OIG Report on CRS-7 Failure

[Brovane]

Since the last topic on this got locked because of straying off topic I hope we can keep this one on topic and not stray into articles about the failure and stick to what was in the report. 

https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY16/IG-16-025.pdf

What I find interesting in reading the report was the comments on the SpaceX Procedures during manufacturing.

From what I understand the USAF spent a lot of time reviewing SpaceX's procedures for F9 production as part of the EELV certification process.  Which is supposed to be fairly rigorous.  Did the USAF decide that the type of procedures below are ok that NASA has called out as a issue?  I cannot imagine the EELV auditors not seeing SpaceX personnel standing on flight hardware during assembly. 

 LSP also highlighted improper material selection and such practices as individuals standing on flight hardware during the assembly process, as possible contributing factors.

SpaceX has taken action to correct the deficiencies that led to the failed strut assembly and to address
NASA’s concerns by conducting inspections, replacing suspect parts, and conducting additional testing.
The company also reviewed the certifications of all spaceflight hardware and altered its quality control
processes to better align with NASA technical standards. In order to track completion of its corrective
actions, SpaceX is updating its process for identifying and resolving work-related tasks, which allows for
improved auditing, prioritizing, and tracking of fracturable hardware.

To administer its updated quality control process, SpaceX has reorganized into three teams called
“Design Reliability,” “Build Reliability,” and “Flight Reliability.” Besides monitoring corrective actions
taken as a result of the SPX-7 failure, these teams are tracking the significant upgrades SpaceX has made
to the Falcon 9 launch system for future launches, including increased thrust capability with a new fuel
mixture and corrective actions on software implementation plans, which are both rated as low risks by
the ISS Program.   

[Jim]

  Which is supposed to be fairly rigorous.  Did the USAF decide that the type of procedures below are ok that NASA has called out as a issue?  I cannot imagine the EELV auditors not seeing SpaceX personnel standing on flight hardware during assembly. 
 

The USAF process was no more rigorous than NASA's.  They are not hovering over every worker.   Certification looks at processes and completed work.  Not the work as it being done.

And standing on flight hardware isn't a standard practice.  Especially, one that can seen anytime that one walks on to the production floor.  Likely it was observed as a matter of chance, both in the actual occasion of standing on flight hardware and the observer being in the right place at the right time.

[Brovane]

  Which is supposed to be fairly rigorous.  Did the USAF decide that the type of procedures below are ok that NASA has called out as a issue?  I cannot imagine the EELV auditors not seeing SpaceX personnel standing on flight hardware during assembly. 
 

The USAF process was no more rigorous than NASA's.  They are not hovering over every worker.   Certification looks at processes and completed work.  Not the work as it being done.

And standing on flight hardware isn't a standard practice.  Especially, one that can seen anytime that one walks on to the production floor.  Likely it was observed as a matter of chance, both in the actual occasion of standing on flight hardware and the observer being in the right place at the right time.

Though the CRS payloads are not officially classified to a payload risk, they are considered like class D payloads which allow the highest risk for LV's. 

The USAF considers NSS payloads as class A payloads (The USAF doesn't officially place a risk category on payloads) which means EELV certified launch vehicles would basically be the equivalent of category 3 LV's for a NASA from a certification process if we looked at launch risk. 

Considering the difference in risk category between EELV payloads and CRS payloads wouldn't that imply that the USAF would be more rigorous than the process NASA uses for reviewing CRS LV's?   

[cuddihy]

I look forward to the day when launch operations are so routine that standing on flight hardware is nothing out of the ordinary--as long as the part in question is fairly sturdy.

Throwing it into the summary seems like a cheap shot of questionable relevance to the actual QA practices SpaceX has, but in my experience it is exactly the kind of thing the IG always puts in its summary report to support their theory/ narrative for the casual / management / political leaders who only read the summary. It's an anecdote supporting a minor part of the story, nothing more.

Frankly, as IG reports go, this one is actually pretty benign. When the IG gets called in and invests government time and thoughtful people into doing an investigation, they will always find something suboptimal in their view...the thrust of this one is about as positive about NASA's management, and about SpaceX and Orbital's performance, as you can expect.

