Commercial Crew - Information release DISCUSSION thread

[Garrett]

And Padrat hits the proverbial nail on the head! A great post to finish this thread with.

Now, can a mod lock this thread, and maybe even delete this post by me so that Padrat's post is recorded as being the thread ender?

[simonbp]

That would imply this will never happen again, but we know it will, and probably with more serious incidents.

IMHO, if you take *any* government money for a test and it fails, you show that failure, period. If you don't want to show it, don't take the money. You can't take public money and expect no public accountability.

[Lars_J]

That would imply this will never happen again, but we know it will, and probably with more serious incidents.

IMHO, if you take *any* government money for a test and it fails, you show that failure, period. If you don't want to show it, don't take the money. You can't take public money and expect no public accountability.

This is reality, not your "ideal" world. But I very much doubt that even you (in your ideal world) - if you received any partial/limited funding - would be open to reveal everything about your project to *everyone* - and be told that it has to happen in video form for some bizarre reason as well. 

[Robotbeat]

That is nonsense, simonbp.

Nowhere in SNC's contract is it written that they have to release all video of all tests. And if they did, you would have companies less willing to put "skin in the game." We know the result of the test. The landing gear failed and the vehicle was significantly damaged.

It's a trade-off. If you want more video of failures, it's going to cost more taxpayer dollars. So what do you prefer, failure video or a tax increase?

[Lurker Steve]

I guess you have to ask if public oversight would help or hinder development.
Sure, DC had a near perfect flight, then missed the landing because the gear didn't deploy. They were able to validate that their lifting body design makes a nice glider. The controls worked well while airborne. There is nothing that the general public can do to help SNC determine why the gear didn't deploy by viewing that video.
Perhaps SNC and the NASA engineering team can determine the best method to handle a gear that doesn't deploy, but I'm sure they don't need us armchair engineers to help them. Perhaps they might even use this same ETA again to test those scenarios.
Would you rather have SNC be as secretive as Blue Origin ? They are doing testing on their own spread down in Texas, and only release small tidbits of information. On Blue's website, you can find a video of a successful short hop, but not the one where the test vehicle was damaged.
 

[LouScheffer]

That is nonsense, simonbp.

Nowhere in SNC's contract is it written that they have to release all video of all tests. And if they did, you would have companies less willing to put "skin in the game." We know the result of the test. The landing gear failed and the vehicle was significantly damaged.

This is not complete nonsense.  Other branches of the government write disclosure requirements into their contracts.  See, for example, http://publicaccess.nih.gov, which states "The NIH Public Access Policy ensures the public has access to the published results of NIH funded research."  I suspect that if NASA had a similar clause in their contract, then at least the failure report would need to be public.

There is also controversy in the medical arena when companies conduct clinical trials, but then don't report results if they are not favorable:  http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/a-third-of-all-us-clinical-drug-trial-results-remain-unpublished-after-5-years-131031?news=851533  The issues are just the same as companies worry about here:  "Drug makers are sometimes motivated to not publish clinical trial information in order to hide details of side effects or outright failures of new treatments. They also try to avoid disclosing data that might help their competition."  In this case disclosure *is* legally required but companies still try to avoid it.

It's a trade-off. If you want more video of failures, it's going to cost more taxpayer dollars. So what do you prefer, failure video or a tax increase?

This is not clear to me. NIH still gets more grant applications than it can handle, by a very large margin, even with disclosure requirements.  Companies may not like disclosing stuff, but they'll still take the contract unless there is another similar source of funding that does not mandate disclosure.  I don't see that here.

[clongton]

You can't take public money and expect no public accountability.

Yes you can. It happens EVERY DAY with public money - *every day*.
No commercial company is obligated in any way to disclose anything in print or film that they were not contracted to release. The fact that a bunch of whiners can't get enough entertainment reminds me of the so-called race fans that go to the track to see the crashes, not the races, and come home whining and disappointed when what they get instead is good racing.

[clongton]

This is not complete nonsense.  Other branches of the government write disclosure requirements into their contracts.

Yes it is complete nonsense.
There are no such disclosure requirements in those contracts.

[neilh]

That is nonsense, simonbp.

Nowhere in SNC's contract is it written that they have to release all video of all tests. And if they did, you would have companies less willing to put "skin in the game." We know the result of the test. The landing gear failed and the vehicle was significantly damaged.

This is not complete nonsense.  Other branches of the government write disclosure requirements into their contracts.  See, for example, http://publicaccess.nih.gov, which states "The NIH Public Access Policy ensures the public has access to the published results of NIH funded research."  I suspect that if NASA had a similar clause in their contract, then at least the failure report would need to be public.

I'm not sure if you understand the context of the NIH requirements you're referring to. That has to do with the publication of funded research results (i.e. much of the reason for the funding) in journals which weren't publicly accessible.

If a grad student on an NIH grant drops a test tube of an expensive catalyst while working on an experiment, they aren't required to post a video of the test tube breaking to youtube.

[LouScheffer]

That is nonsense, simonbp.

