If you want your safety complaint to do any good, it needs to be specific and actionable. Something like "Power bus C has unexplained overvoltage events during startup" or "Welds on PN123 were not x-rayed correctly" or "These o-rings become too stiff and stop sealing below 45f"
A general complaint about working conditions may make you feel absolved when the rocket blows up, but it will not prevent the rocket from blowing up.
True, but coming from a harsh & strict NDA environment, it's not so easy to be that specific without revealing clues to your identity. And if you aren't prepared to go the full whistle-blower route, best avoided (or make the general assertion here & be specific in a private communication to the FAA, NASA, etc.) .
Somewhat meta: Every time I try to engage with news sites like this, I'm frustrated when links appear to be useful, but are just links to other articles. In this case, there's clearly a link for "open letter", which should lead to the contents of the open letter. That's what I actually want to read. I understand they do it to keep users on their site, loading ads, but damn if it's a horrible user experience.
(Other annoyances include the TITLE of the article being on the lower half of my screen because of the giant space used for a single ad, having to scroll 3 whole page lengths just to see the first words of the actual article, and "do you want to get notifications?" popups covering the content I was trying to read.)
Seeing how aggressively Blue Origin is ready to take legal action, it would be almost a miracle if the paper had more signatures. Sure, it might be fake, but I'd say that the odds of it being real are higher.
This is not a hack job or a garbage story. 17 engineers left BO this summer in the week after the BO flight, at the same time reports of internal dissension first started being reported openly.
And with respect to Abrams, "for cause" in hercase was...allegedly receiving export control violation warnings. In the context of her former job in employee communications, that would mean disclosing information in press releases that was subject to export controls. It's hard to imagine what sort of PR employee would have access to information subject to export controls at a civilian spaceflight company, since that information should have been sanitized before getting to the PR team. Either Blue Origin is confessing that multiple employees violated export controls or that they lack proper controls on such information (either way, placing their federal contracts at risk), or they're lying, so take what Blue Origin says here with a huge boulder of salt.
> But it is not an overstatement to say that all of the successes upon which the Option A procurement is built, all of this once-in-a-generation momentum, can easily be undone by one party—in this case, Blue Origin—who seeks to prioritize its own fortunes over that of NASA, the United States, and every person alive today who dreams to see humans exploring worlds beyond our own. Plainly stated, a protest sustain in the instant dispute runs the high risk of creating not just delays for the Artemis program, but that it will never actually achieve its goal of returning the United States to the Moon. What begins as a mere procurement delay all too easily turns into a lack of political support, a budget siphoned off for other efforts, and ultimately, a shelved mission. GAO should, of course, sustain one or more of Blue Origin’s grounds of protest if they find them to be availing. But NASA merely wishes to impress upon this office just how high the stakes are in the present dispute.
I was also troubled by this. In the CBS story, Ms. Abrams calls the other 20 people incredibly brave. Uh. No. If they were brave, they would quit and make their claims publicly.
They clearly want to keep cashing that paycheck while being involved in an organization that they find reprehensible.
So it's a good time to buy the stock? I'm not entirely joking. It's high risk but all that hatred may mean a discount and immediate gains once (if) the first commercial flight is a success...
Does anyone feel safe riding in rockets? They're inherently dangerous. Although from the tenor of the letter, it seems they're more worried about "unsafe environments" created by sexist comments than exploding rockets.
'It also said that in 2018, when someone new took over one particular team, the manager discovered that the team had documented "more than 1,000 problem reports" related to the company's rocket engines. None of those reports had been addressed, the letter said.'
Dangerosity isn't a boolean, there are many degrees to it.
And the article you are commenting on, makes it very clear that former and current employees of BO think that corners are being cut and safety is compromised by the lack of personel to achieve the over ambitious goals of the leadership.
If the engineer behind the rocket I am riding is a complete sexist asshole, but still the best person in the world at making rockets that carry people, I’m gonna give him a pass on his assholiness if I am sitting on top of it.
Let’s not forget the father of The US space program was a Nazi. An actual Nazi and not the generic 2021 definition. An
I've just finished the book Bad Blood about Theranos fall, and this strikes an eerie chord. Whistle-blowers armed with courage and nothing more due to aggressive legal intimidation. People and media, with the unsuspecting help of strong company PR counter-tactics, calls them disgruntled and points out the weaknesses in their legally constrained narrative.