I'm impressed by NASA's agility and good contract management in this case that the IG reports on. Gives me a lot more confidence as a taxpayer in NASA as an effective organization.

[Jim]

Considering the difference in risk category between EELV payloads and CRS payloads wouldn't that imply that the USAF would be more rigorous than the process NASA uses for reviewing CRS LV's?   

Mixing apples and oranges.  USAF has yet to use an F9 and NASA had certified F9 for category 3 and flown one.

[su27k]

I look forward to the day when launch operations are so routine that standing on flight hardware is nothing out of the ordinary--as long as the part in question is fairly sturdy.

Or having the whole manufacturing process instrumented to the point where such out of specs practice would raise alarm instantly. I mean everyone is already doing close out photos, seems to me video everything and analyze it would be the logical next step.

[meberbs]

Considering the difference in risk category between EELV payloads and CRS payloads wouldn't that imply that the USAF would be more rigorous than the process NASA uses for reviewing CRS LV's?

Considering that NASA will also using the Falcon 9 for crew, I don't think this is valid. I don't see anything in the remaining milestones to approve Falcon 9 for crew, so this likely has already happened, though it may be still left as part of one of the final approval milestones.

...
Frankly, as IG reports go, this one is actually pretty benign. When the IG gets called in and invests government time and thoughtful people into doing an investigation, they will always find something suboptimal in their view...the thrust of this one is about as positive about NASA's management, and about SpaceX and Orbital's performance, as you can expect.

I'm impressed by NASA's agility and good contract management in this case that the IG reports on. Gives me a lot more confidence as a taxpayer in NASA as an effective organization.

I still have to finish reading the report, but I agree with this. Something went wrong, so any reasonable investigation should have suggestions for improvement on both the NASA and SpaceX ends. This report does not seem excessively critical, and doesn't seem to suggest that the entire contracting arrangement was inappropriate or anything like that.

[Brovane]

Considering the difference in risk category between EELV payloads and CRS payloads wouldn't that imply that the USAF would be more rigorous than the process NASA uses for reviewing CRS LV's?   

Mixing apples and oranges.  USAF has yet to use an F9 and NASA had certified F9 for category 3 and flown one.

Which Class-A NASA payload has already flown on the F9? 

I was also not aware that NASA had certified F9 as a category 3 LV.  The last mention I can find is for category 2 certification.  When did NASA certify the F9 as category 3 LV? 

[abaddon]

Which Class-A NASA payload has already flown on the F9? 

I was also not aware that NASA had certified F9 as a category 3 LV.  The last mention I can find is for category 2 certification.  When did NASA certify the F9 as category 3 LV?

NASA LSP contracted the Jason-3 launch with SpaceX.  It was a Category 2 required payload, not 3.  I couldn't find a reference to the class but my recollection was it was B or C.  NASA LSP has also contracted the TESS launch with SpaceX; that is a Category 2 required payload, Class C.

I don't believe NASA has announced certification of the Falcon 9 as available for a payload requiring Category 3 certification, or available for Class A payloads.

[abaddon]

As an aside, in reading this report, it seems NASA got a much better deal from SpaceX than OrbitalATK, both overall for CRS1 and also in concessions following the respective LOVs from each organization.  That certainly seems to be the determination of the OIG.  It is perhaps unfair to come to that conclusion, but it seems to be clear from the information in the report.  Is there anything I'm missing here?

[abaddon]

Mixing apples and oranges.  USAF has yet to use an F9 and NASA had certified F9 for category 3 and flown one.

Technically, the USAF purchased the DSCOVR launch for NASA/NOAA, but it was under the OSP-3 program, which allows for higher-risk vehicles.  As noted above, NASA has yet to certify Falcon 9 for payloads requiring Category 3 classification; or if they have, I have apparently missed it.

[LouScheffer]

My confidence (perhaps misplaced) is higher for a fix being the right one, if the rocket has significant commercial business (as SpaceX does, but Orbital does not).  I think this helps since then there are two more groups asking hard questions about the problem and the fix - the customers and the insurers.   Furthermore I suspect commercial contracts are less forgiving in case of launch mishap (If I remember right, Orbital got most of the payment from NASA even when their launch failed.  I assume this applies to all vendors.)

