Author Topic: ASAP want NASA to avoid "going native" with CCP partners – SpaceX Latest  (Read 34381 times)

Offline D_Dom

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 498
  • Liked: 205
  • Likes Given: 114
ASAP is sometimes (in my mind) "as soon as practical" and sometimes "as soon as possible". It has never been "drop everything else immediately". I guess what I am saying is I initially flinched at the choice of acronym but thinking it through, a safety program focused on what is practical and possible may not be a bad thing.
Space is not merely a matter of life or death, it is considerably more important than that!

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3607
  • Florida
  • Liked: 2060
  • Likes Given: 246
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.



Yes, that is the underlying reason behind the concern on the PIT embedded personnel “going-native” since their judgment will be more heavily relied upon in this environment compared to the tradition straight jacket requirements contracting method.

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5448
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 2838
  • Likes Given: 1
Having seen oversight embedding myself, we always noticed no small degree of what's called in these parts 'washboarding'; oversight teams coming in need to catch up with the realtime progress, often slowing it until they get up to steam. No sooner do they than some bureaucrat moves people and it starts over again.  Maddening.
« Last Edit: 09/27/2011 06:15 pm by docmordrid »
DM

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
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.



Yes, that is the underlying reason behind the concern on the PIT embedded personnel “going-native” since their judgment will be more heavily relied upon in this environment compared to the tradition straight jacket requirements contracting method.

Objectivity is a good thing.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Online butters

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1799
  • Liked: 426
  • Likes Given: 168
It seems to me that fixing the problem wherein NASA has not set clear safety requirements for CCP must take immediate priority over fixing any potential problem with embedded regulators "going native". After all, if there are no clear safety regulations, then what are the regulators supposed to regulate? They'll be much more likely to sympathize with the views of the CCP partner regardless of their degree of "nativity" because the requirements are ultimately subjective until clarified.

ASAP is putting the cart before the horse. Nobody seems to know how to define "safe" in the context or HSF, and no amount of obsessing over the merits of particular organizational structures can remedy this lack of regulatory content. Right now we have companies developing full speed ahead in the hope that their solutions will be deemed sufficiently safe. Anybody assigned to a CCP partner working under these conditions is likely to sympathize with their plight within weeks, not years.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5481
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 581
  • Likes Given: 679
Great article, though I was a bit taken aback by the assertion that, "SpaceX [...] are by far the best known commercial company in the public arena."

Boeing?
-- sdsds --

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5481
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 581
  • Likes Given: 679
It seems to me that fixing the problem wherein NASA has not set clear safety requirements for CCP must take immediate priority over fixing any potential problem with embedded regulators "going native".

Perhaps the solution is an obvious reversal:  embed some CCP partner employees within ASAP.  ;)
-- sdsds --

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
ASAP is worthless.  I point to what they said about shuttle as reference so nobody should get that worked up.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline peter-b

  • Dr. Peter Brett
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
  • Oxford, UK
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 74
It seems to me that fixing the problem wherein NASA has not set clear safety requirements for CCP must take immediate priority over fixing any potential problem with embedded regulators "going native".

Perhaps the solution is an obvious reversal:  embed some CCP partner employees within ASAP.  ;)

That's actually... not a terrible idea.  :o
Research Scientist (Sensors), Sharp Laboratories of Europe, UK

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 1
Looks to me like the russians are trying to gum up the works in a bit of anti-competitiveness.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 665
  • Likes Given: 195
Looks to me like the russians are trying to gum up the works in a bit of anti-competitiveness.
What does ASAP have to do with the Russians?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 897
Chris' article has 2 topics. One of them is ASAP. The other one is the combination of the SpaceXS C2 and C3 flights.
« Last Edit: 09/28/2011 02:32 am by yg1968 »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7161
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 684
  • Likes Given: 792
Great article, though I was a bit taken aback by the assertion that, "SpaceX [...] are by far the best known commercial company in the public arena."

Boeing?

How public profile is CST-100? Not being a US native, I'm not up-to-speed on what the media over there is saying but I know that the Boeing entrant isn't mentioned over here in the UK, only MPCV and Dragon.
"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 erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1297
  • Liked: 90
  • Likes Given: 0
Great article, though I was a bit taken aback by the assertion that, "SpaceX [...] are by far the best known commercial company in the public arena."

