Quote from: Star One on 11/21/2018 07:49 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 11/21/2018 07:34 pmIn celebration of NASA's new plan to purge itself of cultural uncertainties... NASA: Lighting It Up Since 1958How 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...
Quote from: rcoppola on 11/21/2018 07:34 pmIn celebration of NASA's new plan to purge itself of cultural uncertainties... NASA: Lighting It Up Since 1958How many more times does it have to be restated on here that this isn’t on NASA but the politicians.
In celebration of NASA's new plan to purge itself of cultural uncertainties... NASA: Lighting It Up Since 1958
Quote from: Rocket Science on 11/21/2018 08:40 pmQuote from: Star One on 11/21/2018 07:49 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 11/21/2018 07:34 pmIn celebration of NASA's new plan to purge itself of cultural uncertainties... NASA: Lighting It Up Since 1958How 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... According to Eric Berger's sources, this comes from the politicians. He says that NASA wishes it didn't have to this.
Quote from: meekGee on 11/21/2018 03:44 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 11/21/2018 02:44 pmQuote from: woods170 on 11/21/2018 12:50 pmWrong. 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.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 11/21/2018 02:44 pmQuote from: woods170 on 11/21/2018 12:50 pmWrong. 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.
Quote from: woods170 on 11/21/2018 12:50 pmWrong. 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
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.
He resigned as a politician.
Quote from: SpaceXSLS on 11/21/2018 07:32 pmBut 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.Quote from: SpaceXSLS on 11/21/2018 07:32 pmThey 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.
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.
We can at least agree that this review is ill timed, right?
One interesting point of note - before this news report came out, Jim Bridenstine - of any people at NASA - had re-tweeted Musk's "Renaming BFR to Starship" tweet.I have no idea why he did that with BFR/S being the one big thing that NASA has no official linkage on, but you'd think that if the NASA HQ really sees BFR/S et al. as threating to SLS/Orion, the last thing to do is for the NASA Administrator to help promote it by sharing any news of BFR/S, no? 🤔
Quote from: Rocket Science on 11/21/2018 08:40 pmQuote from: Star One on 11/21/2018 07:49 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 11/21/2018 07:34 pmIn celebration of NASA's new plan to purge itself of cultural uncertainties... NASA: Lighting It Up Since 1958How 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... I didn’t really want to open that whole can of beans about appointees from the administration.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 11/21/2018 05:24 pmI 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.
I think you hit the nail on the head right there in the sentence I highlighted. Purse strings have the final say.
about what is at stake (astronaut lives of course).
$$$ is at stake.
I would be less skeptical if "all" NASA's contractors and personnel were named especially the crewed programs but not exclusively...
Makes me glad that BFR isn't being funded by NASA or the Air Force.
Both Boeing and SpaceX face this review. Washington Post only focused on one of the companies, but that paper is owned by the owner of Blue Origin, which is only competing directly for government funding against the one company mentioned in the story. Perhaps it is a coincidence. It would be a too-obvious conflict of interest otherwise. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: Rocket Science on 11/22/2018 02:00 pmI would be less skeptical if "all" NASA's contractors and personnel were named especially the crewed programs but not exclusively...Both Boeing and SpaceX face this review. Washington Post only focused on one of the companies, but that paper is owned by the owner of Blue Origin, which is only competing directly for government funding against the one company mentioned in the story. Perhaps it is a coincidence. It would be a too-obvious conflict of interest otherwise. - Ed Kyle