Also, the report makes a big deal about potential conflict of interest.  I don't see this - it seems to me that everyone's interests are the same.  It does the company no good to claim it's not their fault if their rocket fails again.  To me, a bigger worry with the company leading the investigation is technical blind spots.   Sometimes if you know how something should work, you see that rather than how it might fail.  Surely there must be at least some history on this - when review boards have failed (identified the wrong root cause), why did they make this mistake?  Has lack of independence ever been responsible for this?

[baldusi]

Closest I can think of is the Taurus fairing failures. First one got it wrong, the second kind of too, but they kept investigating something like three years and finally identified the problem.
It was a secondary effect on a batch of aluminum stock used to machine the frangible joints. These metallurgy problems changes the was the fracture propagated, and thus never fully separated.
It was, apparently, a new mode of failure in the metallurgy that they didn't controlled for because they didn't understood how it contributed to fracture propagation.

[catdlr]

NASA negotiates cheaper mission prices after last year's SpaceX failure

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nasa-spacex-report-20160630-snap-story.html

NASA negotiated discounted mission prices with SpaceX after one of the Hawthorne company’s rockets broke apart last June while laden with supplies for the International Space Station, according to a report by the space agency’s office of inspector general.

[Robotbeat]

NASA negotiates cheaper mission prices after last year's SpaceX failure

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nasa-spacex-report-20160630-snap-story.html

NASA negotiated discounted mission prices with SpaceX after one of the Hawthorne company’s rockets broke apart last June while laden with supplies for the International Space Station, according to a report by the space agency’s office of inspector general.

This is a good thing, IMO.

It keeps NASA happy using SpaceX (which is good for SpaceX), it gives the US citizen a better deal, and it provides SpaceX incentive to think long and hard about how to improve reliability (not that they really needed any extra motivation).

[LouScheffer]

Also, the report makes a big deal about potential conflict of interest.  I don't see this - it seems to me that everyone's interests are the same.  It does the company no good to claim it's not their fault if their rocket fails again.  To me, a bigger worry with the company leading the investigation is technical blind spots.   Sometimes if you know how something should work, you see that rather than how it might fail.  Surely there must be at least some history on this - when review boards have failed (identified the wrong root cause), why did they make this mistake?  Has lack of independence ever been responsible for this?

Here's an interesting article about why AC-70 failure board failed.  The author (a government employee) implies that private industry simply does not have the competence in this area:

However, the AC-70 failure was different in a very basic but non-obvious way. The failure investigation was conducted by a private firm, GD, rather than led by the government. This was a first, and it produced another first, a failed investigation.  [...]  Not surprisingly, the government was somewhat more involved in the AC-71 investigation.

However, in the comments to the article, another person who was there blamed the failure on the lead investigator being wedded to a particular hypothesis. 

Both of these seem like reasonable worries - any given company does not do a lot of accident investigation, and being you need an objective view of all possible causes of the failure.   But neither of these seems like a conflict of interest.

[Jim]

Here's an interesting article about why AC-70 failure board failed.  The author (a government employee) implies that private industry simply does not have the competence in this area:

However, the AC-70 failure was different in a very basic but non-obvious way. The failure investigation was conducted by a private firm, GD, rather than led by the government. This was a first, and it produced another first, a failed investigation.  [...]  Not surprisingly, the government was somewhat more involved in the AC-71 investigation.

That was maybe true in the 90's but not now. Industry is competent enough to do accident investigations itself.

[Coastal Ron]

I look forward to the day when launch operations are so routine that standing on flight hardware is nothing out of the ordinary--as long as the part in question is fairly sturdy.

Or having the whole manufacturing process instrumented to the point where such out of specs practice would raise alarm instantly. I mean everyone is already doing close out photos, seems to me video everything and analyze it would be the logical next step.

HD video can't show the strengths or weaknesses within a component (such as an under-strength strut), or the incorrect software in a electronic module.

And in general, you can't inspect quality in.

Now that SpaceX is recovering some of their 1st stages they will be able to have more validation of their processes and procedures.  Having better feedback loops is what will probably be their biggest path to higher quality.

[Comga]

Here's an interesting article about why AC-70 failure board failed.  The author (a government employee) implies that private industry simply does not have the competence in this area:

However, the AC-70 failure was different in a very basic but non-obvious way. The failure investigation was conducted by a private firm, GD, rather than led by the government. This was a first, and it produced another first, a failed investigation.  [...]  Not surprisingly, the government was somewhat more involved in the AC-71 investigation.