Boeing?

How public profile is CST-100? Not being a US native, I'm not up-to-speed on what the media over there is saying but I know that the Boeing entrant isn't mentioned over here in the UK, only MPCV and Dragon.

Somewhat public but getting more.  SpaceX gets most of the news here as they face of commercial crew.  The fact that he was a huge contributor to Obama's campaign who has given him special face time is probably a factor too.

Offline Diagoras

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 461
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 86
Great article, though I was a bit taken aback by the assertion that, "SpaceX [...] are by far the best known commercial company in the public arena."

Boeing?

How public profile is CST-100? Not being a US native, I'm not up-to-speed on what the media over there is saying but I know that the Boeing entrant isn't mentioned over here in the UK, only MPCV and Dragon.

Somewhat public but getting more.  SpaceX gets most of the news here as they face of commercial crew.  The fact that he was a huge contributor to Obama's campaign who has given him special face time is probably a factor too.

Didn't he contribute just as much to the McCain campaign?
"It’s the typical binary world of 'NASA is great' or 'cancel the space program,' with no nuance or understanding of the underlying issues and pathologies of the space industrial complex."

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5448
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 2838
  • Likes Given: 1
For the record-

In 2008 Musk gave Hillary Clinton $2,300, Obama $2,300, Richardson $2,300 etc. and $28,500 to the Republican Congressional Committee, $25,000 to the Republican Senatorial Committee, $1,000 to the Democrat Senatorial Committee, and $1,000 to the Democrat Congressional Committee. Other donations to Dems in California, Florida and other key states and 2 Republicans.
DM

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1007
  • Liked: 317
  • Likes Given: 90
Quote
The fact that he was a huge contributor to Obama's campaign who has given him special face time is probably a factor too.
The tendency to view everything in political terms is causing a lot of damage at NASA even though (or perhaps because) it is rarely discussed. I was actually told by a high-ranking civil servant that "Obama is using SpaceX and the Unions to destroy NASA".

Objectively, SpaceX is nonunion while the SLS/Orion contractors have unions. Objectively, Obama is applying Republican principles of private industry and competition in CCP while the Bush-initiated Constellation/SLS/Orion program is a classic example of government micromanagement. Objectively, SpaceX is competing for business while the SLS/Orion contractors have gamed the system (i.e. when Congress required the use of Shuttle SRBs made by ATK). Objectively, SpaceX is succeeding because of the extraordinary determination and vision of Elon Musk. Consider the other COTS competitors.  RpK could not even get the resources to fulfill the contract. Orbital, a company with considerable experience, is dependent on Russian hardware and unable to move to human spaceflight.

But when we see everything in political terms, there is no room for objectivity. And when we see the space program as just another arena for political battles, we have little chance of even agreeing on a goal, let alone of achieving it.

To return to the topic, the SAA approach has worked amazingly well. NASA sets general goals and the contractors have a lot of freedom in how to meet them. In contrast to Apollo, today there are few people on the NASA side who have ever designed flight hardware or even put their hands on it, and little evidence detailed NASA requirements are adding anything other than cost. I just do not agree with the ASAP on this.
« Last Edit: 07/15/2012 08:32 pm by vulture4 »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8829
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3829
  • Likes Given: 916
The tendency to view everything in political terms is causing a lot of damage at NASA

NASA is a government department.. how else are they supposed to see everything?

It's like saying the tendency to view everything in ice cream terms is causing a lot of damage at Ben & Jerry's.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2524
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 8
The tendency to view everything in political terms is causing a lot of damage at NASA

NASA is a government department.. how else are they supposed to see everything?

It's like saying the tendency to view everything in ice cream terms is causing a lot of damage at Ben & Jerry's.



There's a difference between politics and bureaucracy...

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8829
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3829
  • Likes Given: 916
The tendency to view everything in political terms is causing a lot of damage at NASA

NASA is a government department.. how else are they supposed to see everything?

It's like saying the tendency to view everything in ice cream terms is causing a lot of damage at Ben & Jerry's.



There's a difference between politics and bureaucracy...

Yes there is, what's that got to do with what you said? If NASA doesn't think in political terms they quickly discover the politicians are cutting their budget or talking about downsizing some centers.

Government departments serve political interests or they soon no longer exist.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Tags: