8 ms·

Boeing faced ‘limited’ safety review from NASA while SpaceX got full examination

134 points by dlgeek 7y ago

dlgeek 7y ago
Mirror: https://outline.com/wCEspK https://outline.com/wCEspK
kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
Musk should have had his security clearance revoked but apparently some VIPs get to break federal law.
- mrunkel 7y ago
  Why do you think this? He was engaged in what was legal on a local basis. Where is the risk to his security clearance? Blackmail is out since the behavior was clearly public. Do his two puffs on a joint indicate some sort of allegiance to a foreign power? Does the violation of any federal law or regulation disqualify someone from holding a security clearance?
  - count 7y ago
    Yes, the violation of federal law general disqualifies you from holding a security clearance.
    - londons_explore 7y ago
      Is weed against federal law?
      - leesalminen 7y ago
        Yes, yes it is.
        londons_explore 7y ago
        How can something be against federal law yet still allowed in some states? I thought federal law applied across the whole USA?
        fargle 7y ago
        I personally don't agree with the interpretation that drug control is a federal jurisdiction, but that is the status quo. Your second statement is true: Federal law DOES apply across all states. State law does not nullify or override this. There was a damn big bloody war over that question. Allowed does not mean legal. That's why it is still illegal, but unenforced, in several states. A state CANNOT legalize a controlled substance. To trust lax federal enforcement + state "legalization" is not a wise move. But practical. And besides, security clearances come from the Feds not the states, so who's laws do you think they go by?
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      But not if you don't get charged and can't be blackmailed over it.
  - mandevil 7y ago
    I have held several security clearances of varying levels over the years. During interviews for every single one, I was asked about past drug use, in particular drug use within the past 7 years. (Note that they also ask about all psych/therapy stuff- though family, grief and combat related PTSD counseling are off-limits.) Some of those interviews took place in locations where marijuana was legal at the state level, but it is everywhere in the US illegal at the federal level so they ask. And while it wouldn't necessarily kill your clearance, recent use was definitely a black mark that would need to be analyzed and discussed with you and slow things down. Funniest moment in all my clearances: you need to provide a neighbor to be interviewed, having just moved and not knowing anyone well I picked the only neighbor I knew the full name of; turns out he was a registered sex-offender! Didn't kill my clearance, but did slow everything down and mean I got to spend a lot more time talking to men in suits than my colleagues did. Sounds similar to what is happening here, honestly.
    - hef19898 7y ago
      That! Also, a history of alcohol abuse can be an issue. At least over here.
      - mandevil 7y ago
        Also true. They definitely asked me how much I drank per week.
        hef19898 7y ago
        Yeah, my wife was close to filling for divorce when she had to sign and provide all her residential history. Not being German that history was quite long. And yeah, alcohol was also a thing. The most annoying so was social networks. At least it gave me the motivation to get rid of some accounts. And that is before you see how relevant data is handled in real life and you are left scratching your head in some cases...
  - Rebelgecko 7y ago
    >Why do you think this? Because when you get a security clearance the feds explicitly ask if you've smoked weed in the last 7 years, and are especially interested in knowing if you've smoked weed while possessing a clearance (https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf).
  - scott00 7y ago
    Despite being legal under local law in a number of states, possession of even small quantities of marijuana remains illegal under federal law[0]. In the words of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines[1]: "The illegal use of controlled substances... can raise questions about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness, both because such behavior may lead to physical or psychological impairment and because it raises questions about a person's ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations." Whether or not you agree with the policy, it's still the policy, and if it's enforced when non-famous people with security clearances use drugs (it is), it should be enforced when famous people with security clearances use drugs. [0] 21 USC § 844: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/844 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/844 [1] the official policy defining the criteria by which security clearances are granted: https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/intel/sead-4.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/intel/sead-4.pdf
  - topspin 7y ago
    > He was engaged in what was legal on a local basis. Local jurisdictions don't grant security clearances on behalf of the federal government, FYI. Cannabis is a Schedule I drug and illegal to use for any purpose outside FDA approved research programs according to existing Federal law. > Does the violation of any federal law or regulation disqualify someone from holding a security clearance? If you did it they'd pull your clearance. This isn't speculation. It happens to little folk all the time[1]. As cynical as it might seem the parent isn't wrong in pointing out the obvious disparity in treatment of wealthy and influential people vs plebs. Musk has the contacts and the lawyers to commit a federal crime on video and keep all of his privileges in this life, and you don't. I can't fault anyone for concluding this sort of double standard is a great dysfunction. [1] https://www.fedsmith.com/2019/05/30/revoked-security-clearance-leads-indefinite-suspension/ https://www.fedsmith.com/2019/05/30/revoked-security-clearan...
- GhettoMaestro 7y ago
  Why, for smoking weed on the Joe Rogan show? Weed and security clearances are such a non-issue. I had a TS/SCI for years but opted to not get it renewed. Why? I like to smoke weed and don't wish to cause issues with my employment if it were ever to be discovered or found out. Meanwhile a guy I know who still has a TS/SCI gets blackout drunk weekly. Go figure.
  - threatofrain 7y ago
    Clearance is another issue. One might be able to blackmail you for weed or your sexuality, but alcohol?