That was maybe true in the 90's but not now. Industry is competent enough to do accident investigations itself.

And it's not like "government" accident investigation boards are infallible.  Just attended a lecture on the incident where water leaking into ISS astronaut Luca Parmitano's spacesuit during a spacewalk nearly drowned him.  Despite being the highest criticality, the previous anomaly investigation got it totally wrong.  (They thought it was the water bottle leaking, when it was actually from the life support system.)

All accident investigations deal with limited information and limited resources.  More time can always be spent, and will be seen as necessary in hindsight whenever a wrong conclusion is later proven.  Conversely, no review board will ever say that an investigation team spent too much time or effort.

[LouScheffer]

I look forward to the day when launch operations are so routine that standing on flight hardware is nothing out of the ordinary--as long as the part in question is fairly sturdy.

Or do it like airplanes.  You can step on certain parts, like the wings, provided you avoid the "no step" area.  And there must be some explicit analysis to show it *is* safe to step on the allowed areas.

It sometime surprising where stepping is allowed.  Here are folks standing on the mirror of an optical telescope, and cleaning it with a mop.

[Comga]

I look forward to the day when launch operations are so routine that standing on flight hardware is nothing out of the ordinary--as long as the part in question is fairly sturdy.

Or do it like airplanes.  You can step on certain parts, like the wings, provided you avoid the "no step" area.  And there must be some explicit analysis to show it *is* safe to step on the allowed areas.

It sometime surprising where stepping is allowed.  Here are folks standing on the mirror of an optical telescope, and cleaning it with a mop.

That's not a mirror.  It's a mirror blank, which is unpolished.  That surface will be ground away before optical polishing.
Point being: You can always stand on some predecessor of flight hardware, although it could be the billets out of which the sheet metal is formed.  At some point you can't.
We  have seen photos of workers inside Falcon 9 elements, and can't believe that's the issue.
I really wonder what specific flight hardware workers were observed standing on.

[LouScheffer]

It sometime surprising where stepping is allowed.  Here are folks standing on the mirror of an optical telescope, and cleaning it with a mop.

That's not a mirror.  It's a mirror blank, which is unpolished.  That surface will be ground away before optical polishing.

No, you can stand on a telescope mirror after final polishing.  Here are folks standing on the polished mirror of the Hale 5 meter telescope, cleaning it with sponges.

I even think there are cases of people standing on polished and *coated* mirrors.  If I recall correctly, it was after some lunatic attacked the mirror with a gun.  The bullet put a few cm chip in the mirror, which mostly causes problems by dispersing light from the unintended edges.  So a worker went out on the mirror and painted the pit black.  It was used the next night.

[Jim]

We  have seen photos of workers inside Falcon 9 elements, and can't believe that's the issue.
I really wonder what specific flight hardware workers were observed standing on.

helium tanks?

[llanitedave]

It sometime surprising where stepping is allowed.  Here are folks standing on the mirror of an optical telescope, and cleaning it with a mop.

That's not a mirror.  It's a mirror blank, which is unpolished.  That surface will be ground away before optical polishing.

No, you can stand on a telescope mirror after final polishing.  Here are folks standing on the polished mirror of the Hale 5 meter telescope, cleaning it with sponges.

I even think there are cases of people standing on polished and *coated* mirrors.  If I recall correctly, it was after some lunatic attacked the mirror with a gun.  The bullet put a few cm chip in the mirror, which mostly causes problems by dispersing light from the unintended edges.  So a worker went out on the mirror and painted the pit black.  It was used the next night.

Note the difference in footwear between the moppers on the mirror blank and the worker on the Hale mirror.  A lot more care is used in the latter.

The "lunatic with a gun" incident involved McDonald Observatory's 107 inch reflector, not the Hale.

Still, I don't think any of this is relevant to rocket flight hardware.  Some parts can take the load, some can't, and one would hope that those who work there know the difference.

[Comga]

We  have seen photos of workers inside Falcon 9 elements, and can't believe that's the issue.
I really wonder what specific flight hardware workers were observed standing on.

helium tanks?

