SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft static fire anomaly - THREAD 3

[gongora]

https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1150123569994698753

Communication with NASA was good. Communication with the public (taxpayers) was not. Media was frustrated. NASA and SpaceX have agreed to improve the public communication after such events. Other contractors have done the same.

[Mandella]

https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1150123569994698753

Communication with NASA was good. Communication with the public (taxpayers) was not. Media was frustrated. NASA and SpaceX have agreed to improve the public communication after such events. Other contractors have done the same.

Short the finger pointing, I suppose this is a good thing, even if that first press conference is going to be a bunch of people with serious looks on their faces going,

"No, we don't yet know the root cause of the incident."

"No, we really don't know the proximate cause either."

"No, we don't know how much this is going to affect the schedule, if at all."

"No, I don't know why I'm standing here, except that we don't want the media to be frustrated, I guess."

[Robotbeat]

Media was frustrated. Because SpaceX often uses non-traditional avenues (i.e. publicly available) for info dissemination.

[gongora]

Media was frustrated. Because SpaceX often uses non-traditional avenues (i.e. publicly available) for info dissemination.

SpaceX didn't say much of anything before the CRS-17 press conference, and I kinda doubt they would have said as much then if that video hadn't been leaked.  It wasn't a matter of them going around the media, they just weren't talking at all.

[dglow]

Media was frustrated. Because SpaceX often uses non-traditional avenues (i.e. publicly available) for info dissemination.

SpaceX didn't say much of anything before the CRS-17 press conference, and I kinda doubt they would have said as much then if that video hadn't been leaked.  It wasn't a matter of them going around the media, they just weren't talking at all.

Yes, and not irrationally. SpaceX (Musk) have faced criticism for over-sharing in the wake of accidents, such as with CRS-7.

And I do hope Bridenstine's conference with SpaceX included a frank discussion of that leaked video.

[gaballard]

Media was frustrated. Because SpaceX often uses non-traditional avenues (i.e. publicly available) for info dissemination.

SpaceX didn't say much of anything before the CRS-17 press conference, and I kinda doubt they would have said as much then if that video hadn't been leaked.  It wasn't a matter of them going around the media, they just weren't talking at all.

Yes, and not irrationally. SpaceX (Musk) have faced criticism for over-sharing in the wake of accidents, such as with CRS-7.

And I do hope Bridenstine's conference with SpaceX included a frank discussion of that leaked video.

So it's damned if they do, damned if they don't. If anything, the silence around the DM-2 anomaly is a great selling point for L2 subscriptions

[Star One]

https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1150123569994698753

Communication with NASA was good. Communication with the public (taxpayers) was not. Media was frustrated. NASA and SpaceX have agreed to improve the public communication after such events. Other contractors have done the same.

Who would think that we see the day that Space X is pulled up about their public communication. Perhaps they aren’t so different from other companies in this area of business.

[Vettedrmr]

If you remember they killed the livestream of B1050's spinning into the ocean, then released the video after it was more successful than they could have imagined.

I think they've just swung on the public communication spectrum too far on the quiet/control side.  SpaceX is also way too savvy to screw up the social media side, they're just finding the sweet spot.

Have a good one,
Mike

[Kabloona]

I still don't understand why NASA got so spun up about SpaceX not "communicating" more with the media.

Obviously the capsule pretty much disintegrated. We could see that on the video. Beyond that, what is SpaceX going to say to the media? "We had a failure. We don't know the cause. We'll investigate, and we'll work with NASA to find the root cause."

Seriously, there are at least 20 people on this forum who could have written SpaceX's press statement for them without even being told what to say. It would have been 100% predictable.

And oh, by the way, SpaceX did issue such a statement to SpaceNews/Jeff Foust, and probably any other news outlet who asked for it.

https://spacenews.com/spacex-crew-dragon-spacecraft-suffers-anomaly-during-ground-tests/

What more did they want/expect?

Genuine puzzlement...

[gongora]

Obviously the capsule pretty much disintegrated. We could see that on the video. Beyond that, what is SpaceX going to say to the media?

They could have said that much.  They didn't until the CRS-17 press conference.  We only knew that because of the leaked video.  SpaceX fans tend to overstate how open SpaceX is with their communications.  Obviously Boeing has not been any more open about their testing challenges than SpaceX on this program.  In the SpaceX case everyone knew something bad happened because the effects were visible to the public.

[Kabloona]

 In the SpaceX case everyone knew something bad happened because the effects were visible to the public.

So NASA's beef is that SpaceX didn't utter three words that every space reporter already knew from watching the video, ie "the capsule exploded?"

[gongora]

I'm not sure what Bridenstine's exact beef is.  I could kinda understand wanting the public to know a little more about that big funny looking cloud when it happened.  Bridenstine has mentioned telling taxpayers, which would imply he just wants the company to be more open about the status of the program, but in that case he needs to be mentioning both companies equally.

