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

[Cheapchips]

I'm curiosity as to what Bridenstine actually thinks about this affair.  He's seemed to tread a fine line between appeasing the SLS crowd and supporting commercial space.

Could be wrong, but feels to be like some serious arm twisting has occured behind the scenes.

[programmerdan]

Does seem kind of a rushed announcement -- could be the news report got ahead of the formal process.

From Marina Koren at The Atlantic's take:

And Boeing, which is probably wondering what on earth it has to do with this, said it “does maintain a drug- and alcohol-free workplace program. We do this so that we can promote a safe, healthy, and productive work environment, and that program does meet nasa’s and the Department of Defense’s contractor requirements.” (A Boeing spokesperson said nasa did not give a reason for the review and has not provided many details on the process.)

Link: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/nasa-spacex-elon-musk-marijuana-boeing/576490/

tl;dr -- the contractors have been informed of the intent, but not the content or rationale, of the review, as of the time of reporting. Interesting.

[Wudizzle]

Things that had nothing to do with this review being ordered:

Elon's public actions
Real, perceived, imagined, dreamed or any other actual safety concerns at SpaceX

Things that have everything to do with this review being ordered:

SpaceX not being a government-controlled organization, and a private one at that.
The giant steaming pile that is SLS
SpaceX's 2 year hot streak that shows no signs of slowing (and the implications that has towards BFR Starship)
NASA official making public comments about SLS being replaced by commercial endeavors


It has been stated by others previously, but I think it remains the most important and rational counter-argument to this activity(assuming politics is inherently irrational):

If NASA, who has a MULTITUDE of people working alongside both commercial crew providers, and whose safety checkpoints appear to be the long-pole of the effort, has to suddenly be instructed to perform a cultural safety review, then the whole thing just needs shut down. Permanently. You're calling NASA (the organization whose face you're trying to save) utterly incompetent by ordering this review.

[Comga]

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/

Interesting
One of the audit failures for SpaceX was “Customer Satisfaction”
Their most common failure was “Preservation of Product”. 
I know it isn’t meant this way but that’s particularly amusing and ironic as SpaceX is the only one of them that “preserves” their rockets after launch.
We know why there is no fault for ULA or Aerojet failing to do post-flight engine inspections.
The conclusion reached by Oxebridge is NOT that DOD shouldn’t use these providers.
Their recommendation is that DoD skip ISO9001 and AS9100 certifications for a decade until they can be made reliable.

This is hardly damning of SpaceX

[SpaceXSLS]

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.

But this wasn't a pr wound. The PR of that podcast had nothing to do with it. It was a trumped up reason for a political move that would have gone forward whether Elon Musk did that podcast or not.

Again, the review would have gone forward without the marijuana deal, so what ammo was given? There was no 'damage' that wouldn't have happened anyway due to political machinations, which is why I say the Marijuana smoking is functionally irrelevant to the review.

They aren't being hung by the tweets and podcasts. Those are convenient excuses, yes, but they would have simply talked about 'safety concerns' otherwise'. They are being hung by political forces.

[rcoppola]

In celebration of NASA's new plan to purge itself of cultural uncertainties...

 NASA: Lighting It Up Since 1958

[speedevil]

In celebration of NASA's new plan to purge itself of cultural uncertainties...

 NASA: Lighting It Up Since 1958

What was drug/substance policy at NASA - written and unwritten in the Apollo era?

[Star One]

In celebration of NASA's new plan to purge itself of cultural uncertainties...

 NASA: Lighting It Up Since 1958

How many more times does it have to be restated on here that this isn’t on NASA but the politicians.

[Comga]

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

Ah
This is Jurczyk’s capital offense.
And possibly the poke that brings on this version of The Inquisition.

[Negan]

Seems like there's a lot of latitude on what these safety reviews entail. Are we absolutely sure NASA will run these reviews so strictly the crewed flights would be delayed? Since NASA was looking at making SpaceX first crewed mission an operational one too, there's definitely some urgency on their part. The administrator's statement could be more about placating outside parties than a actual description of how in depth these reviews are actually going to be.

[meekGee]

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

 - Ed Kyle

You are correct of course.  But why just NASA?

I say it's about Falcon time that the FCC gets involved and launch a full blue-ribbon investigation into the origin of the "F" in BFR.

After all, standards need to be upheld!

[Rocket Science]

In celebration of NASA's new plan to purge itself of cultural uncertainties...

 NASA: Lighting It Up Since 1958

How many more times does it have to be restated on here that this isn’t on NASA but the politicians.

Or the politician that runs NASA...

[whitelancer64]

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/

Interesting
One of the audit failures for SpaceX was “Customer Satisfaction”
Their most common failure was “Preservation of Product”. 
I know it isn’t meant this way but that’s particularly amusing and ironic as SpaceX is the only one of them that “preserves” their rockets after launch.
We know why there is no fault for ULA or Aerojet failing to do post-flight engine inspections.
The conclusion reached by Oxebridge is NOT that DOD shouldn’t use these providers.
Their recommendation is that DoD skip ISO9001 and AS9100 certifications for a decade until they can be made reliable.

This is hardly damning of SpaceX

"Preservation of Product" basically means that a company's procedures relating to: handling of parts, storage of raw materials, hazardous materials, grounding materials for ESD sensitive parts, etc. etc. are all in good order and that there is evidence those procedures are being complied with.

As an example: if a given area is set aside for storage of materials that have an expiration date - an auditor would check to see that no expired materials are in that area, and that any expired materials are disposed of in a manner that complies with the company's procedures.