From almost anyone else a half sentence question like that would be dismissable.
From you, it hints the specific action was observed by you or someone with whom you have spoken.
You usually say what you can, however succinctly, but can you say more?

[Mader Levap]

helium tanks?

From almost anyone else a half sentence question like that would be dismissable.
From you, it hints the specific action was observed by you or someone with whom you have spoken.
You usually say what you can, however succinctly, but can you say more?

It may be joke. Jim rarely jokes, but his jokes are very dry.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

The main CRS-7 threads were locked long ago, so I’ll post this update here:

NASA Will Not Release Public Report on SpaceX Falcon 9 Dragon Failure
 July 18, 2017  Doug Messier

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/07/18/nasa-release-report-spacex-falcon9-dragon-failure/

[Dante80]

I really do not understand why NASA would not release a report on this. Especially when in the past they specifically said they would.

The only thing I can think of is that SpaceX is pressuring them not to.

Which sucks. Especially since there is a lot of public monies involved in this.

[woods170]

I really do not understand why NASA would not release a report on this. Especially when in the past they specifically said they would.

The only thing I can think of is that SpaceX is pressuring them not to.

Which sucks. Especially since there is a lot of public monies involved in this.

No. Has nothing to do with pressure but everything with the "release of proprietary information"-clause in the CRS contracts, as well as NASA having no obligation whatsoever to release any mishap report with regards to CRS.

Under CRS NASA does not own the rockets, nor the spacecraft. NASA buys a service from a commercial company and the flights are licensed by FAA, not NASA. If anyone is obliged to release a public report on the mishap than it is FAA, not NASA. But FAA is not going to do that, given that it is FAA that allowed both CRS contractors (SpaceX and Orbital) to investigate themselves when their respective launch mishaps took place.

Aditionally: the link in FutureSpaceTourist's post goes to parabolicarc. Doug, the guy running that site, was banned from NSF permanently for "having an agenda" with regards to SpaceX. This latest hit-piece is another fine example.

Finally: the fact that NASA is paying billions of US dollars for cargo resupply services is no justification for expecting NASA to publish a public report. There are no stipulations or clauses in the CRS contracts that would give NASA "the right" to do so.

[AnalogMan]

This is the relevant clause from the CRS contract (my bolding):

5.2. Mishap Investigation and Corrective Action for Mishaps Occurring Post Launch and Prior to Integrated Operations.

a) An initial investigation by the Contractor is required for all mishaps which have been reported to NASA. NASA reserves discretionary authority to investigate mishaps which involve NASA personnel or resources regardless of location. The Contractor has the discretion to perform any collateral investigations. However, investigations implemented by NASA will take priority with regard to access to evidence, data, and witnesses. The proceedings of NASA investigations will remain confidential. The Contractor will have an opportunity to comment on the investigation report in accordance with NASA protocols.

[Star One]

I suspect someone from the media will launch a FOIA.

[woods170]

I suspect someone from the media will launch a FOIA.

Which will be denied given certain CRS contract stipulations as well as the presence of proprietary information in the mishap report.

[Rebel44]

I suspect someone from the media will launch a FOIA.

Which will be denied given certain CRS contract stipulations as well as the presence of proprietary information in the mishap report.

They might be able to get a heavily redacted version

[Dante80]

I really do not understand why NASA would not release a report on this. Especially when in the past they specifically said they would.

The only thing I can think of is that SpaceX is pressuring them not to.

Which sucks. Especially since there is a lot of public monies involved in this.

No. Has nothing to do with pressure but everything with the "release of proprietary information"-clause in the CRS contracts, as well as NASA having no obligation whatsoever to release any mishap report with regards to CRS.

NASA has no obligation but they did state they would publish a(n obviously redacted) summary from the investigation. What happened to change that? ESPECIALLY if we take into account what SpaceX has published about the mishap..and what OIG later talked about the root cause and other things.

I know who Doug Messier is. I am talking about the facts here.

[woods170]

I really do not understand why NASA would not release a report on this. Especially when in the past they specifically said they would.

The only thing I can think of is that SpaceX is pressuring them not to.

Which sucks. Especially since there is a lot of public monies involved in this.