[joek]

Communication with NASA was good. Communication with the public (taxpayers) was not. Media was frustrated. NASA and SpaceX have agreed to improve the public communication after such events. Other contractors have done the same.

Would like to know what exactly Bridenstine thinks the issue was and what measures are being taken to "...improve the public communication after such events".  Maybe someone from the press should ask him?

Would also be good if the press would explain the source of their "frustration" and what steps (if any) NASA is taking to address that frustration "after such events"?

[joek]

I'm not sure what Bridenstine's exact beef is.  I could kinda understand wanting the public to know a little more about that big funny looking cloud when it happened.  Bridenstine has mentioned telling taxpayers, which would imply he just wants the company to be more open about the status of the program, but in that case he needs to be mentioning both companies equally.

Then Bridenstine also needs to give those companies more freedom to communicate directly with the press and public than has been typical in the past?  Basic rule in most every arrangement is that customer always leads; suppliers-vendors always follow the customer's lead--especially anything involving external communications.  Appears NASA was not willing or able to lead and blames it on their suppliers-vendors?

Again, if Bridenstine considered it a problem, what steps are being taken to solve it?  Given that communication with "the press" is explicitly called out as a problem, maybe "the press" can press for some answers on what exactly Bridenstine intends to do to solve the problem?

[Kabloona]

I guess we'll find out next time what Bridenstine has in mind, because Eric Berger's tweet quoted Bridenstine as saying they already have a new process in place and will have a press conference within hours after the next incident.

For the good of commercial crew schedules everywhere, let's hope we don't have to find out this calendar year, at least.

[speedevil]

Then Bridenstine also needs to give those companies more freedom to communicate directly with the press and public than has been typical in the past?  Basic rule in most every arrangement is that customer always leads; suppliers-vendors always follow the customer's lead--especially anything involving external communications.  Appears NASA was not willing or able to lead and blames it on their suppliers-vendors?

I seem to remember several times in the past when SpaceX has done almost no communication, with their normal webcast being extremely delayed - when NASA TV was already covering it in some manner.
I do wonder if there is specific contractual language requiring pre-approval of stuff in some circumstances that does not apply to other launches.

[envy887]

...
Then Bridenstine also needs to give those companies more freedom to communicate directly with the press and public than has been typical in the past?  Basic rule in most every arrangement is that customer always leads; suppliers-vendors always follow the customer's lead--especially anything involving external communications.  ...

Commercial Crew is a bit unusual in that regard. It's not a traditional NASA-vendor relationship. I'm not familiar with the contractual details, but it wouldn't surprise me if SpaceX is free to share as much or as little as they want, while NASA is bound to protect proprietary vendor information.

[tea monster]

All this hoo-haw about how SpaceX isn't communicating with the public about the accident.
During all this, there has been an 'incident' over at Boeing with their CST-100 spacecraft's emergency abort system.
I don't remember seeing any information about that either.

Strangely, nobody seems to be jumping up and down accusing Boeing of hiding anything, even though it too could (did?) delay the crewed test schedule.

[Ken the Bin]

All this hoo-haw about how SpaceX isn't communicating with the public about the accident.
During all this, there has been an 'incident' over at Boeing with their CST-100 spacecraft's emergency abort system.
I don't remember seeing any information about that either.

Strangely, nobody seems to be jumping up and down accusing Boeing of hiding anything, even though it too could (did?) delay the crewed test schedule.

This article posted today by Teslarati borders on accusing both Boeing and NASA:
SpaceX’s response to Crew Dragon explosion unfairly maligned by head of NASA

A key paragraph:

Within ~40 days, NASA published an official update acknowledging Crew Dragon’s accident and the ongoing mishap investigation. Meanwhile, a full year after Starliner’s own major accident, NASA communications have effectively never once acknowledged it, while Boeing has been almost equally resistant to discussing or even acknowledging the problem and the delays it caused. On May 24th, NASA and Boeing announced that Starliner’s service module had passed important propulsion tests (essentially a repeat of the partially failed test in June 2018) – the anomaly that incurred months of delays and required a retest with a new service section was not mentioned once.

[Robotbeat]

I'm not sure what Bridenstine's exact beef is.  I could kinda understand wanting the public to know a little more about that big funny looking cloud when it happened.  Bridenstine has mentioned telling taxpayers, which would imply he just wants the company to be more open about the status of the program, but in that case he needs to be mentioning both companies equally.

As I said, Bridenstine (who, overall, I think has done a great job) has the instinct of a politician. Acting like a tough guy (even when not warranted) is rewarded for politicians.

...so I don't really think Bridenstine himself actually has a beef with it, but he thinks he has to act like it. Same with the outrage over puffing on a joint. I doubt Bridenstine actually cared personally, but he acted like it.