    - mullen 7y ago
      But it is only an issue because we make it an issue. A persons sexuality is less dangerous than weed and weed is less dangerous than alcohol.
    - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
      Right. And why is it a blackmail-able offense? Because it is prohibited. Complete circular logic.
      - EpicEng 7y ago
        It's only circular if you think that the people screening you for clearance are the same people legislating. They're not. I agree it's archaic, but these guys aren't legalization activists, nor do they decide what is and isn't legal.
  - jmondi 7y ago
    This is the hypocrisy I do not understand. They were drinking straight whisky for an hour before they lit the joint and there is not a peep from anyone about that.
    - johnzim 7y ago
      The double standard for Marijuana makes zero sense to me, but I didn't see it for what it was until I listened to a track by the Streets https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZrrQoME56U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZrrQoME56U Edit: Just realized the "lyrics" displayed on that video are a pretty poor translation. Try to ignore what's on the screen because whoever wrote them had trouble understanding the accent.
- nscalf 7y ago
  ...for smoking weed? What in the hell does weed have to do with security? Outside of some archaic argument like “it’s always been a requirement”, why is smoking weed a factor in security clearance? Can anyone give me a logical argument for this?
  - aidenn0 7y ago
    Back when smoking weed was more heavily stigmatized (and enforced with jail time), a drug habit was seen as handy blackmail material. That does make doing it publicly something that is less of a concern though; nobody can blackmail Musk for smoking weed because everyone knows he's done it.
  - Qwertystop 7y ago
    Presumably, because it's (technically) breaking federal law, and someone who breaks federal law probably shouldn't have a federally-granted security clearance.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - fargle 7y ago
    If you ever had a clearance, it isn't about sense. It's about "RULES". Thing A and thing A' are moral equivalents. Thing A is a federal crime (we don't care why or if it's wrong). Thing A' is a not a crime. You do thing A, a long time in the past. You get a couple strikes. Probably still get clearance. You demonstrate you don't understand difference between thing A and thing A' (even if moral equivalents) which implies you don't understand "RULES" or that you have independent thought (worse). No clearance for you.
    - Qwertystop 7y ago
      I'm not sure the "independent thought" bit is justified; if you can't distinguish between illegal and legal things, or can't manage to not do illegal things that are fairly easy not to do, it seems reasonable to question whether you can be trusted to keep (information requiring a clearance) secure.
- freedomben 7y ago
  Dude, if anything his newb-ness shows he really hasn't smoked before. Do you know how many people with a clearance have a history of smoking weed? (anecdatally, a lot) If we stipulate that weed smoking makes someone untrustworthy (something I vehemently disagree with) if anything then Elon demonstrated a higher worthiness than most people.
  - fargle 7y ago
    OK, but your idea worthiness isn't what gets a clearance. It's "follow federal law" and "good judgement". Both of which, Elon, epic fail. Yes, a lot of people with clearances probably smoke. But they do it on the DL, not TV. Bad judgement #1. Break federal law, on purpose, to make some point #2. Dumb.
psds2 7y ago
And here's Jeff trying to save himself from going through the same thing.
- mrunkel 7y ago
  I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Is Jeff a personal friend of yours?
  - bicx 7y ago
    Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, and he also owns Blue Origin, another rocket company vying for government contracts.
    - kd3 7y ago
      Jeff who?
gok 7y ago
To be clear, the "Safety Review" was particularly about ensuring that both companies had a drug-free workplace. One company's CEO smoked weed on camera and the other's did not, so you can imagine why one might get a different level of examination.
- mrunkel 7y ago
  The idea that what a CEO does on his own time would somehow reflect on a drug-free workplace is pretty farfetched. Is the CEO of Boeing a teetotaler? If not, should we launch an investigation? There might very well be drinking in the workplace.
  - Faark 7y ago
    You don't think the behavior of a CEO can reflect company values? And I'm not surprised they make less effort verifying that for a longtime aerospace contractor and instead focus on the rocket startup that had a bit of a PR mishap. Would have preferred this to not be an issue at all, but not sure this was an option after this kind of public event. Hope it doesn't unnecessarily push sending humans to the ISS further back.
    - spamizbad 7y ago
      Boomer norms aside, is smoking weed really that bad compared to say, a CEO who likes to drink socially? It's not like he was caught hotboxing in his model 3 before his workday started.
      - eloff 7y ago
        It's funny how alcohol is objectively the far more dangerous and destructive drug, yet weed gets treated more harshly. Disclaimer I drink but don't smoke, so if anything I'm biased against my point.
        rtkwe 7y ago
        Alcohol had a very long history and entrenched industry behind it where (as far as I know) weed didn't have any thing of the sort. Old shitty things that people are used to often get overlooked and a big enough portion of the population were already drinkers so when there was a push to prohibit alcohol similar to weed there was a bigger push back.
ptah 7y ago
dinosaurs
markus_zhang 7y ago
For sure we have to take care of our own guys...
s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
I love how this is picked up but the article a few days ago about Boeing Starliner seat prices being twice as much as Dragon didn't get any attention. https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/nasa-report-finds-boeing-seat-prices-are-60-higher-than-spacex/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/nasa-report-finds-bo...
fargle 7y ago
Here's the critical words: "Ultimately, NASA agreed to pay SpaceX $5 million for its review, and it proceeded. Boeing, however, said such a review would require an additional payment of about $25 million ... NASA balked at the cost and decided that a far more limited..." Company A: D- negotiation skills w/ NASA (failed) Company B: A+ negotiation skills w/ NASA (passed)