No. Has nothing to do with pressure but everything with the "release of proprietary information"-clause in the CRS contracts, as well as NASA having no obligation whatsoever to release any mishap report with regards to CRS.

NASA has no obligation but they did state they would publish a(n obviously redacted) summary from the investigation. What happened to change that? ESPECIALLY if we take into account what SpaceX has published about the mishap..and what OIG later talked about the root cause and other things.

I know who Doug Messier is. I am talking about the facts here.

See reply 29 of this thread.

[Galactic Penguin SST]

Well, here's someone else's opinion on this: http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/editorial/opinion-inconsistency-nasa-treats-private-partners/

[Coastal Ron]

Well, here's someone else's opinion on this: http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/editorial/opinion-inconsistency-nasa-treats-private-partners/

Ah yes, Jason Rhian. I haven't followed his articles for the past few years, but he didn't used to be a SpaceX fan.

Jason makes many points, and references quite a few external sources (including Russia's RT), but one of the key points he missed was that in the case of the Orb-3 accident, where NASA did release a report, NASA paid $5M for the repair of the launch facility, whereas with CRS-7 there was no launch pad damage since the failure occurred mid-flight.

Jason does also try to argue that NASA should have released a report because the Falcon 9 is intended to eventually carry humans, and that any accident is then a cause of concern for that goal, but apparently he's unaware that the version of Falcon 9 that will carry humans (i.e. Block 5) is not the same version that was launching CRS-7 (Block v1.1).

Jason does reference probably the most transparent reason for why there is no public report:

"Despite these findings, NASA’s assertions that it is not required to produce a report on the accident is 100 percent accurate."

Because it's not required to issue one.

So to summarize, if a transportation contractor loses NASA cargo while in transit, NASA is not required to issue a report. But if a transportation contractor loses NASA cargo, AND causes damage that NASA has to pay for, then NASA has to issue a report.

That's what appears to be the situation...

[pb2000]

The Falcon 9 is on the bleeding edge of American rocket know how, so between ITAR and proprietary information, it would probably be pretty difficult to issue any sort of proper public report.

[Star One]

Well, here's someone else's opinion on this: http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/editorial/opinion-inconsistency-nasa-treats-private-partners/

Ah yes, Jason Rhian. I haven't followed his articles for the past few years, but he didn't used to be a SpaceX fan.

Jason makes many points, and references quite a few external sources (including Russia's RT), but one of the key points he missed was that in the case of the Orb-3 accident, where NASA did release a report, NASA paid $5M for the repair of the launch facility, whereas with CRS-7 there was no launch pad damage since the failure occurred mid-flight.

Jason does also try to argue that NASA should have released a report because the Falcon 9 is intended to eventually carry humans, and that any accident is then a cause of concern for that goal, but apparently he's unaware that the version of Falcon 9 that will carry humans (i.e. Block 5) is not the same version that was launching CRS-7 (Block v1.1).

Jason does reference probably the most transparent reason for why there is no public report:

"Despite these findings, NASA’s assertions that it is not required to produce a report on the accident is 100 percent accurate."

Because it's not required to issue one.

So to summarize, if a transportation contractor loses NASA cargo while in transit, NASA is not required to issue a report. But if a transportation contractor loses NASA cargo, AND causes damage that NASA has to pay for, then NASA has to issue a report.

That's what appears to be the situation...

Some might argue just because it's a different version to the one that will carry humans that this isn't sufficient reason alone to duck releasing any kind of report.

[JamesH65]

Well, here's someone else's opinion on this: http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/editorial/opinion-inconsistency-nasa-treats-private-partners/

Ah yes, Jason Rhian. I haven't followed his articles for the past few years, but he didn't used to be a SpaceX fan.

Jason makes many points, and references quite a few external sources (including Russia's RT), but one of the key points he missed was that in the case of the Orb-3 accident, where NASA did release a report, NASA paid $5M for the repair of the launch facility, whereas with CRS-7 there was no launch pad damage since the failure occurred mid-flight.

Jason does also try to argue that NASA should have released a report because the Falcon 9 is intended to eventually carry humans, and that any accident is then a cause of concern for that goal, but apparently he's unaware that the version of Falcon 9 that will carry humans (i.e. Block 5) is not the same version that was launching CRS-7 (Block v1.1).