Nowhere in SNC's contract is it written that they have to release all video of all tests. And if they did, you would have companies less willing to put "skin in the game." We know the result of the test. The landing gear failed and the vehicle was significantly damaged.

This is not complete nonsense.  Other branches of the government write disclosure requirements into their contracts.  See, for example, http://publicaccess.nih.gov, which states "The NIH Public Access Policy ensures the public has access to the published results of NIH funded research."  I suspect that if NASA had a similar clause in their contract, then at least the failure report would need to be public.

I'm not sure if you understand the context of the NIH requirements you're referring to. That has to do with the publication of funded research results (i.e. much of the reason for the funding) in journals which weren't publicly accessible.

I understand exactly what I'm referring to.  The equivalent would be that NASA, for its money, expects a full technical report, and the report must be made public (with some reasonable time frame for proprietary use).  I think some of the ire that is being directed at SNC should be directed instead at NASA, for not mandating more disclosure.

If a grad student on an NIH grant drops a test tube of an expensive catalyst while working on an experiment, they aren't required to post a video of the test tube breaking to youtube.

But if they had a video that showed the accident, then it might reasonably be expected to be included as part of a failure report, which NASA might wish to disclose (to help others avoid the same problems, to estimate the forces involved in the accident, or other legitimate research purposes).  Of course this would all depend on what the contract said, and as far as we know it says nothing.

[QuantumG]

You keep using that word - failure - I don't think you know what it means.

They weren't testing the landing gear.

[Lars_J]

You keep using that word - failure - I don't think you know what it means.

They weren't testing the landing gear.

Of course the landing gear was part of the test. The original plan was to fly with a closer-to flight gear, and they did not for various reasons. But elements of the final one (presumably the doors) were there. It was certainly part of the overall test.

But... As it turns out, from a certain point of view we did actually see the root failure - the failure to deploy the leg. Wanting to see what came after that is just "rubber-necking" for destruction, and we are all guilty of that sometimes.

[QuantumG]

Of course the landing gear was part of the test. The original plan was to fly with a closer-to flight gear, and they did not for various reasons. But elements of the final one (presumably the doors) were there. It was certainly part of the overall test.

It wasn't. See Chris' comments. It's ridiculous that you're here arguing that they've done something wrong when you don't even know the facts.

[clongton]

You keep using that word - failure - I don't think you know what it means.

They weren't testing the landing gear.

Of course the landing gear was part of the test.

Then you need to provide source material for that to back that up because all of the flight test criteria I have seen did not even mention the landing gear. Otherwise please correct your post to make it clear that you are expressing a personal opinion.

[Lars_J]

Call it personal opinion - or logic, depending on what you want. If the landing was not a part of the test criteria, then the total DC drop test was a 100% success.  If the test included aspects of the landing, then the total test was not a 100% success. It's pretty simple as that, isn't it?

Perhaps I missed the part where Chris claimed the former (100%) - but I'm not sure that's a claim that SNC would even back.

[Chris Bergin]

Call it personal opinion - or logic, depending on what you want. If the landing was not a part of the test criteria, then the total DC drop test was a 100% success.  If the test included aspects of the landing, then the total test was not a 100% success. It's pretty simple as that, isn't it?

Perhaps I missed the part where Chris claimed the former (100%) - but I'm not sure that's a claim that SNC would even back.

I'm really not sure how I could have been any clearer.

I think some people are still losing focus on what this test was all about. It was not a test of the landing gear, it was a test of the ETA's ability to fly and approach.

Please, let me know how that is not clear, because I'll draw you some pictures if you wish.

[Lars_J]

Pictures might be helpful. I guess I missed that post, I did not see it in your two post-incident articles.

I respect your journalism, Chris, but I'm just going after what SnC themselves say in their press release: http://www.sncspace.com/press_more_info.php?id=369

... Today, Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) performed its first free-flight approach-and-landing test of the Dream Chaser® spacecraft. ...

[spectre9]

When I did a google for secretive commercial space all that came up was Blue Origin 

SNC actually did show their failure. You can clearly see the wheel did not deploy in their video. 

[Garrett]

SNC actually did show their failure. You can clearly see the wheel did not deploy in their video. 

Exactly. There has been no secrecy.
 - we saw the video where the left landing gear fails to deploy
 - we know that it was not the final flight wheel design, but a replacement only for the drop test
 - we know that the craft tumbled, was damaged and will require repairs, but not a rebuild (hopefully)
 - we know that the avionics survived well and kept sending telemetry even during the tumble
 - we know that if the data looks good, then there will be no need for a second drop test

We know lots. How is any of this truly "secretive"?
What we didn't see is a flight test article crashing and rolling over so that some if us can go "ooh" and "wow", and replay it over and over and share it on Twitter and Facebook, cos, like, crashes are cool to watch.

This has been a very depressing thread to read. Mods, please stop the madness!

[psloss]

Exactly. There has been no secrecy.

It's not that black and white -- the test was conducted in private (in secret), which is standard commercial practice (for R&D and other areas).  If I had to guess, the privacy was for this type of situation.

This has been a very depressing thread to read. Mods, please stop the madness!

Given the response, whether the thread lives for long I doubt this topic is going away.