Often, like in Theranos case, no one knows what goes on behind the curtain until it's too late.
On the plus side, I think this is an easy rebrand. Blue Origin: out of this world coffee. Charge $10 for Milky Way lattes at a flagship store on the Amazon Seattle campus and call it a day.
[+] [-] opwieurposiu|4 years ago|reply
A general complaint about working conditions may make you feel absolved when the rocket blows up, but it will not prevent the rocket from blowing up.
[+] [-] toss1|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Laremere|4 years ago|reply
(Other annoyances include the TITLE of the article being on the lower half of my screen because of the giant space used for a single ad, having to scroll 3 whole page lengths just to see the first words of the actual article, and "do you want to get notifications?" popups covering the content I was trying to read.)
[+] [-] ddevault|4 years ago|reply
https://www.lioness.co/post/bezos-wants-to-create-a-better-f...
[+] [-] JackFr|4 years ago|reply
> the manager discovered that the team had documented "more than 1,000 problem reports" related to the company's rocket engines.
Without context, that claim is completely meaningless with respect to the safety.
This is a hack job and a garbage story.
[+] [-] mach1ne|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gamblor956|4 years ago|reply
And with respect to Abrams, "for cause" in hercase was...allegedly receiving export control violation warnings. In the context of her former job in employee communications, that would mean disclosing information in press releases that was subject to export controls. It's hard to imagine what sort of PR employee would have access to information subject to export controls at a civilian spaceflight company, since that information should have been sanitized before getting to the PR team. Either Blue Origin is confessing that multiple employees violated export controls or that they lack proper controls on such information (either way, placing their federal contracts at risk), or they're lying, so take what Blue Origin says here with a huge boulder of salt.
Also, CBS News spoke with 5 of the other (anonymous) signatories. They wouldn't disclose their names for fear of getting sued. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/blue-origin-alexandra-abrams-sa...
[+] [-] ddevault|4 years ago|reply
> But it is not an overstatement to say that all of the successes upon which the Option A procurement is built, all of this once-in-a-generation momentum, can easily be undone by one party—in this case, Blue Origin—who seeks to prioritize its own fortunes over that of NASA, the United States, and every person alive today who dreams to see humans exploring worlds beyond our own. Plainly stated, a protest sustain in the instant dispute runs the high risk of creating not just delays for the Artemis program, but that it will never actually achieve its goal of returning the United States to the Moon. What begins as a mere procurement delay all too easily turns into a lack of political support, a budget siphoned off for other efforts, and ultimately, a shelved mission. GAO should, of course, sustain one or more of Blue Origin’s grounds of protest if they find them to be availing. But NASA merely wishes to impress upon this office just how high the stakes are in the present dispute.
Source: https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/29/22689729/blue-origin-moon...
[+] [-] varelse|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] xhkkffbf|4 years ago|reply
They clearly want to keep cashing that paycheck while being involved in an organization that they find reprehensible.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jakey_bakey|4 years ago|reply
"Let Jeff die"
Strengths - One less billionaire in the world
Weaknesses - Possibility of being fired
Opportunities - Dissolve blue origin
Threats - Possible legal action
[+] [-] anaganisk|4 years ago|reply
If you are someone who decides if a mission is a go no go you are mostly wanted to be hired by someone else.
Thats not an opportunity at all, you will probably be hated by many people who just lost their job.
About threats, well shit.
[+] [-] mach1ne|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barbazoo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] twofornone|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Veen|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kamranjon|4 years ago|reply
This is from the article you are responding to.
[+] [-] sailingparrot|4 years ago|reply
And the article you are commenting on, makes it very clear that former and current employees of BO think that corners are being cut and safety is compromised by the lack of personel to achieve the over ambitious goals of the leadership.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kcplate|4 years ago|reply
Let’s not forget the father of The US space program was a Nazi. An actual Nazi and not the generic 2021 definition. An
[+] [-] ojosilva|4 years ago|reply
Often, like in Theranos case, no one knows what goes on behind the curtain until it's too late.
[+] [-] someperson|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twobuy|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thrill|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway20875|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LurkingPenguin|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sparrish|4 years ago|reply
It's a rocket. It's dangerous and there are risks.
[+] [-] barbazoo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spoonjim|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]