NASA to launch safety review of SpaceX and Boeing after video of Elon Musk...

[whitelancer64]

I don't think this is a new thing. Elon's behavior may be the straw(s) that broke the camel's back, but both Boeing and SpaceX had findings in their last ISO 9001 audits that could indicate a poor safety culture.

ISO 9001 does not evaluate safety issues.

You've posted several times on this thread that ISO 9001 audit reveals a poor safety culture, but unless you have specific information regarding findings, I think your statements are pure FUD.

I meant ISO AS9100.

Both companies had findings in their audits, what I recall off the top of my head is that tools and empty soda cans were left in a rocket engine testing area. But there were several other findings. It was pretty widely reported on in December of last year.

[SpaceXSLS]

This whole thing makes me still angry at Elon. He is smart and he is long enough in the business to know that you don't provide ammo to your detractors. Taking this hit was both stupid and completely superfluous.

You are mistaken IMO. This should be blamed on certain political critters for abusing their people-given political powers to further their own agendas.

The only reason why this review applies to both CCP providers is to cover NASA's ass. Had this review been ordered to apply to SpaceX alone than NASA would be facing a lawsuit faster than Jim Bridenstine can say Quidditch.

We know that. But by being needlessly stupid, Elon opened this particular flank to an attack. He knew or should have known that he openly flaunts federal law and the terms of SpaceX's contract.

Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade.

But you yourself admit that the pot smoking was not the actual impetus of this 'review'. You yourself say you believe this is a politically motivated hackjob, and that, while Elon Musk's recorded half smoking of a joint for a few seconds made it easier for them, that they would have likely done the review anyways on any number of  trumped up reasons.

So... why are you angry at Elon Musk for an action that is functionally irrelevant to the review, which would have happened regardless of his actions?

[Rocket Science]

Here it is, you decide...
https://www.oxebridge.com/emma/damning-dod-report-cites-68-major-nonconformities-at-three-as9100-certified-firms/
http://www.dodig.mil/reports.html/Article/1403539/evaluation-of-the-evolved-expendable-launch-vehicle-program-quality-management/

[meekGee]

Wrong. Elon has not violated federal law until a court of law determines that he in fact did.
Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
That applies even in the USA.

Legal or illegal is really irrelevant in this situation.  CEOs are fired all the time for behavior that is not illegal.  One example was Boeing's Harry Stonecipher in 2005.  In recent years, CEOs have been fired at Intel, HP, Priceline, Best Buy, Papa John's, etc., for allegedly doing things that were perfectly legal.  The list goes on and on.

 - Ed Kyle

Yup, clearly the right thing for SpaceX to do is fire Musk and hire a classic gray-hair corporate/industry CEO. This will allow SpaceX to finally catch up with all of their competitors.

[JonathanD]

So... why are you angry at Elon Musk for an action that is functionally irrelevant to the review, which would have happened regardless of his actions?

Because when you are CEO of a company that will be responsible for the safety of U.S. astronauts, appearances matter.  Should it be this big of a deal?  No.  Should Elon expect that a growing list of poor PR choices will continue to have negative consequences?  Absolutely.  Right or wrong, the self-inflicted PR wounds need to stop.  When disrupting the zeitgeist of human spaceflight (or auto-manufacturing, or energy), you simply can't afford to give the entrenched establishment that kind of ammo, because they will absolutely use it, and this event is evidence of that.

If Elon Musk knew that going on the Joe Rogan show and puffing on a blunt would cause delay in launching astronauts to the ISS, do you think he still would have done it?  Of course not.  For God's sake, they are solving enormous engineering problems and they are being hamstrung by tweets and podcasts?  It's nuts, and preventable.  Damage has already been incurred on this one, let's hope the lesson is learned.

[matthewkantar]

Anyone else surprised Stephen Jurczyk hasn't been shown the airlock?

[rklaehn]

So... why are you angry at Elon Musk for an action that is functionally irrelevant to the review, which would have happened regardless of his actions?

Because when you are CEO of a company that will be responsible for the safety of U.S. astronauts, appearances matter.

If appearances matter more to the NASA upper echelons than real safety then there is something seriously wrong with them. But sure, let's continue to launch on Soyuz. I mean, what's the worst that can happen...