134 points by dlgeek 7y ago

dlgeek 7y ago

Mirror: https://outline.com/wCEspK https://outline.com/wCEspK

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago

Musk should have had his security clearance revoked but apparently some VIPs get to break federal law.

mrunkel 7y ago
Why do you think this? He was engaged in what was legal on a local basis. Where is the risk to his security clearance? Blackmail is out since the behavior was clearly public. Do his two puffs on a joint indicate some sort of allegiance to a foreign power? Does the violation of any federal law or regulation disqualify someone from holding a security clearance?
- count 7y ago
  Yes, the violation of federal law general disqualifies you from holding a security clearance.
  - londons_explore 7y ago
    Is weed against federal law?
    - leesalminen 7y ago
      Yes, yes it is.
      - londons_explore 7y ago
        How can something be against federal law yet still allowed in some states? I thought federal law applied across the whole USA?
        fargle 7y ago
        I personally don't agree with the interpretation that drug control is a federal jurisdiction, but that is the status quo. Your second statement is true: Federal law DOES apply across all states. State law does not nullify or override this. There was a damn big bloody war over that question. Allowed does not mean legal. That's why it is still illegal, but unenforced, in several states. A state CANNOT legalize a controlled substance. To trust lax federal enforcement + state "legalization" is not a wise move. But practical. And besides, security clearances come from the Feds not the states, so who's laws do you think they go by?
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    But not if you don't get charged and can't be blackmailed over it.
- mandevil 7y ago
  I have held several security clearances of varying levels over the years. During interviews for every single one, I was asked about past drug use, in particular drug use within the past 7 years. (Note that they also ask about all psych/therapy stuff- though family, grief and combat related PTSD counseling are off-limits.) Some of those interviews took place in locations where marijuana was legal at the state level, but it is everywhere in the US illegal at the federal level so they ask. And while it wouldn't necessarily kill your clearance, recent use was definitely a black mark that would need to be analyzed and discussed with you and slow things down. Funniest moment in all my clearances: you need to provide a neighbor to be interviewed, having just moved and not knowing anyone well I picked the only neighbor I knew the full name of; turns out he was a registered sex-offender! Didn't kill my clearance, but did slow everything down and mean I got to spend a lot more time talking to men in suits than my colleagues did. Sounds similar to what is happening here, honestly.
  - hef19898 7y ago
    That! Also, a history of alcohol abuse can be an issue. At least over here.
    - mandevil 7y ago
      Also true. They definitely asked me how much I drank per week.
      - hef19898 7y ago
        Yeah, my wife was close to filling for divorce when she had to sign and provide all her residential history. Not being German that history was quite long. And yeah, alcohol was also a thing. The most annoying so was social networks. At least it gave me the motivation to get rid of some accounts. And that is before you see how relevant data is handled in real life and you are left scratching your head in some cases...
- Rebelgecko 7y ago
  >Why do you think this? Because when you get a security clearance the feds explicitly ask if you've smoked weed in the last 7 years, and are especially interested in knowing if you've smoked weed while possessing a clearance (https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf).
- scott00 7y ago
  Despite being legal under local law in a number of states, possession of even small quantities of marijuana remains illegal under federal law[0]. In the words of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines[1]: "The illegal use of controlled substances... can raise questions about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness, both because such behavior may lead to physical or psychological impairment and because it raises questions about a person's ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations." Whether or not you agree with the policy, it's still the policy, and if it's enforced when non-famous people with security clearances use drugs (it is), it should be enforced when famous people with security clearances use drugs. [0] 21 USC § 844: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/844 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/844 [1] the official policy defining the criteria by which security clearances are granted: https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/intel/sead-4.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/intel/sead-4.pdf
- topspin 7y ago
