when they SEE things, especially LIVE (as they happen), not hear about them or see things after the fact. I'm a big space buff, but even for me it is hard to stay optimistic and engaged when there is nothing to see, even if things are happening...(and if it weren't for the internet, we wouldn't even be able to see things like F9v1.1 launch and other such progress, and even when we do, it is filtered/cut short/etc.)
Quote from: Go4TLI on 10/31/2013 07:50 pmTo be fair, you really have no way of knowing that. Sure, we know that. The cost per passenger is already set, from what I understand and that is lower than the Soyuz, IIRC. SpaceX plans to further reduce the cost with their reusable launchers. It wont happen over night, but it sure is more of a revolution of human spaceflight than anything NASA has done since... well that depends on how you look at it. To me it is more impressive than the shuttle, but that is a matter of personal priorities, I guess.
To be fair, you really have no way of knowing that.
Wow. Seriously you guys. It doesn't take a genius to know that the press would love to repeat over and over the spaceplane crashing, talking about how commercial crew (and SNC in particular) must be a failure. And probably they'd get it screwed up and say it's NASA's fault, too. No reason to do it.
I understand fully a corporation's need for protecting proprietary information/hardware/etc. Indeed, I agree with it and accept that it is necessary.That does not preclude me from lamenting the lack of visibility such corporatization of space incurs. As well, expressing my belief that such secrecy may result in less people being engaged in space endeavours, the net result being less space endeavours (outside of comm sats, "spy" sats and the like).And per Chris's post--absolutely the press would jump all over a failure as a "waste of money" blah blah. Can you imagine if Curiosity had augered in? The press would have roasted NASA for the "loss/waste of BILLIONS $$". All the while, curious, engaged people would be wondering how to make the next one work...Double-edged to be sure, but I wanna' see what's going on!!
The results of pushing this endeavor into the realm of private enterprise will result in the very thing you want. Better costs, faster innovation, quicker to market resulting in the ubiquity of space transportation that no government constrained with bureaucracy and legacy costs can match
Maybe Orion lite aka CST-100 survives as well, though I don't really understand the point of it as long as Orion is also being funded.
Quote from: clongton on 10/31/2013 03:52 pmIt's a different environment now Ed. This is not NASA where the general public owns the information. This is corporate and the rules are different. The corporations own the information, not the public. That’s in all the contracts those companies signed with NASA and NASA agreed to guard all corporate proprietary information. Is video of a crash-landing "corporate proprietary information"? If so, how is video of a not-crash-landing non-proprietary? - Ed Kyle
It's a different environment now Ed. This is not NASA where the general public owns the information. This is corporate and the rules are different. The corporations own the information, not the public. That’s in all the contracts those companies signed with NASA and NASA agreed to guard all corporate proprietary information.
Quote from: Jim on 10/31/2013 04:08 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 10/31/2013 03:55 pmIs video of a crash-landing "corporate proprietary information"? If so, how is video of a not-crash-landing non-proprietary?Yes, simply because they say so for both cases. "Because they say so" ... that's my problem right there when it comes to something like a basic overview video. What corporate secrets are revealed in a long shot when the airframe touches the runway that weren't revealed an instant before? - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 10/31/2013 03:55 pmIs video of a crash-landing "corporate proprietary information"? If so, how is video of a not-crash-landing non-proprietary?Yes, simply because they say so for both cases.
Is video of a crash-landing "corporate proprietary information"? If so, how is video of a not-crash-landing non-proprietary?
... have wasted lots of other people's money, ... and waste billions of dollars.
And per Chris's post--absolutely the press would jump all over a failure as a "waste of money" blah blah. Can you imagine if Curiosity had augered in? The press would have roasted NASA for the "loss/waste of BILLIONS $$".
Quote from: LouScheffer on 10/31/2013 11:10 pm... have wasted lots of other people's money, ... and waste billions of dollars.Let's be clear about one thing.The Commercial Crew effort is largely self-funded by the individual companies. NASA has provided a boost in funding to help the process along because it wants to eventually buy and use their services. But the vast majority of the funding expended on Commercial Crew is corporate money, not taxpayer money. NASA did not fund these efforts. NASA has SUPPLEMENTED these efforts.
{snip}Showing the crash would generate more publicity than not showing the crash. There is no such thing as bad publicity.
Quote from: PahTo on 10/31/2013 09:02 pmAnd per Chris's post--absolutely the press would jump all over a failure as a "waste of money" blah blah. Can you imagine if Curiosity had augered in? The press would have roasted NASA for the "loss/waste of BILLIONS $$". I'll suggest a different potential outcome. Showing the crash would generate more publicity than not showing the crash. There is no such thing as bad publicity. I believe that the vast majority of the public does not know or care that the DreamChaser project exists. If the crash were shown, public knowledge of the project's very existence would expand robustly. Coupling that video with a "we're going to fix it and fly again" would, in my opinion, increase, not decrease, public support for the program. - Ed Kyle
Here's a thought for those upset about corporate secrecy. The best way to find out what goes on behind the public face in an aerospace corporation...get a job with them. It will be difficult. It will probably take a while. But it's not impossible (speaking from experience). Then you will probably know all you could ever wanted to. Oh yeah, keep in mind that 99% of what you will learn you won't be able to discuss with anyone outside of your coworkers around you....
Showing the crash would generate more publicity than not showing the crash. There is no such thing as bad publicity.
I believe that the vast majority of the public does not know or care that the DreamChaser project exists.