Commercial Crew - Information release DISCUSSION thread

[RonM]

You have to understand that when I raise this question about the Dream Chaser censoring, it isn't just about Dream Chaser.  It is about every launch and landing and mission by every system and every provider in the future.  If the majority is happy to object when someone calls for unleashing the horror of a video of an unmanned test vehicle flipping off a runway at speed, what other censoring will they demand when it comes to civil space exploration?  That is simply not the U.S. space program that I want to support.  If it is all subject to redaction, why bother?   

This is what you get when you privatize the space program. The information is no longer public. Companies could even keep discoveries secret as private research if they want. In the future, if a company went to Mars, they would not be required to tell the public anything. I'm sure they would show some pretty pictures for PR, but they could keep everything else private to maintain a competitive edge on future colonization. It's how capitalism works.

[eeergo]

Well, I can see there was a clear need for this thread. Summary over the first six pages:
- It still is pretty much Ed's opinion versus those of the rest.
[...]
Carry on.

Actually no, there have been many people, including myself, aligning with Ed's take on this issue. The "good publicity" discussion is something I don't view as central, and so I haven't participated on that, but that doesn't mean I agree with the -IMO- simplistic view of "it's the way law/corporate interests/capitalism work; therefore we don't have, and shouldn't have, a say".

As interested parties, we should be the ones seeking further releases of information. We shouldn't be justifying any censorship (I also believe the word to be accurate*) or spin a company may judge to their interests to apply on the information it controls, even if warranted in strict legalistic terms. And indeed, I feel in many cases here, if it was NASA withholding information, the situation suddenly wouldn't be so acceptable (not necessarily your case Woods, just picked your post because it assumed some of us who commented earlier had just changed opinion)

+1 to Ed's latest post, by the way

*to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

[ChrisWilson68]

Let us suppose I own "United Boxed Lunch Company" and I win a contract to supply microgravity meals to the ISS.

Just for fun I occasionally have a camera on  in the Sandwich Testing Room, to placate certain anoraks who are really into sandwichspotting. Once in awhile, a large container of mustard is spilled. We turn the camera off, clean up and when we are ready, we get back to work. We are periodically checked by health inspectors as well as NASA's own contract management personnel to make certain that our boxed lunches fall within guidelines.

But certain parts of the population are upset. "That sandwich belongs to the United States of America! We want to know where the mustard fell, what solvents were used to clean it, and the minutes of the meeting for the Commitee to Prevent Future Mustard Spills. This is a government program and therefore these boxed lunches and the means to go about making them, are just as public as the inner workings of a Navy galley.

Now the United Boxed Lunch Company has other customers, and it has a reputation to protect. It has done its job, and shareholders do not want it to be the sourse of blooper reels on television and "Fail blogs" on streaming media. Likewise they do not want to be part of a congressional hearing on Condiment Contamination when the congressman from the next state over, whose Standard Ham and Cheese did not win the contract, has a pork flavoured ax to grind.

What to do, what to do.

(edited to correct spelling)

There's an important difference between making sandwiches and developing a new aerospace plane -- sandwiches are a well-known technology that is in production with a track record.  If I want to buy a sandwich, I can make that decision based on the company's track record.

With Commercial Crew, the taxpayer is paying for a risky, speculative development program.  There's no way to know in advance if it will succeed.  So there is much more of a legitimate desire for details about how the program is progressing.

Personally, I think SNC is making a mistake in not releasing the video and/or more detailed information about the crash.  I think any negatives from people seeing it are outweighed by the goodwill it engenders for their being transparent.

SpaceX also hasn't released the video of their F9v1.1 first stage crashing into the Pacific, so SNC is not alone.  If either one releases the video, it would count in their favor with me with respect to future government contracts.

[ChrisWilson68]

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. We have all been spoiled over the years by all the free flow of information from NASA but unlike NASA, all this information is proprietary and releasable only as the companies see fit. That goes even for those programs that are financed with public tax dollars so long as those dollars did not have public disclosure clauses attached. In the case of *ALL* the Commercial Crew applicants, there was no such clause. To the contrary, each company was promised that all its data would be held as proprietary. Each company has the legal right to not disclose anything it wants, regardless of funding source.

Those are the rules.

BTW I also grew up watching live coverage, beginning with the Vanguard failure. I also feel the information flow difference – very much. But it’s a different world now; time to adapt.

Nobody is arguing that they are violating the current law.  What people have been arguing is that what they are doing is:

1) Putting SNC's own interests above those of the country as a whole.  This might be understandable, but it's also perfectly reasonable for people to complain about this and dislike them for it.

2) Might actually not even been in SNC's own best interests because it annoys some people and blows a chance to earn goodwill.

[ChrisWilson68]

At least we have some idea what progress SNC is making. Other CCDev companies like Blue Origin and Excaliber Almaz haven't released much info at all, although I think they are still working on their own set of CCDev 2 milestones.

That's a good point.  SNC, SpaceX, and Boeing have all been much more transparent than Blue Origin or Excaliber Almaz, and I give them credit for that.  I can still wish they would be a little more transparent, though.