  > He was engaged in what was legal on a local basis. Local jurisdictions don't grant security clearances on behalf of the federal government, FYI. Cannabis is a Schedule I drug and illegal to use for any purpose outside FDA approved research programs according to existing Federal law. > Does the violation of any federal law or regulation disqualify someone from holding a security clearance? If you did it they'd pull your clearance. This isn't speculation. It happens to little folk all the time[1]. As cynical as it might seem the parent isn't wrong in pointing out the obvious disparity in treatment of wealthy and influential people vs plebs. Musk has the contacts and the lawyers to commit a federal crime on video and keep all of his privileges in this life, and you don't. I can't fault anyone for concluding this sort of double standard is a great dysfunction. [1] https://www.fedsmith.com/2019/05/30/revoked-security-clearance-leads-indefinite-suspension/ https://www.fedsmith.com/2019/05/30/revoked-security-clearan...
GhettoMaestro 7y ago
Why, for smoking weed on the Joe Rogan show? Weed and security clearances are such a non-issue. I had a TS/SCI for years but opted to not get it renewed. Why? I like to smoke weed and don't wish to cause issues with my employment if it were ever to be discovered or found out. Meanwhile a guy I know who still has a TS/SCI gets blackout drunk weekly. Go figure.
- threatofrain 7y ago
  Clearance is another issue. One might be able to blackmail you for weed or your sexuality, but alcohol?
  - mullen 7y ago
    But it is only an issue because we make it an issue. A persons sexuality is less dangerous than weed and weed is less dangerous than alcohol.
  - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
    Right. And why is it a blackmail-able offense? Because it is prohibited. Complete circular logic.
    - EpicEng 7y ago
      It's only circular if you think that the people screening you for clearance are the same people legislating. They're not. I agree it's archaic, but these guys aren't legalization activists, nor do they decide what is and isn't legal.
- jmondi 7y ago
  This is the hypocrisy I do not understand. They were drinking straight whisky for an hour before they lit the joint and there is not a peep from anyone about that.
  - johnzim 7y ago
    The double standard for Marijuana makes zero sense to me, but I didn't see it for what it was until I listened to a track by the Streets https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZrrQoME56U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZrrQoME56U Edit: Just realized the "lyrics" displayed on that video are a pretty poor translation. Try to ignore what's on the screen because whoever wrote them had trouble understanding the accent.
nscalf 7y ago
...for smoking weed? What in the hell does weed have to do with security? Outside of some archaic argument like “it’s always been a requirement”, why is smoking weed a factor in security clearance? Can anyone give me a logical argument for this?
- aidenn0 7y ago
  Back when smoking weed was more heavily stigmatized (and enforced with jail time), a drug habit was seen as handy blackmail material. That does make doing it publicly something that is less of a concern though; nobody can blackmail Musk for smoking weed because everyone knows he's done it.
- Qwertystop 7y ago
  Presumably, because it's (technically) breaking federal law, and someone who breaks federal law probably shouldn't have a federally-granted security clearance.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- fargle 7y ago
  If you ever had a clearance, it isn't about sense. It's about "RULES". Thing A and thing A' are moral equivalents. Thing A is a federal crime (we don't care why or if it's wrong). Thing A' is a not a crime. You do thing A, a long time in the past. You get a couple strikes. Probably still get clearance. You demonstrate you don't understand difference between thing A and thing A' (even if moral equivalents) which implies you don't understand "RULES" or that you have independent thought (worse). No clearance for you.
  - Qwertystop 7y ago
    I'm not sure the "independent thought" bit is justified; if you can't distinguish between illegal and legal things, or can't manage to not do illegal things that are fairly easy not to do, it seems reasonable to question whether you can be trusted to keep (information requiring a clearance) secure.
freedomben 7y ago
Dude, if anything his newb-ness shows he really hasn't smoked before. Do you know how many people with a clearance have a history of smoking weed? (anecdatally, a lot) If we stipulate that weed smoking makes someone untrustworthy (something I vehemently disagree with) if anything then Elon demonstrated a higher worthiness than most people.
- fargle 7y ago
  OK, but your idea worthiness isn't what gets a clearance. It's "follow federal law" and "good judgement". Both of which, Elon, epic fail. Yes, a lot of people with clearances probably smoke. But they do it on the DL, not TV. Bad judgement #1. Break federal law, on purpose, to make some point #2. Dumb.

