Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by byerley 4312 days ago
I can't understand this author's spin. The memo -

http://coffman.house.gov/sites/coffman.house.gov/files/docum...

is a request to NASA for un-redacted information about the SpaceX failures. They're not asking for an investigation or delays (as far as I can tell), they just want disclosure. How is making failure information public going to slow down progress?

3 comments

It's a first salvo. Coffman and Brooks both serve on HASC and on the HASC Oversight and Investigations subcommittee; Brooks is vice-chair of the House science committee's Space and Aeronautics subcommittee. Whatever NASA provides is going to be grist for investigations into SpaceX and possibly legislation crippling it (and potentially other small competitors) in favor of the big aerospace employers in the reps' districts.

In particular, this is probably an attempt to force NASA into selecting Boeing's CST-100 as the agency's new orbital vehicle. Boeing's option certainly has fewer operational "anomalies" than SpaceX's Dragon, because it hasn't even made it to orbit yet -- but don't expect politically-motivated Congressmen to admit that Boeing is a higher risk than a proven, if upstart, solution.

This is the status quo for politics these days. Our elected officials are masters of the switcheroo. They ask innocent, logical sounding questions to pry for information they will then use to destroy something they don't like.

You can't ask "what's wrong with this request" anymore. You have to ask "why would they be asking for this? What do they get out of this information?"

Elected officials can certainly be two-faced.

However, I think criticizing their decisions while everyone is still in the information gathering stages is taking vigilance way too far. Politicians are people too and you have to give them a fair shake at doing their job before you can lament the result.

Is it just me or is that memo cut off after 1 page? Kinda hard to see what they're asking for.
The memo is two pages long, and the request for un-redacted information is present on the second page.

byerley is right though -- I don't see anything asking for an investigation or some other show-stopper.