
Boeing faced ‘limited’ safety review from NASA while SpaceX got full examination - dlgeek
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/11/18/boeing-faced-only-limited-safety-review-nasa-while-spacex-got-full-examination/
======
gok
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
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
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
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
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.

~~~
CharlesColeman
> It's funny how alcohol is objectively the far more dangerous and destructive
> drug, yet weed gets treated more harshly.

There's also the angle that weed is federally illegal, so smoking it
demonstrates an attitude that _compliance with rules_ is optional and subject
to personal judgement. Someone with that attitude is probably more likely to
choose to not comply with security procedures or secrecy commitments.

~~~
blamarvt
If a CEO posted a video on their way to work and breaking the speed limit
would it have the same effect?

~~~
fargle
It definitely would. It would display some kind of arrogance and rule-
flaunting. Not just regular-joe speeding. So yes, it would be viewed very
negatively by both clearance and wall-steet. It's just poor judgement.

To have a mistress is fine. To get caught in a public spectacle is bad
judgement.

------
psds2
And here's Jeff trying to save himself from going through the same thing.

~~~
mrunkel
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Is Jeff a personal friend
of yours?

~~~
bicx
Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, and he also owns Blue Origin, another
rocket company vying for government contracts.

------
s_y_n_t_a_x
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-
bo...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/nasa-report-finds-boeing-seat-
prices-are-60-higher-than-spacex/)

------
dlgeek
Mirror: [https://outline.com/wCEspK](https://outline.com/wCEspK)

------
fargle
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)

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

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

~~~
mrunkel
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
Yes, the violation of federal law general disqualifies you from holding a
security clearance.

~~~
londons_explore
Is weed against federal law?

~~~
leesalminen
Yes, yes it is.

~~~
londons_explore
How can something be against federal law yet still allowed in some states? I
thought federal law applied across the whole USA?

~~~
fargle
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?