psds2 7y ago

And here's Jeff trying to save himself from going through the same thing.

mrunkel 7y ago
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Is Jeff a personal friend of yours?
- bicx 7y ago
  Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, and he also owns Blue Origin, another rocket company vying for government contracts.
  - kd3 7y ago
    Jeff who?

gok 7y ago

To be clear, the "Safety Review" was particularly about ensuring that both companies had a drug-free workplace. One company's CEO smoked weed on camera and the other's did not, so you can imagine why one might get a different level of examination.

mrunkel 7y ago
The idea that what a CEO does on his own time would somehow reflect on a drug-free workplace is pretty farfetched. Is the CEO of Boeing a teetotaler? If not, should we launch an investigation? There might very well be drinking in the workplace.
- Faark 7y ago
  You don't think the behavior of a CEO can reflect company values? And I'm not surprised they make less effort verifying that for a longtime aerospace contractor and instead focus on the rocket startup that had a bit of a PR mishap. Would have preferred this to not be an issue at all, but not sure this was an option after this kind of public event. Hope it doesn't unnecessarily push sending humans to the ISS further back.
  - spamizbad 7y ago
    Boomer norms aside, is smoking weed really that bad compared to say, a CEO who likes to drink socially? It's not like he was caught hotboxing in his model 3 before his workday started.
    - eloff 7y ago
      It's funny how alcohol is objectively the far more dangerous and destructive drug, yet weed gets treated more harshly. Disclaimer I drink but don't smoke, so if anything I'm biased against my point.
      - rtkwe 7y ago
        Alcohol had a very long history and entrenched industry behind it where (as far as I know) weed didn't have any thing of the sort. Old shitty things that people are used to often get overlooked and a big enough portion of the population were already drinkers so when there was a push to prohibit alcohol similar to weed there was a bigger push back.

ptah 7y ago

dinosaurs

markus_zhang 7y ago

For sure we have to take care of our own guys...

s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago

I love how this is picked up but the article a few days ago about Boeing Starliner seat prices being twice as much as Dragon didn't get any attention. https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/nasa-report-finds-boeing-seat-prices-are-60-higher-than-spacex/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/nasa-report-finds-bo...

fargle 7y ago

Here's the critical words: "Ultimately, NASA agreed to pay SpaceX $5 million for its review, and it proceeded. Boeing, however, said such a review would require an additional payment of about $25 million ... NASA balked at the cost and decided that a far more limited..." Company A: D- negotiation skills w/ NASA (failed) Company B: A+ negotiation skills w/ NASA (passed)