Commercial Crew - Information release DISCUSSION thread

[Jim]

[
So what's the difference between "NASA space policy" and "United States space policy". Does it apply to NASA or does it apply to all spaceflight?
.

One is just a civilian part of the US govt, the other covers all: military, civil, commercial, private, gov't, etc.    There is no over arching policy that covers everything.   Commercial and private entities are not bound by policy dictated by the gov't (except for FAA regulations and those under contract to NASA).

If NASA didn't pay for the landing test or video, then it is not NASA's call.

national space policy by withholding the full footage.

There is no "national space policy" that they are bound to.

[spectre9]

Thanks Jim. My argument was inaccurate.

I have nothing further to add.

[ChefPat]

Now I'm never going to be one of the top reporters for space flight news and I'm certainly not going to win any awards for writing style

I have to disagree here. Your excellent, in depth coverage coverage of the CCP is unique anywhere on the planet & will in time be recognized as such. In the not too distant future I'll bet.
I know for a fact that other news organizations & authors come to NSF for information. That's because you're informed, correct & first in nearly all events concerning space flight.

[Lar]

Now I'm never going to be one of the top reporters for space flight news and I'm certainly not going to win any awards for writing style

I disagree with this as well, this site is superb.

Principles aren't in a handbook or a manual, most of them come from experience, personal attitude and how you were trained. A lot of writers will tell you their first editor was pretty much their teacher, with my first editor being an old school, hard nosed editor (mass media too), who drummed it into my head on the importance of responsibility. "Loose talk costs lives" was his favorite saying.

He taught you well. Please continue sticking to your principles.

But stop with the 24 hour shifts, you're going to kill yourself, and then what are we going to do for news???

[eeergo]

Chris, by the above discussion I wasn't suggesting you were the one at fault by sitting on the video. In fact, it speaks very positively of your jornalistic integrity, in my opinion, that you don't release everything that gets in your hand, but that you weigh the consequences very carefully, both for your future interests and those of the people involved. Even if means losing exclusives that you could have published many days before others, as I'm sure has happened in the past! I think that is rare nowadays, and what makes this site so valuable for many of us.

This behaviour is actually kind of what some of us have advocated for in this thread. Prioritizing ethics and common responsibility to bare profits. In your case, I honestly think you work hard with that ideal in mind, even if you also have to run an expensive enterprise with very few ways to be funded. In the case of the subsidized companies under discussion, it doesn't seem so in the least.

It's not just about the video. This is just a very obvious example of information manipulation that always has existed and always will, but now for the first time does so with the explicit acceptance from the only public with enough leverage to change something (excluding legislative or political bodies). All in the name and faith of the now-sacred "private initiative" (even if substantially subsidized). Some of us have heard that story many times in other areas of life, even when not being too old, and would like more openness and honesty.

[JAC]

Considering the number of mobile phones that can record video today, it is strange that nothing, not even a photo after the anomaly, has surfaced on YouTube.

Perhaps SNC can teach NSA a thing or two about secrecy! 

[edkyle99]

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.

Do you really believe that?  SpaceX controls its webcasts with a delayed feed, and has repeatedly pushed the video cutoff button when failures have occurred, most recently during CRS-2.  (To his credit, in that instance Elon Musk himself filled the void with informative tweets while his own PR department continued for a time to keep the media in the dark.)

If a Falcon 9 "explodes", you won't see it from SpaceX.  It didn't show its Falcon 1 explosion(s).

But this is the new reality, I suppose.  Whatever it is, it does not match the long proud historic openness standards of the U.S. national civil space program.  Most of you seem willing to accept this new era of information throttling, which to me either smells like, or hints at a future possibility of, propaganda.  I am not.     

 - Ed Kyle

[Jim]

Considering the number of mobile phones that can record video today, it is strange that nothing, not even a photo after the anomaly, has surfaced on YouTube.

Too far away from viewing areas

[Lurker Steve]

... but in my opinion they're going against the national space policy by withholding the full footage.

and that would be the national space policy of which country? Spectre9-land? 

You can edit your profile to add certain Australians to your ignore list. Then you don't need to listen to them rant about their interpretation of US laws or how our government sometimes operates. Of course, someone might quote one of their posts, but at least it helps to cut down the noise a bit.
 