Jason does reference probably the most transparent reason for why there is no public report:

"Despite these findings, NASA’s assertions that it is not required to produce a report on the accident is 100 percent accurate."

Because it's not required to issue one.

So to summarize, if a transportation contractor loses NASA cargo while in transit, NASA is not required to issue a report. But if a transportation contractor loses NASA cargo, AND causes damage that NASA has to pay for, then NASA has to issue a report.

That's what appears to be the situation...

Some might argue just because it's a different version to the one that will carry humans that this isn't sufficient reason alone to duck releasing any kind of report.

But what difference does releasing the report make. None. All the issues highlighted in the report will have been fixed.  So it's content is publicly irrelevant.

[Coastal Ron]

But what difference does releasing the report make. None. All the issues highlighted in the report will have been fixed.  So it's content is publicly irrelevant.

The report for the Orb-3 accident would have obviously had lots of launch site related information since that is what the NASA money was going to be spent on - rebuilding the launch site.

However for the CRS-7 accident that would have focused on the design of the SpaceX proprietary rocket design, and NASA does not have the legal ability to release SpaceX confidential information. Remember NASA did not pay for development of the Falcon 9, only development of the Dragon spacecraft.

[woods170]

But what difference does releasing the report make. None. All the issues highlighted in the report will have been fixed.  So it's content is publicly irrelevant.

The report for the Orb-3 accident would have obviously had lots of launch site related information since that is what the NASA money was going to be spent on - rebuilding the launch site.

However for the CRS-7 accident that would have focused on the design of the SpaceX proprietary rocket design, and NASA does not have the legal ability to release SpaceX confidential information. Remember NASA did not pay for development of the Falcon 9, only development of the Dragon spacecraft.

Indeed. People seem to think that when NASA flies some payload it must have happened on a NASA rocket and therefor the public has a right to know. How wrong those folks are. ..

[Jim]

But what difference does releasing the report make. None. All the issues highlighted in the report will have been fixed.  So it's content is publicly irrelevant.

The report for the Orb-3 accident would have obviously had lots of launch site related information since that is what the NASA money was going to be spent on - rebuilding the launch site.

However for the CRS-7 accident that would have focused on the design of the SpaceX proprietary rocket design, and NASA does not have the legal ability to release SpaceX confidential information. Remember NASA did not pay for development of the Falcon 9, only development of the Dragon spacecraft.

Wrong, NASA money went to Falcon 9 development.  See the COTS progress payments.

[Star One]

But what difference does releasing the report make. None. All the issues highlighted in the report will have been fixed.  So it's content is publicly irrelevant.

The report for the Orb-3 accident would have obviously had lots of launch site related information since that is what the NASA money was going to be spent on - rebuilding the launch site.

However for the CRS-7 accident that would have focused on the design of the SpaceX proprietary rocket design, and NASA does not have the legal ability to release SpaceX confidential information. Remember NASA did not pay for development of the Falcon 9, only development of the Dragon spacecraft.

Wrong, NASA money went to Falcon 9 development.  See the COTS progress payments.

Precisely. Seems some on here are suffering from what might be deemed a convenient memory loss on the issue.

[Coastal Ron]

However for the CRS-7 accident that would have focused on the design of the SpaceX proprietary rocket design, and NASA does not have the legal ability to release SpaceX confidential information. Remember NASA did not pay for development of the Falcon 9, only development of the Dragon spacecraft.

Wrong, NASA money went to Falcon 9 development.  See the COTS progress payments.

Jim, if you believe Falcon 9 was part of COTS, then provide the milestone number. I've reviewed the 2011 GAO report about COTS many times, and there are no Falcon 9 specific milestones.

You've mentioned a "multi-engine test" in the past, and there is Milestone #12 for "Multi-engine Test" scheduled for September 2008, but that is likely for Dragon Draco multi-engine test. Why? Because Milestone #9 was for "Draco Initial Hot-Fire", so it makes sense that they would go from initial hot-fire to a multi-engine test.

Why isn't COTS Milestone #12 for "Multi-engine Test" scheduled for September 2008 really for Falcon 9? Because SpaceX did a Falcon 9 multi-engine test in the 1st quarter of 2007. So why would NASA pay for something to be done in 2008 that was already done in 2007? They wouldn't, because they weren't paying SpaceX for Falcon 9 development, only for Dragon-related development.

