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

[yg1968]

At last, a real answer:

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1068328906313342977

My hot take? Standard "New Boss Review". He mentions in the interview that he was considering this culture review from before his confirmation, while getting up to speed on the prior NASA failures.

This part of the article is interesting:

Still, Musk “did not inspire confidence, and the leaders of these organizations need to take that as an example of what not to do when you lead an organization that’s going to be launching American astronauts.”  Asked if he has spoken to Musk about it, he replied yes, several times, and Musk agrees.  “He is as committed to safety as anybody.  He understands that was not appropriate behavior and you won’t be seeing that again.”

[Robotbeat]

Boeing is probably a year behind SpaceX, technically. If bureaucratic barriers can slow down spaceX enough, it might translate into just 6 months. But Boeing has a ton of work left.

IMHO, there’s a decent (25%?) chance Boeing will have to do an in-flight abort test after all.

[Rocket Science]

They were called trans-sonic high altitude abort tests...

[tdperk]

The chutes never completely failed.

They've never even nearly failed, if you refer to Dragon.

[edkyle99]

Doesn't this cover the parachute question?  It suggests that both companies are looking at parachute issues.

"Members of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel said engineers at both companies, which work under contract to NASA, are examining their parachute designs after encountering failures during testing."
https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/10/13/safety-panel-says-much-work-left-to-do-before-commercial-crew-ships-fly/

 - Ed Kyle

[docmordrid]

Doesn't this cover the parachute question?  It suggests that both companies are looking at parachute issues.
>

Depends on what ASAP's definition of "failure" is. Was the result out of bounds, or in bounds but not in the center of their preferred range?

[woods170]

Doesn't this cover the parachute question?  It suggests that both companies are looking at parachute issues.
>

Depends on what ASAP's definition of "failure" is. Was the result out of bounds, or in bounds but not in the center of their preferred range?

As I mentioned before on another thread: those "failures" (in the case of SpaceX) were nothing serious, and within the boundaries of what is allowed.
However, even the slightest tear in a parachute, even if it was in an extremely demanding deployment scenario, was enough to get NASA all nervous to the point of NASA practically forcing SpaceX to have a n-th look at their parachute system.
From what I hear a similar thing happened during a beyond-boundary test of the CST-100 parachutes.

When all is said and done those two spacecraft - Crew Dragon and Starliner - will be safer than Orion will ever be IMO.

[saliva_sweet]

From what I hear a similar thing happened during a beyond-boundary test of the CST-100 parachutes.

What??? Not failing outside the designed spec indicates a flaw in the design process IMO.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1101602629396901890

One item from a press briefing at KSC late today with NASA Administrator Bridenstine and commercial crew astronauts: Bridenstine says he won’t “prejudge” the ongoing review of the safety cultures at Boeing and SpaceX, but “I expect to find that their culture is very safe.”