Commercial Crew - Information release DISCUSSION thread

[Jim]

"Because they say so" ...  that's my problem right there when it comes to something like a basic overview video.  What corporate secrets are revealed in a long shot when the airframe touches the runway that weren't revealed an instant before?   

 - Ed Kyle 

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.

[Lurker Steve]

Is video of a crash-landing "corporate proprietary information"?  If so, how is video of a not-crash-landing non-proprietary?

Yes, simply because they say so for both cases. 

"Because they say so" ...  that's my problem right there when it comes to something like a basic overview video.  What corporate secrets are revealed in a long shot when the airframe touches the runway that weren't revealed an instant before?   

 - Ed Kyle

Maybe you would get a hint of what the guidance software did when it tried to touch down missing the left gear.
That is most likely proprietary. Of course, the steps they take to either eliminate the gear failure, or come to a more graceful stop with a gear that does not deploy is also proprietary.

Obviously, development on the DreamChaser isn't complete yet, since they aren't at the CDR level. I would love to see videos of nominal and off-nominal landings with the final design.

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.

[edkyle99]

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

[Lee Jay]

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.

[vt_hokie]

I think some of us are just frustrated and miss the days when our nation had a real space program, and one that people actually cared about!

[Jim]

I think some of us are just frustrated and miss the days when our nation had a real space program,

We still have one.  National or US space program does not equate to a Government or NASA space program

[Jim]

one that people actually cared about!

That is debatable.  Some may say that there is no difference from now and then.  Some may say there is more interest because of the commercial projects (see spacex threads)

[Lar]

I think some of us are just frustrated and miss the days when our nation had a real space program,

We still have one.  National or US space program does not equate to a Government or NASA space program

Jim's sounding like a SpaceX fan boi

(grin, duck, run... maybe it's what he's going to tonite's Halloween party as???)

OK so it sounds like this thread may have already reached the conclusion? Is anyone's mind changeable?

[vt_hokie]

OK so it sounds like this thread may have already reached the conclusion? Is anyone's mind changeable?

I accept that I am merely a spectator on the sidelines without any say regarding the rules of the game.  With that said, wake me when our manned space program starts doing something exciting and groundbreaking again.

[Elmar Moelzer]

OK so it sounds like this thread may have already reached the conclusion? Is anyone's mind changeable?

I accept that I am merely a spectator on the sidelines without any say regarding the rules of the game.  With that said, wake me when our manned space program starts doing something exciting and groundbreaking again.

Reducing the cost of access to space so that more people can go to space is quite groundbreaking for me and the commercial crew program does that (as a first).

[vt_hokie]

If and when that happens, I'll be watching! (Provided there is live coverage.)

[PahTo]

Reducing the cost of access to space so that more people can go to space is quite groundbreaking for me and the commercial crew program does that (as a first).

But if we don't get to see these groundbreaking efforts (ooh, bad phrase given Dreamchaser's landing), it is hard to get excited about them.  We are a very visual species.  And this ties in to the comments made by Ed and Chuck.  I wonder:  how many people would choose a career in aerospace if they had not seen (and presumably been inspired by) the early successes (and failures) of the space program(s)?  How many people would choose to support HSF or NASA or spaceflight exploration missions if all they ever got was a filtered story, aligned with the corporate vision?

[Elmar Moelzer]

How many people would choose to support HSF or NASA or spaceflight exploration missions if all they ever got was a filtered story, aligned with the corporate vision?

Oh come on! You cant be serious! You are behaving as if public relations are not successfully used by corporations and governments alike. Looking at the many promotional materials for the SLS and before that Constellation that NASA spit out, which were sometimes blatantly spinning the truth to please politics, I cant say, I agree. Same goes for other large government research efforts. Just thinking of the "energy" spin on the NIF(which was never anything but a large defense program).

[rcoppola]

Reducing the cost of access to space so that more people can go to space is quite groundbreaking for me and the commercial crew program does that (as a first).