[ChrisWilson68]

It doesn't have to be corporate secrets.    Propriety just means the company owns the information.  If they don't want to release the crash because they feel the crash portion might reflect poorly on them, then it is their call or because they say so.   It isn't their problem that you have one with their policy.

Fair enough, but I will continue to believe that it reflects more poorly on them to withhold the crash video than it would to share the crash video.  (My underlining above.)

 - Ed Kyle

To you, and probably many of us, it does.  But to the less informed and/or more powerful, it may well be evidence that could be used against them.  If the engineering and science communities were the only audience, the'd probably release it.

The general public has no idea what Dream Chaser, SNC, or CCiCap are.  If they see a video of DC crashing, they're not going to call up their Congressional representatives and ask for funding to be withheld.  They're never going to know or care about their representatives' votes on the issue.

The only people whose opinions can have any effect whatsoever on SNC are well enough informed that transparency is going to affect them positively more than seeing the crash will affect them negatively.

[Garrett]

The difference is that now, for the first time, basic information is being withheld - a landing video censored - about a potential crew launch system. 

You didn't really answer my question. Jim stated that even 20 years ago SpaceHab also withheld what you like to call "basic information". In other words, there appears to be evidence that this is not, as you say, "the first time".

But even when it comes to unmanned systems, didn't we see vivid video of the commercial - and even of the government - launch failures of the late 1990s?

You're cherry-picking: we still see government launch failures. Have you not seen the Morpheus Moon lander crash?
Also, the rocket failures (e.g. Delta II and III) happened during live broadcasts of their launches. We would still all get to see a F9 explode as F9 launches are also broadcast live. Nothing has changed.

[QuantumG]

We shouldn't be justifying any censorship (I also believe the word to be accurate*)

..

*to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

The definition you linked to even says you're wrong.

They're not suppressing anything. It's not censorship for me to refuse to tell you my credit card number. It's mine.

[yg1968]

With the commercial crew program, NASA is just a client. It doesn't own the hardware or the IP. SNC gets government money just as any other company that sells to the government but NASA doesn't own any shares in SNC. SNC is allowed to disclose whatever they want.

[woods170]

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. We have all been spoiled over the years by all the free flow of information from NASA but unlike NASA, all this information is proprietary and releasable only as the companies see fit. That goes even for those programs that are financed with public tax dollars so long as those dollars did not have public disclosure clauses attached. In the case of *ALL* the Commercial Crew applicants, there was no such clause. To the contrary, each company was promised that all its data would be held as proprietary. Each company has the legal right to not disclose anything it wants, regardless of funding source.

Those are the rules.

BTW I also grew up watching live coverage, beginning with the Vanguard failure. I also feel the information flow difference – very much. But it’s a different world now; time to adapt.

Nobody is arguing that they are violating the current law.  What people have been arguing is that what they are doing is:

1) Putting SNC's own interests above those of the country as a whole.  This might be understandable, but it's also perfectly reasonable for people to complain about this and dislike them for it.

That is what almost every company does: put it's own interests above those of the country. We live in a capitalist world remember. "What's good for the country" only becomes interesting if a company can make some good money out it.

2) Might actually not even been in SNC's own best interests because it annoys some people and blows a chance to earn goodwill.

It only blows goodwill with those groups and people who have no guiding influence on the commercial crew program. SNC couldn't care less about those groups. SNC is there to provide a service to an organization that requested such a service. And yes, along the way SNC hopes to make a profit out of it. That is what they do. To them, a bunch of upset folks over at NSF.com are of no interest what so ever.

[JAC]

I may have missed the comparison, but SpaceX only released a photo of the CASSIOPE first stage taken moments before hitting the water and there wasn't this outpouring of demands to see the post-impact images.  Same arguments can be made that the water impact was outside the actual flight requirements.

Not sure how much government money have gone into Falcon 9 1.1. But fore sure they didn't ONLY pay for developing Dragon. Let's go and force Elon to give back every nickel unless he releases the video of the first stage crashing into the sea!!! 

[eeergo]

We shouldn't be justifying any censorship (I also believe the word to be accurate*)

..

*to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

The definition you linked to even says you're wrong.

They're not suppressing anything. It's not censorship for me to refuse to tell you my credit card number. It's mine.

This discussion is semantic and using the word "censorship" versus "spin", "tergiversation", "manipulation" or other close relatives doesn't change anything in the bottom-line concept I was trying to convey.

However, and just for the sake of the dialectics: I don't see how the dictionary link I used "says I'm wrong". But just in case you'd like a less ambiguous, clearer term to apply to this situation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship . I hope you intended your credit card example just to be a hyperbole, because obviously the release of a meaningless number (except for using it against you) in an unspecified context doesn't compare to the careful removal of an important piece of basic information from a press release for a high-visibility, partly-subsidized program.