Should it be this big of a deal?  No.  Should Elon expect that a growing list of poor PR choices will continue to have negative consequences?  Absolutely.  Right or wrong, the self-inflicted PR wounds need to stop.  When disrupting the zeitgeist of human spaceflight (or auto-manufacturing, or energy), you simply can't afford to give the entrenched establishment that kind of ammo, because they will absolutely use it, and this event is evidence of that.

If Elon was one of these soulless corporate drones that always takes care of proper appearances, he would not have a young workforce that is willing to walk over broken glass to work 12h a day at his companies.

[freddo411]

Anyone else surprised Stephen Jurczyk hasn't been shown the airlock?

Yes.  In fact I was extremely surprised to have any NASA official mention any other rocket (outside of commercial crew context).   It runs against NASA's "SpaceX blindness" to acknowledge other rockets beyond LEO/GTO.   

It's only a matter of time for this mortal wound to take effect.

[envy887]

This whole thing makes me still angry at Elon. He is smart and he is long enough in the business to know that you don't provide ammo to your detractors. Taking this hit was both stupid and completely superfluous.

You are mistaken IMO. This should be blamed on certain political critters for abusing their people-given political powers to further their own agendas.

The only reason why this review applies to both CCP providers is to cover NASA's ass. Had this review been ordered to apply to SpaceX alone than NASA would be facing a lawsuit faster than Jim Bridenstine can say Quidditch.

We know that. But by being needlessly stupid, Elon opened this particular flank to an attack. He knew or should have known that he openly flaunts federal law and the terms of SpaceX's contract.

Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade.

Wrong. Elon has not violated federal law until a court of law determines that he in fact did.
Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
That applies even in the USA.

Now you are splitting hairs. Be glad that there is no court case, otherwise the trouble could be much, much worse.
If he was found guilty, he would lose his security clearances, wouldn't he?

Unless he failed a drug test, there is not any proof that he violated SpaceX's contractual requirements, which is the key point.

[envy887]

Wrong. Elon has not violated federal law until a court of law determines that he in fact did.
Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
That applies even in the USA.

Legal or illegal is really irrelevant in this situation.  CEOs are fired all the time for behavior that is not illegal.  One example was Boeing's Harry Stonecipher in 2005.  In recent years, CEOs have been fired at Intel, HP, Priceline, Best Buy, Papa John's, etc., for allegedly doing things that were perfectly legal.  The list goes on and on.

 - Ed Kyle

Musk isn't just a CEO. He owns a majority of shares and a supermajority of voting shares. The only person who can fire him is himself.

Agree that legality is not the key point. The point in question is if SpaceX failed to meet their contractual requirements to NASA.

[mlindner]

Wrong. Elon has not violated federal law until a court of law determines that he in fact did.
Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
That applies even in the USA.

Legal or illegal is really irrelevant in this situation.  CEOs are fired all the time for behavior that is not illegal.  One example was Boeing's Harry Stonecipher in 2005.  In recent years, CEOs have been fired at Intel, HP, Priceline, Best Buy, Papa John's, etc., for allegedly doing things that were perfectly legal.  The list goes on and on.

 - Ed Kyle

Yes because the CEO was doing things against what the shareholders cared about. Elon is the only shareholder of note (over 50% of shares and over 70% of controlling shares) for SpaceX. The only group that could ever remove him is the government. Those CEOs were removed by their boards, not the government. Completely apples and oranges.

[JonathanD]

Anyone else surprised Stephen Jurczyk hasn't been shown the airlock?

I don't know if I'm surprised, but I'm glad that he hasn't been.  I think it would make for a very chilling effect on the agency if heads started to roll any time someone makes an offhand response to a question that could be construed as being anything other than limitless and perpetual funding for a Napoleonic Senator's favorite jobs program.  NASA is absolutely stuck in the middle.  And while Bridenstine is obviously a former politician, I do find him to be sincere when it comes to trying to insulate NASA as much as possible from this stuff.  That being said, Mr. Jurczyk's upward mobility in the agency is probably, shall we say, curtailed.

If Elon was one of these soulless corporate drones that always takes care of proper appearances, he would not have a young workforce that is willing to walk over broken glass to work 12h a day at his companies.