 

[Lurker Steve]

Considering the number of mobile phones that can record video today, it is strange that nothing, not even a photo after the anomaly, has surfaced on YouTube.

Too far away from viewing areas

They had pretty good video of the approach. Was that taken by remote cameras, or perhaps something with a long lens ? I assume only SNC, NASA, and a few Air Force personnel were close enough to view the test.

[psloss]

Considering the number of mobile phones that can record video today, it is strange that nothing, not even a photo after the anomaly, has surfaced on YouTube.

Too far away from viewing areas

They had pretty good video of the approach. Was that taken by remote cameras, or perhaps something with a long lens ? I assume only SNC, NASA, and a few Air Force personnel were close enough to view the test.

Based on the cuts from the released video, probably the same ground assets and set up they can use for other test vehicles -- long lens from the runway area.  Not unlike a Shuttle orbiter approach and landing.

Like other military installations, Edwards is expansive -- most of the videos I've seen of Shuttle "landings" shot from outside the base at Edwards (including the one I did) are heavy on the approach, not so much on the touchdown and rollout.

[yg1968]

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.

Do you really believe that?  SpaceX controls its webcasts with a delayed feed, and has repeatedly pushed the video cutoff button when failures have occurred, most recently during CRS-2.  (To his credit, in that instance Elon Musk himself filled the void with informative tweets while his own PR department continued for a time to keep the media in the dark.)

If a Falcon 9 "explodes", you won't see it from SpaceX.  It didn't show its Falcon 1 explosion(s).

But this is the new reality, I suppose.  Whatever it is, it does not match the long proud historic openness standards of the U.S. national civil space program.  Most of you seem willing to accept this new era of information throttling, which to me either smells like, or hints at a future possibility of, propaganda.  I am not.     

 - Ed Kyle

I don't know that's it's a new era. All commercial companies (space related or not) work the same way. They are very protective of their image.

[vt_hokie]

I will just say that I look forward to watching the abbreviated, vetted recorded footage of the first commercial crew launch in a few years, perhaps even only a day or two after the actual launch if we're lucky!

[neilh]

Chris, thanks for not being a sensationalist tabloid journalist. I'm quite glad your site isn't the aerospace equivalent of TMZ or Perez Hilton, even though some apparently wish it was.

[Garrett]

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.

Do you really believe that? 

Yes.

SpaceX controls its webcasts with a delayed feed, and has repeatedly pushed the video cutoff button when failures have occurred, most recently during CRS-2.

CRS-2 is irrelevant to my point (live broadcast during launch). CRS-2 had issues with Dragon on orbit.

If a Falcon 9 "explodes", you won't see it from SpaceX.  It didn't show its Falcon 1 explosion(s).

A F9 launch for a CRS or CCiCap mission will be broadcast using government (NASA, Air Force) contracted equipment. If an anomaly were to occur during the launch phase (i.e. before tracking cams lose sight of rocket), then SpaceX can drop their webcast if they wish, but NASA TV will still be in a positon to continue to broadcast.

[Avron]

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.

Do you really believe that? 

Yes.

SpaceX controls its webcasts with a delayed feed, and has repeatedly pushed the video cutoff button when failures have occurred, most recently during CRS-2.

CRS-2 is irrelevant to my point (live broadcast during launch). CRS-2 had issues with Dragon on orbit.

If a Falcon 9 "explodes", you won't see it from SpaceX.  It didn't show its Falcon 1 explosion(s).

A F9 launch for a CRS or CCiCap mission will be broadcast using government (NASA, Air Force) contracted equipment. If an anomaly were to occur during the launch phase (i.e. before tracking cams lose sight of rocket), then SpaceX can drop their webcast if they wish, but NASA TV will still be in a positon to continue to broadcast.

Maybe in the partnership, protection from bad publicity, would be covered by the other partner as neither party wins . I would expect the same for orbital.. I think if things go wrong in a bad way we will see it, however I would expect the live feed to end asap.

[Lars_J]

If a Falcon 9 "explodes", you won't see it from SpaceX.  It didn't show its Falcon 1 explosion(s).

