No, the term "independent" means something. That you are free and clear of any conflicts of interest. I know it has been used in the past by other groups, that were being paid, and I thought it was silly to call it that then too. If someone is being paid by someone else to provide some sort of service, safety or otherwise, then they are under contract. They are not "independent". This is not a "bash-SpaceX" thing, this is reality, so don't feel you have to rush to their defense.
Quote from: Blackjax on 03/29/2012 03:26 pmAs some Apollo era folks pointed out, "they don't know what they don't know"...but that situation is fixable if you tap the right people for their insights.And so how are these people the "right" ones?
As some Apollo era folks pointed out, "they don't know what they don't know"...but that situation is fixable if you tap the right people for their insights.
...and that people going off half cocked about the merit of it need to look more closely before making a determination of that.
Something else is bothering me.NASA has provided guidelines for crew launch vehicle designs to meet CCDev, and for Commercial Crew Services Requirements. Are they sort of saying what NASA proposes (in terms of requirements) isn't good enough for commercial spaceflight?Maybe I'm missing something thinking NASA woule supposedly be a stricter requirements level than any other (necessary).
I think this is what you are looking for:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditor_independenceAssuming SpaceX follows the standards they would have to for a regulator-approved financial audit, it would be fair to call this an independent panel.
Something else is bothering me.NASA has provided guidelines for crew launch vehicle designs to meet CCDev, and for Commercial Crew Services Requirements. Are they sort of saying what NASA proposes (in terms of requirements) isn't good enough for commercial spaceflight?
NASA may have provided something really great, really poor, or somewhere in between, but just because NASA has provided something doesn't mean it is the final word on the issue.
For genuine independence control and payment of the team needs transferring to the FAA.Some of the proposed flights are non-NASA so NASA would be the wrong body to act as regulator.
Quote from: robertross on 03/29/2012 03:45 pmSomething else is bothering me.NASA has provided guidelines for crew launch vehicle designs to meet CCDev, and for Commercial Crew Services Requirements. Are they sort of saying what NASA proposes (in terms of requirements) isn't good enough for commercial spaceflight?No, but some of the questions by politicians certainly seem to imply that they doubt the requirements are good enough.
If oil companies didn't go with reputable reserves evaluators, no one would believe their reports anyways.
I read "independent" a bit differently.Independent not in the sense of an independent outside prosecutor answerable to some separate body, but in the sense of a QA team within a company which is independent of the developers to add more assurance that the product was reliable.I've seen and been part of such teams in the past and they can help a bit, although they are certainly not panaceas. It's good to have a fresh set of eyes, but hard to get everyone really up to speed who're not deep into the project. The times I saw it work well was mainly due to the developers explaining what was going on and themselves realizing possible holes rather than the outsiders coming up with new insights.
Honestly!How about they don't appoint this team? Everyone happier then? I don't believe they had to do this for CRS or CCDev, and I really couldn't care less if they are giving them all a free electric car. Something's better than nothing.Everyone take a frakking step back.
Quote from: LegendCJS on 03/29/2012 03:57 pmQuote from: robertross on 03/29/2012 03:45 pmSomething else is bothering me.NASA has provided guidelines for crew launch vehicle designs to meet CCDev, and for Commercial Crew Services Requirements. Are they sort of saying what NASA proposes (in terms of requirements) isn't good enough for commercial spaceflight?No, but some of the questions by politicians certainly seem to imply that they doubt the requirements are good enough.Yeah, so what does that say about NASA?It's like throwing them under the bus (in a slight manner speaking)