I don't know what all of SpaceX's findings specifically were, but something as relatively simple as a missing hazardous materials label, or a misplaced tool, would be a finding in that clause. It could be something as major as not having properly functional grounding equipment in an electronics work area.

[Rocket Science]

Elon could remove himself from the SpaceX side with government contracts and set himself up on a isolated separate exploration side of business. Then what could they say?

[JonathanD]

But this wasn't a pr wound. The PR of that podcast had nothing to do with it. It was a trumped up reason for a political move that would have gone forward whether Elon Musk did that podcast or not.

Again, the review would have gone forward without the marijuana deal, so what ammo was given? There was no 'damage' that wouldn't have happened anyway due to political machinations, which is why I say the Marijuana smoking is functionally irrelevant to the review.

And how would you know the review still would have happened?  That's a completr straw man.

They aren't being hung by the tweets and podcasts. Those are convenient excuses, yes, but they would have simply talked about 'safety concerns' otherwise'. They are being hung by political forces.

When you work with a government agency you are always subject to politics, and that means public opinion matters.  When your actions allow headlines like this:

https://www.cnet.com/news/elon-musks-marijuana-puff-prompts-safety-review-from-nasa-report-says/

...you are giving those political opponents all the ammo they need to make your life hell.

[Lars-J]

Elon could remove himself from the SpaceX side with government contracts and set himself up on a isolated separate exploration side of business. Then what could they say?

That's the fear, obviously. The powers that run NASA know that once commercial crew is operational, the balance of power in the relationship will naturally shift, and their power over SpaceX is drastically reduced.

They fear that instead of depending on Russia they will just shift the same dependency onto the commercial crew providers. If future issues are raised, they can simply tell NASA off in the future. "Our way or the highway - you declared us safe so what has changed?". Will it be like that? Unlikely, IMO, but I think they fear it.

[Rocket Science]

Elon could remove himself from the SpaceX side with government contracts and set himself up on a isolated separate exploration side of business. Then what could they say?

That's the fear, obviously. The powers that run NASA know that once commercial crew is operational, the balance of power in the relationship will naturally shift, and their power over SpaceX is drastically reduced.

They fear that instead of depending on Russia they will just shift the same dependency onto the commercial crew providers. If future issues are raised, they can simply tell NASA off in the future. "Our way or the highway - you declared us safe so what has changed?". Will it be like that? Unlikely, IMO, but I think they fear it.

Wait until Elon's space agency is up and running...

[Comga]

Elon could remove himself from the SpaceX side with government contracts and set himself up on a isolated separate exploration side of business. Then what could they say?

That's the fear, obviously. The powers that run NASA know that once commercial crew is operational, the balance of power in the relationship will naturally shift, and their power over SpaceX is drastically reduced.

They fear that instead of depending on Russia they will just shift the same dependency onto the commercial crew providers. If future issues are raised, they can simply tell NASA off in the future. "Our way or the highway - you declared us safe so what has changed?". Will it be like that? Unlikely, IMO, but I think they fear it.

Sounds quite doubtful
In principle, that's why NASA is standing up two Commercial Crew providers.
It will be a monopsony but not a monopoly.
And the providers will be domestic, not foreign, and not a foreign hostile.

Boeing will be certified, and there will always be a price they can agree on if NASA needs crew transport.
(Boeing is selling NASA seats on Soyuz that NASA is not allowed to buy from the Russians.)
NASA bought launches predominantly from one vendor, ULA, for years.

But people who think that Musk can go his own way regardless of government opposition overestimate him, underestimate the various elements of the government, and its supporters, or both.

Musk had been so careful not to say what Jurzyck said, and Bezos has refrained from saying it, too.
This does neither any good.
Even Boeing may not benefit from it in the long run.

[ulm_atms]

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.

Off-topic but needing to be said.

MeekGee, I want to send you a heart felt thank you for giving me one of the best laughs in a while.  Please don't give up your comedic side job.    This post was well needed.

[Rocket Science]

Elon could remove himself from the SpaceX side with government contracts and set himself up on a isolated separate exploration side of business. Then what could they say?

That's the fear, obviously. The powers that run NASA know that once commercial crew is operational, the balance of power in the relationship will naturally shift, and their power over SpaceX is drastically reduced.

They fear that instead of depending on Russia they will just shift the same dependency onto the commercial crew https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46837.msg1879277;topicseen#newproviders. If future issues are raised, they can simply tell NASA off in the future. "Our way or the highway - you declared us safe so what has changed?". Will it be like that? Unlikely, IMO, but I think they fear it.

Sounds quite doubtful
In principle, that's why NASA is standing up two Commercial Crew providers.
It will be a monopsony but not a monopoly.
And the providers will be domestic, not foreign, and not a foreign hostile.

Boeing will be certified, and there will always be a price they can agree on if NASA needs crew transport.
(Boeing is selling NASA seats on Soyuz that NASA is not allowed to buy from the Russians.)
NASA bought launches predominantly from one vendor, ULA, for years.

But people who think that Musk can go his own way regardless of government opposition overestimate him, underestimate the various elements of the government, and its supporters, or both.

Musk had been so careful not to say what Jurzyck said, and Bezos has refrained from saying it, too.
This does neither any good.
Even Boeing may not benefit from it in the long run.

Elon has always been gracious toward NASA and the future of ISS is still uncertain at this point in time. As long as he meets his contractual obligations he is free to explore his own ambitions unless the government plays dirty tricks...