But if we don't get to see these groundbreaking efforts (ooh, bad phrase given Dreamchaser's landing), it is hard to get excited about them.  We are a very visual species.  And this ties in to the comments made by Ed and Chuck.  I wonder:  how many people would choose a career in aerospace if they had not seen (and presumably been inspired by) the early successes (and failures) of the space program(s)?  How many people would choose to support HSF or NASA or spaceflight exploration missions if all they ever got was a filtered story, aligned with the corporate vision?

Filtered stories?

Ok, how about one of the greatest achievements in human history? The moon landing. Should we bemoan the fact that Kennedy couldn't have cared less about space or the moon or any such thing? He wanted one thing, to do something that would show the world that the US was better then the USSR and in so doing propagate our way of life as being superior.

That was the corporate vision. And the filters were industrial grade. So? Who cares? We landed on the moon.

But because we did it for one-upmanship , once we one-uped, we didn't double down. So now, it's private enterprises'  turn to filter their own stories and have their own visions. There own heroes and villains, success and failures both real and illusory.

[Go4TLI]

OK so it sounds like this thread may have already reached the conclusion? Is anyone's mind changeable?

I accept that I am merely a spectator on the sidelines without any say regarding the rules of the game.  With that said, wake me when our manned space program starts doing something exciting and groundbreaking again.

Reducing the cost of access to space so that more people can go to space is quite groundbreaking for me and the commercial crew program does that (as a first).

To be fair, you really have no way of knowing that.  It will be less expensive than shuttle of course because it has less capabilities, which makes logical sense. 

The proof in the pudding will be additional flights "so that more people can go into space" to reduce the normalized cost-per-pound-to-orbit.  That picture remains extremely unclear if there will be any additional business at all beyond the one or two NASA flights per year.  That price will look to be significant relatively speaking for the vehicle capabilities if that is all there is. 

[Elmar Moelzer]

To be fair, you really have no way of knowing that.

Sure, we know that. The cost per passenger is already set, from what I understand and that is lower than the Soyuz, IIRC. SpaceX plans to further reduce the cost with their reusable launchers. It wont happen over night, but it sure is more of a revolution of human spaceflight than anything NASA has done since... well that depends on how you look at it. To me it is more impressive than the shuttle, but that is a matter of personal priorities, I guess.

[spectre9]

I can't help but compare it to Morpheus exploding.

NASA showed all of that because it was their failure to show.

Did it spark all sorts of NASA hate and get the program cancelled? No.

What about Sea Launch?

What about SpaceX showing their F1 stages bumping?

What about SS1 showing their manned spacecraft flying off the runway after the landing gear failed?

I can't help but feel SNC is being too precious in this situation. Other commercial companies have shown worse and they're still in business.

If the problem is commercial crew funding in general then they're just stupid because the exposure would help them.

When they get cancelled it's going to be "Who?" and it could've been "Oh that cool spaceplane that crashed off the runway, don't cancel that!!!!"

[PahTo]

Of public relations and filtered stories:  My point is that when I watched Curiosity go through EDL, I was watching it live, in realtime (or just about)--indeed, I made sure the family schedule was cleared to share in the adventure.  If the sky-crane hadn't worked, or the vehicle(s) had otherwise crashed, we'd have known right then.

If corporation Z was running the show, they might have chosen to keep the EDL under wraps until safely on the martian surface, and then shared the good news.

People get excited when they SEE things, especially LIVE (as they happen), not hear about them or see things after the fact.  I'm a big space buff, but even for me it is hard to stay optimistic and engaged when there is nothing to see, even if things are happening...
(and if it weren't for the internet, we wouldn't even be able to see things like F9v1.1 launch and other such progress, and even when we do, it is filtered/cut short/etc.)

[Robotbeat]

Wow. Seriously you guys. It doesn't take a genius to know that the press would love to repeat over and over the spaceplane crashing, talking about how commercial crew (and SNC in particular) must be a failure. And probably they'd get it screwed up and say it's NASA's fault, too. No reason to do it.

[kch]

OK so it sounds like this thread may have already reached the conclusion? Is anyone's mind changeable?

Well ...