A F9 launch for a CRS or CCiCap mission will be broadcast using government (NASA, Air Force) contracted equipment. If an anomaly were to occur during the launch phase (i.e. before tracking cams lose sight of rocket), then SpaceX can drop their webcast if they wish, but NASA TV will still be in a positon to continue to broadcast.

That's a really odd complaint (who are you quoting?) to put against SpaceX (& Orbital), since they show much more of their launches than any competitor. Who else show rocketcam all the way to LEO? With others all we see is tracking cams of varying quality until out of sight.

[Jason1701]

If a Falcon 9 "explodes", you won't see it from SpaceX.  It didn't show its Falcon 1 explosion(s).

A F9 launch for a CRS or CCiCap mission will be broadcast using government (NASA, Air Force) contracted equipment. If an anomaly were to occur during the launch phase (i.e. before tracking cams lose sight of rocket), then SpaceX can drop their webcast if they wish, but NASA TV will still be in a positon to continue to broadcast.

That's a really odd complaint (who are you quoting?) . . .

Ed, who else?

[manboy]

NASA Administrator Bolden to Hail Success of Commercial Cargo Program

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden will discuss the success of the agency's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) initiative during a televised news briefing at 11:30 a.m. EST Wednesday, Nov. 13.

Through COTS, NASA's partners Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) and Orbital Sciences Corp., developed new U.S. rockets and spacecraft, launched from U.S. soil, capable of transporting cargo to low-Earth orbit and the International Space Station.

A successful Orbital Sciences demonstration mission to the space station was completed in October, signifying the end of COTS development. SpaceX made its first trip to the space station in May 2012 and completed its COTS partnership with NASA the same year. The agency now contracts space station cargo resupply missions with both companies.

The briefing will be held in the James E. Webb Auditorium at NASA Headquarters at 300 E St. SW in Washington. It will be broadcast live on NASA Television and streamed on the agency's website.

The participants will be:

-- Charles Bolden, NASA Administrator
-- Alan Lindenmoyer, Manager of Commercial Crew and Cargo Program, NASA
-- Gwynne Shotwell, President, SpaceX
-- Frank Culbertson, Executive Vice President and General Manager, Orbital Sciences Advanced Programs Group
-- Frank Slazer, Vice President of Space Systems, Aerospace Industries Association
-- Phil McAlister, Director of Commercial Spaceflight Development, NASA

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2013/november/nasa-administrator-bolden-to-hail-success-of-commercial-cargo-program/#.Un8CuuLjU7Y

[padrat]

But this is the new reality, I suppose.  Whatever it is, it does not match the long proud historic openness standards of the U.S. national civil space program.  Most of you seem willing to accept this new era of information throttling, which to me either smells like, or hints at a future possibility of, propaganda.  I am not.     

 - Ed Kyle

You're right, it is the new reality. It's called COMMERCIAL SPACE FLIGHT. Get used to it because it's probably the only thing you are going to see for the next 10-20 (or more) years....

Pardon me for being blunt but this thread to me has turned into 11 pages of some individuals whining because they didn't get their way. My 2 and 6 year olds don't whine this much. I understand that most of us were spoiled with the relative freeflow of info from Shuttle but, sorry, those days are over. Yes, taxpayers pay for NASA. And yes, NASA has contracts with some commercial entities. But I'm willing to bet that somewhere in those contracts it basically specifies that NASA will not release unauthorized info (proprietary info and the like...). In case any of you haven't figured it out yet from being on this site, commercial space flight is a pretty cutthroat, competitive business. Corporate security, national security, proprietary information, ITAR, EPA, OSHA.....those terms govern nearly everything we do on a daily basis. Violation of any of those can bring very stiff penalties (fines, loss of licenses, loss of contracts/business, loss of jobs, criminal charges, BRING DOWN AN ENTIRE CORPORATION). So sorry, I'm not willing to risk losing MY job and way of life, seeing MY country put at risk, watching MY business get shut down, to simply appease some spoiled brats, which is how some of you are acting.

And BTW, for those of you complaining that taxpayer funding should give you the right to know everything it is used for, I dare you to try and trace where every dollar of your taxes (those of you that actually pay US taxes) goes to. Last I knew, you can't designate where every dollar of your taxes gets spent. What about the untold number of black programs that you will probably never see/hear/know about that your taxes are used on? Good luck on your FOI request for that....

//Rant over, get over it//