Ethics and NASA/Commercial Space Question

[darkenfast]

There was a discussion that got a bit off-topic in a SpaceX sub-forum regarding speculation that SpaceX could be hiding or covering-up an issue with the Dragon spacecraft. That got me wondering about the relationship that NASA personnel have with the various companies contractually involved in Commercial Space. I also detest Conspiracy Theory thinking, so I hope that shedding some light on the subject will help dissipate that.

Hypothetical question: Under a commercial contract such as COTS or the like, there are (AIUT), NASA people actually at the companies, and a fairly high level of back-and-forth with offices in NASA (as the recent SpaceX flight has shown with the cooperation between the two Mission Control, and the extensive sim runs beforehand). A lot of data is going to be proprietory, but NASA still has access, correct? If a situation arose where a company was making public statements that were obviously dishonest, and NASA knew it, would they not have a duty to take some action? I'm not talking about the semantic differences between "successful", "100% successful" and "successful, but we need to tweak", but more of a false statement in fact.

In such a complex operation, there would have to be a lot of people colluding in the lie, wouldn't there? Are there procedures in place to deal with such situations if they were to arise? I'm hoping to bring some common sense into some of the discussions I see (not just here). Perhaps some professionals could shed some light here. 

[Jim]

NASA can't comment about propriety information.
The public only gets to see the Great and Powerful Oz, what the man behind the curtain is doing is not for NASA to divulge.  As long as the Oz performs as advertized, other things don't matter.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26739.0

[erioladastra]

Those are very good, and fair questions.  In past progrms NASA has embeeded itself in the companies.  For example, it was typical to have a NASA resident office at the plant where some people would be working closely with the contractor.  This is oversight.  The review process was very involved witha  lot of paper work.  But the NASA CS could oversee and get into anything they deemed neccessary to acheive the requirements.  That is not the case with the commercial companies.  NASA gets a certain amount of insight but not as much.  SOme companies don't even want NASA folks to havea  desk at their facilities (other ont eh CCP side embrace it).  You are limited to data they are willing to show you.  Now in the case of SpaceX, initially they didnt want much insight at all.  NASA still expects a fair amount of paperwork (i.e proof) that the requriements are being met.  And while in some cases SpaceX did not have to allow some of the insight requested by NASA, they were brow beat into some of it realizing they were not going to fly to ISS without it.  Similar process for CCP.  In theory the companies can hide stuff.  People have requested, and gotten, a smaller CCP so that even if companies wanted full oversight, there is not the personnel.  But people are spot checking and diving in on the suspicious stuff quite a bit.  It is a new world but we will see how well it works.

[simonbp]

Recall that in the case of STS-51L, it was the private contractor that pointed out the risks and told NASA it was unsafe, but NASA went ahead and launched anyway. NASA oversight/control does not automatically imply greater safety, and in fact has lead to disaster.

Also, if a commercial operator looses a crew, they're liable to go bankrupt. If NASA looses a crew, a few people loose their jobs and the budget goes down slightly. In other words, the commercial operators have a much higher existential risk from things going wrong, and thus a higher inherent motivation to make sure that everything goes right.

Just look at the Dragon COTS2 mission. If the mission had failed, NASA would have shrugged and moved on. But if the F9 had blown up or the Dragon missed ISS, etc, then SpaceX would have been in serious trouble. Who do you think was more motivated for mission success?

[Danderman]

There was a discussion that got a bit off-topic in a SpaceX sub-forum regarding speculation that SpaceX could be hiding or covering-up an issue with the Dragon spacecraft.

I was not suggesting that SpaceX is covering up an issue with the Dragon spacecraft. All spacecraft have unique characteristics, and I was pointing out a characteristic of the Dragon that had not been mentioned here.

I am unaware of any issues with Dragon that are being covered up, or are some sort of design flaws.

[Danderman]

Hypothetical question: Under a commercial contract such as COTS or the like, there are (AIUT), NASA people actually at the companies, and a fairly high level of back-and-forth with offices in NASA (as the recent SpaceX flight has shown with the cooperation between the two Mission Control, and the extensive sim runs beforehand). A lot of data is going to be proprietory, but NASA still has access, correct? If a situation arose where a company was making public statements that were obviously dishonest, and NASA knew it, would they not have a duty to take some action? I'm not talking about the semantic differences between "successful", "100% successful" and "successful, but we need to tweak", but more of a false statement in fact.

In such a complex operation, there would have to be a lot of people colluding in the lie, wouldn't there? Are there procedures in place to deal with such situations if they were to arise? I'm hoping to bring some common sense into some of the discussions I see (not just here). Perhaps some professionals could shed some light here. 

If there were a significant problem that SpaceX experienced during a flight that NASA was aware of, someone would talk about it off the record. That is human nature.

[mr. mark]

Let's all say hello to the last bastion of the negative types. The mission was a success by all accounts and now all that is left is for people to speculate that there may have been or will be some collusion between NASA and SpaceX because SpaceX or commercial space flight could not have possibly got it right. Well at least in this instance they did. Now NASA is looking over all the flight information as they always do to determine the best course of action before giving the green light to SpaceX. NASA is just being thorough as usual. That is a good thing.

[yg1968]

There was a discussion that got a bit off-topic in a SpaceX sub-forum regarding speculation that SpaceX could be hiding or covering-up an issue with the Dragon spacecraft.

There was speculation on a SpaceX thread. I am shocked!

[peter-b]

There was a discussion that got a bit off-topic in a SpaceX sub-forum regarding speculation that SpaceX could be hiding or covering-up an issue with the Dragon spacecraft.

There was speculation on a SpaceX thread. I am shocked!

I am shocked, shocked to discover speculation on these forums!

[yg1968]

NASA can't comment about propriety information.
The public only gets to see the Great and Powerful Oz, what the man behind the curtain is doing is not for NASA to divulge.  As long as the Oz performs as advertized, other things don't matter.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26739.0

Part of me thinks that is the way that it has to be. If you look at how blown out of proportion the TO issue was for Ares-I, the secrecy of commercial companies is perfectly understandable.

However, in the thread that you linked, it seems that NASA was made aware of the situation very early on in the process. The fact that some of you had to bite your tongue is also understandable given that SpaceX has competition and a number of detractors. 

[JohnFornaro]

If you look at how blown out of proportion the TO issue was for Ares-I, the secrecy of commercial companies is perfectly understandable.

The press may have exaggerated TO, but the program managers didn't ever solve TO.