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

[Rocket Science]

I 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

If your interest is safety then audit all... A new Administrator at NASA could review all aspects related to the agency if he chooses... Including the SLS program: NG, Orbital/ATK, Boeing (again) ESA (for ESM) all thier subs etc...

[rakaydos]

Makes me glad that BFR isn't being funded by NASA or the Air Force.

They indirectly and directly have through TRL testing of composite stages and other tech in addition to providing knowledge and funding in the early to mid dev cycle of Raptor. The list goes on and most never makes the front line PR circuits.

in this case, what we are glad about is that NASA lacks the financial strongarm that actively funding the BFR would give them. Sunk research costs made available to the american company dont count, because they cant be taken away.

[JonathanD]

Boeing is right there in the WaPo headline and gets some heat in the article.

Yeah but nothing compared to the time spent on unrelated events involving Elon Musk.

[docmordrid]

Its conceivable Boeing could throw Starliner under the bus to keep the larger gravy train (SLS/Orion) on the rails.

Later, with SpaceX out of the way for LOP-G crew/cargo missions and surface landings, they could propose to fill those slots at a premium price - agreed to by their pet Senate committee Chairman.

[envy887]

There's an excellent chance that any cultural issues Boeing has on Starliner will blow right back on it's work on SLS.

Also, without CC, NASA loses access to ISS for years. Probably permanently. That's not acceptable to either NASA or Congress, so the CC contacts aren't going anywhere.

Boeing has little to gain and a lot to lose with this review. I doubt they are very happy about it.

[JonathanD]

Boeing has little to gain and a lot to lose with this review. I doubt they are very happy about it.

I'd definitely agree with that, especially in light of some of the challenges they've been facing with delays and cost overruns on SLS.  Not that those are "safety culture" related, but it still just all adds to the pile of scrutiny, which in turn can lead to even more delays.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

So what effects would the findings of this review have?

1) If the finding is a deficiency in meeting a contract requirement or OSHA standard the company must address it and fix immediately.

2) If it is to make a change to a company's policy then it is no more than a suggestion and the company can ignore it if they want. If NASA tries to force it by arbitrary delay of launches then NASA can be sued and NASA will loose in court having to pay damages to the company.

[Rocket Science]

Sure, let's delay US spaceflight continue to fly on Soyuz with their great safety culture after all. Keep those dollars flowing to Russia. Got to pay for the Vodka breaks after all in the workplace especially in sensitive industries...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/15/russia-calls-time-on-workplace-drinking-alcohol-abuse

[Arb]

Might also be in part a reaction to these:

[AncientU]

Article hits nail squarely:

OPINION: What’s Behind NASA’s ‘Safety Review’ Of SpaceX And Boeing?

When the Washington Post reported that NASA is suddenly going to conduct what it calls a “safety review” of SpaceX and Boeing, the two companies that will shortly be flying astronauts to and from the International Space Station, eyebrows raised and jaws dropped across both social and regular media. The space agency has been working closely with SpaceX for the past 10 years, and with Boeing since the Apollo program. Nevertheless, the reviews will be extensive and intrusive, involving inspections of facilities and interviews with hundreds of employees.

The space agency is suddenly getting nervous about what NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine called “the culture of inappropriateness,” especially at SpaceX.

On the other hand, the spectacle of NASA officials being triggered by Elon Musk’s toking a reefer brings to mind the story told about an incident when several members of Congress complained to President Abraham Lincoln that General Ulysses S. Grant was a drunkard. Lincoln, noting that Grant was winning victories for the Union, openly pondered sending bottles of Grant’s favorite whisky to his other generals.

In the spirit of Mr. Lincoln, considering the great success that SpaceX has enjoyed in reducing the cost of space travel, perhaps it would be a good idea to find out what Elon Musk’s favorite blend of marijuana is and send a few buds to the CEOs of other aerospace companies, not to mention certain NASA officials more comfortable with following the rules and being “appropriate” than launching rockets and exploring the universe.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/23/opinion-whats-behind-nasas-safety-review-of-spacex-and-boeing/

[docmordrid]

Maybe we should send those high quality buds to 304 Russell Senate Office Building?