[eeergo]

With the commercial crew program, NASA is just a client. It doesn't own the hardware or the IP. SNC gets government money just as any other company that sells to the government but NASA doesn't own any shares in SNC. SNC is allowed to disclose whatever they want.

Again, just picking a single post to answer, out of the several that share the view of "this is how capitalism works, legally they're within their rights, therefore they may do with the information whatever they want".

Capitalism doesn't come with hard commandments. You can just abide by the legalistic, there's-nothing-but-profits view (system I wouldn't want to live in) or see it as something with more hues. To use my analogy from a few posts back, probably strictly legally BP didn't have to publically disclose its methods for combatting the Deepwater Horizon's spills. However, public pressure on a high-visibility program with ramifications in society made them do it - within reasonable limits, nobody was asking for the code that drove the submersibles!

This is a scaled-back, similar situation: a subsidized program with high visibility in which, even if not justified by the contract terms alone, a fairer release of information may be reasonable to ask by the interested public. If applied to all companies in such a situation, it would set up a healthy corporate pratice, show transparency in both successes and failures, and wouldn't hurt their businesses in the long run. Not seeking honest accountability, especially from our interested public's point of view, will only lead to less transparency.

[spectre9]

Taken from this document.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/national_space_policy_6-28-10.pdf

It is the shared interest of all nations to act responsibly in space to help prevent mishaps, misperceptions, and mistrust .The United States considers the sustainability, stability, and free access
to, and use of, space vital to its national interests .Space operations should be conducted in
ways that emphasize openness and transparency to improve public awareness of the activities
of government, and enable others to share in the benefits provided by the use of space .

To me that's interesting. I've already stated my opinion and this seems to align with that.

[woods170]

Taken from this document.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/national_space_policy_6-28-10.pdf

It is the shared interest of all nations to act responsibly in space to help prevent mishaps, misperceptions, and mistrust .The United States considers the sustainability, stability, and free access
to, and use of, space vital to its national interests .Space operations should be conducted in
ways that emphasize openness and transparency to improve public awareness of the activities
of government, and enable others to share in the benefits provided by the use of space .

To me that's interesting. I've already stated my opinion and this seems to align with that.

Private companies are not bound by this kind of public policy at all, as long as they stay within the confines of what is legal.

[QuantumG]

I hope you intended your credit card example just to be a hyperbole, because obviously the release of a meaningless number (except for using it against you) in an unspecified context

That's exactly how SNC sees the video of their landing gear not working.

I don't know what you're having trouble understanding here, so I'll just repeat a little more briskly what has already been said:

It's SNC's video, they don't have to show you any of it. Be happy you got to see anything at all.

This is a courtesy and you're not being very gracious. They don't even have to provide video to NASA. We could be reading a redacted 30 page pdf instead.

[spectre9]

Private companies are not bound by this kind of public policy at all, as long as they stay within the confines of what is legal.

Must have been a misperception or a mistrust. 

[eeergo]

I hope you intended your credit card example just to be a hyperbole, because obviously the release of a meaningless number (except for using it against you) in an unspecified context

That's exactly how SNC sees the video of their landing gear not working.

I don't know what you're having trouble understanding here, so I'll just repeat a little more briskly what has already been said:

It's SNC's video, they don't have to show you any of it. Be happy you got to see anything at all.

This is a courtesy and you're not being very gracious. They don't even have to provide video to NASA. We could be reading a redacted 30 page pdf instead.

I think I made it pretty clear in my long posts above that I understood very well what their contractual responsibilities are. That doesn't mean I agree with them, that I am happy with the amount of released information, and they way they did it, and that I wouldn't like that to be changed. Not believing I'm *entitled* to, but just believing it's the right course of action. On the other hand, this doesn't detract from the fact that I *am* grateful for the level of transparency they provide - but I and others around here think that it is neither enough nor well-oriented, via the tergiversation and self-censorship of their release. This applies to SNC and other companies in similar situations. Again, for being subsidized companies undertaking a high-visibility program.

The (IMO) well-reasoned and broad argumentations some of us are putting forward supporting this line of thought have been so far, for the most part and with respectable exceptions, brushed aside with authoritarian one-liners, legalistic nitpicking, not-so-subtle black-or-white arguments ("this is how capitalism works, be with it or against it" is a particularly aggressive example) and semantic diversions.

And no, your credit card number is a neutral numeric item of data that can only be used for one purpose (namely using money from your account) not alike in the least to ommitting a relevant graphical record of part of DC's maiden flight for tergiversation purposes.

[Robotbeat]

It's not a mystery what happened after touchdown. I'm glad SNC isn't releasing the juicy disaster footage.

It looks like some people are treating space travel as NASCAR: going mostly to watch the destruction...

[QuantumG]

I think I made it pretty clear in my long posts above that I understood very well what their contractual responsibilities are. That doesn't mean I agree with them, that I am happy with the amount of released information, and they way they did it, and that I wouldn't like that to be changed.

Your agreement is neither requested nor required.

Not believing I'm *entitled* to, but just believing it's the right course of action.

They disagree, and it's their video.