That's a bit of false dichotomy.  They were walking over broken glass and worse long before the Joe Rogan incident.  Elon is inspiring for his vision despite his PR missteps, not because of them.

[RonM]

Anyone else surprised Stephen Jurczyk hasn't been shown the airlock?

They can't do that until commercial crew is operational.

[edkyle99]

Wrong. Elon has not violated federal law until a court of law determines that he in fact did.
Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
That applies even in the USA.

Legal or illegal is really irrelevant in this situation.  CEOs are fired all the time for behavior that is not illegal.  One example was Boeing's Harry Stonecipher in 2005.  In recent years, CEOs have been fired at Intel, HP, Priceline, Best Buy, Papa John's, etc., for allegedly doing things that were perfectly legal.  The list goes on and on.

 - Ed Kyle

Yes because the CEO was doing things against what the shareholders cared about. Elon is the only shareholder of note (over 50% of shares and over 70% of controlling shares) for SpaceX. The only group that could ever remove him is the government. Those CEOs were removed by their boards, not the government. Completely apples and oranges.

I think you hit the nail on the head right there in the sentence I highlighted.   Purse strings have the final say.

 - Ed Kyle

[mn]

The article (linked in first post) also says this:

It also found that SpaceX is struggling with “difficulties and problems” with the spacecraft’s parachute system

Where do I look for more info on this? is there a current issue, or is the article digging up something old that was long resolved?

[speedevil]

I think you hit the nail on the head right there in the sentence I highlighted.   Purse strings have the final say.

Unless the witholding of money is illegal, then it's the courts.

SpaceX has shown they are not particularly shy on taking legal action to enforce contract injustices - see the block buy as the most obvious example.
Trying to back out of CC* payments or unfairly deal with spacex on the basis of things that do not pertain at all to safety would seem very likely to involve legal action.

Plus, most launches aren't NASA launches, though a substantial fraction of the funding does come with them, and Dragon work.

[woods170]

*snip*
It was pleasant to be within eight months or so of a SpaceX launch with crew.

We still are.

From what I hear: No.

There is going to be delays. Key personnel won't be available for work for some time because of the reviews being conducted.

Both manned demo missions (from Boeing and SpaceX) just shifted to the right. Its just a matter of time before this starts to show up on FPIP and other flight planning documentation.

SpaceX's uncrewed demo flight just shifted a day to the left.

What part of manned demo missions were you unable to parse?

[whitelancer64]

The article (linked in first post) also says this:

It also found that SpaceX is struggling with “difficulties and problems” with the spacecraft’s parachute system

Where do I look for more info on this? is there a current issue, or is the article digging up something old that was long resolved?

One of the most recent tests had some unusual - but reportedly within tolerance - behavior in the parachutes, but I don't think there's public information any more detailed than that. They are also changing their supplier for the reef line cutter.

[oiorionsbelt]

Contrary to others I'm glad Elon half took a hit of pot and all this BS is now in the open.
 It's been going on in more clandestine ways for awhile might as well shine a light on it and find out where we are as a nation with regard to spaceflight.

[envy887]

Wrong. Elon has not violated federal law until a court of law determines that he in fact did.
Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
That applies even in the USA.

Legal or illegal is really irrelevant in this situation.  CEOs are fired all the time for behavior that is not illegal.  One example was Boeing's Harry Stonecipher in 2005.  In recent years, CEOs have been fired at Intel, HP, Priceline, Best Buy, Papa John's, etc., for allegedly doing things that were perfectly legal.  The list goes on and on.

 - Ed Kyle

Yes because the CEO was doing things against what the shareholders cared about. Elon is the only shareholder of note (over 50% of shares and over 70% of controlling shares) for SpaceX. The only group that could ever remove him is the government. Those CEOs were removed by their boards, not the government. Completely apples and oranges.

I think you hit the nail on the head right there in the sentence I highlighted.   Purse strings have the final say.

 - Ed Kyle

The purse strings are tied by contractual obligations. NASA backing out of payments would be a breach of contract so long as SpaceX has been faithful to the contract.

I haven't seen the slightest indication that SpaceX failed to meet their contractual obligations, thus NASA is still obligated to pay them.