[Rocket Science]

Baby want's it's rattle back...

[rayleighscatter]

I 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

If your interest is safety then audit all... A new Administrator at NASA could review all aspects related to the agency if he chooses... Including the SLS program: NG, Orbital/ATK, Boeing (again) ESA (for ESM) all thier subs etc...

They could even ask why SpaceX's CRS-7 was the only NASA launch failure in decades to not get an independent NASA review despite the fact the rocket would be carrying astronauts in the near future.

[JonathanD]

They could even ask why SpaceX's CRS-7 was the only NASA launch failure in decades to not get an independent NASA review despite the fact the rocket would be carrying astronauts in the near future.

It didn't?  This document seems weird then.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/public_summary_nasa_irt_spacex_crs-7_final.pdf

[rayleighscatter]

They could even ask why SpaceX's CRS-7 was the only NASA launch failure in decades to not get an independent NASA review despite the fact the rocket would be carrying astronauts in the near future.

It didn't?  This document seems weird then.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/public_summary_nasa_irt_spacex_crs-7_final.pdf

Independent.

Independent.

Independent.

Independent.

Independent.

Or to let the OIG speak in its own words:

we found SpaceX’s investigation board was not independent because 11 of the 12 voting members were SpaceX employees

I'm done arguing though with the same bunch who were championing an old space sniper as the cause of the Amos-6 loss.

[Comga]

They could even ask why SpaceX's CRS-7 was the only NASA launch failure in decades to not get an independent NASA review despite the fact the rocket would be carrying astronauts in the near future.

It didn't?  This document seems weird then.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/public_summary_nasa_irt_spacex_crs-7_final.pdf

Independent.

Independent.

Independent.

Independent.

Independent.

Or to let the OIG speak in its own words:

we found SpaceX’s investigation board was not independent because 11 of the 12 voting members were SpaceX employees

I'm done arguing though with the same bunch who were championing an old space sniper as the cause of the Amos-6 loss.

Saying it five times doesn’t help.
OIG found SpaceX’s board was not independent but the quoted report is titled
“NASA Independent Review Team: SpaceX CRS-7 Accident Investigation Report Public Summary”
Was NASA’s IRT not sufficiently independent?
No one here is talking snipers and you are never done arguing.

[woods170]

They could even ask why SpaceX's CRS-7 was the only NASA launch failure in decades to not get an independent NASA review despite the fact the rocket would be carrying astronauts in the near future.

It didn't?  This document seems weird then.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/public_summary_nasa_irt_spacex_crs-7_final.pdf

Independent.

Independent.

Independent.

Independent.

Independent.

Or to let the OIG speak in its own words:

we found SpaceX’s investigation board was not independent because 11 of the 12 voting members were SpaceX employees

I'm done arguing though with the same bunch who were championing an old space sniper as the cause of the Amos-6 loss.

Congratulations. You completely missed the point.

There were two investigations into CRS-7. One was by SpaceX. That particular investigation was indeed anything but independent.

However, the referenced IRT report relates to the second investigation, which was performed by an independent NASA team.

So yeah, there was in fact an independent investigation, by NASA, into the CRS-7 mishap.

[Robotbeat]

NASA is ridiculously deep into SpaceX's COPV safety after those two incidents. A lot of resources being spent (and a LOT of real work done) on that. Any suggestion that NASA isn't doing due diligence there is completely laughable.

[docmordrid]

A trip in Mr. Peabody's  WABAC machine to this 2014 InnerSpace article is interesting,

Link...

Richard Shelby’s War Against SpaceX
>
>
Or is it really all just about the Space Launch System, and the growing fear that as the NRC Mars report pointed out again last week, there is simply no way the nation can afford a SLS flight rate high enough to ensure safety without massive and highly unlikely increases in NASA’s budget?

If it is the latter, and the language stays in the final bill, then make no mistake, the long smoldering conflict between NewSpace and Arsenal Space, recently papered over, is about to re-ignite.
>

[Chris Bergin]

Will remove posts that are not on topic, such as whatever Russia is up to that doesn't happen to be space flight. Totally off topic.