If you disagree please provide documentation to back up your assertions like I have.

[savuporo]

Uh. Of course F9 was funded by COTS, as the SpaceX COTS proposal was for integrated spacecraft and launch vehicle system, not just for Dragon.

NASA paid $22M for that multi engine test, just as it paid for most other milestones, such as securing financing rounds and design reviews cover both the launcher and the spacecraft.  Musk and Shotwell weren't running around seeking funding for Dragon

You can read the original SAA here https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/189228main_setc_nnj06ta26a.pdf

And here is some actual history:

Horkachuck: We had to jump from the Falcon 5 [five Merlin engines] to the Falcon 9 [nine Merlin engines], because we had no use for a Falcon 5.

Buzza: Yes, right. If you look back in history, the first larger rocket was a Falcon 5, and then that soon became the Falcon 9. I would suspect Mike’s correct, that when we started talking about what the capabilities needed to be of that rocket heading into the COTS—when we were doing the contract proposal, that’s when it switched to a 9 in order to get the mass of what was then developing, which was the Dragon capsule.

I would say that some of the initial fundamentals were probably driven to make sure we could meet the intent of the contract. This contract was what was going to help us develop the Falcon 9, so it had to do the COTS missions. That certainly had a big role in how the vehicle design ended up. I think you can then look deeper down into all the small stuff, and I’m going to have a hard time identifying them all.

But there’s no doubt that through years of working together, fingerprints of meetings and discussions with NASA have ended up on the rocket. Like where there was a selection of a particular type of material on Dragon, due to certain regulations on outgassing. I don’t have a list in front of me that says where I think NASA had a fingerprint on the design of the rocket. We worked together for so many years, it’s all over it.

https://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/C3PO/BuzzaT/BuzzaT_1-15-13.htm

[Jim]

.

You've mentioned a "multi-engine test" in the past, and there is Milestone #12 for "Multi-engine Test" scheduled for September 2008, but that is likely for Dragon Draco multi-engine test.

No, because there is no need for such a test for Dracos.

and what  savuporo said.  NASA paid for an integrated spacecraft and launch vehicle system.  NASA got to review designs for both vehicles.

[Lars-J]

Right. But that still doesn't matter for the main discussion in this thread... NASA paying directly or indirectly for a launch vehicle development through service contract with a private entity still does not mean that the public has the right to all information.

NASA (the relevant parts) has full access to the report. SpaceX obviously does as well. The rest of us are simply going to have to be happy to see what we see.

[Coastal Ron]

No, because there is no need for such a test for Dracos.

Multiple Draco engines are required to fire during a mission, so it would not be odd to test for that. Still, a "test" is not evidence of "development".

and what  savuporo said.

Maybe you missed the text that savuporo was nice enough to uncover, but the term "fingerprints" does not equate to "NASA paid for the development". The U.S. Government does not pay for things that are not explicitly called out for in a properly executed contract, and the COTS contract was very specific about what it paid for.

NASA paid for an integrated spacecraft and launch vehicle system.  NASA got to review designs for both vehicles.

Sure, integrating the Dragon to the Falcon 9, and reviewing relevant documents to have a level of confidence in the launch vehicle. But you specifically said:

"NASA money went to Falcon 9 development.  See the COTS progress payments."

There are no specific and unambiguous "Falcon 9 Development" milestones on the COTS contract, only the ambiguous milestone #12 for a "Multi-Engine Test", which I think is for Draco testing and you disagree, but even if that was Falcon 9 it was only a Dragon-related Falcon 9 test, and not related to development of the Falcon 9.

It's clear by looking at the COTS milestone list that NASA was paying specifically for Dragon related work.

Also, if SpaceX used profit from the COTS contract to develop the Falcon 9, that is NOT NASA paying directly for Falcon 9 development. And NASA providing help is not an indication that NASA was paying directly for development of the Falcon 9, since it is in NASA charter to provide assistance to American companies.

One would think that if the U.S. Taxpayer was paying for development of Falcon 9, that it would be a lot easier to find the evidence of that...

[Coastal Ron]

Right. But that still doesn't matter for the main discussion in this thread... NASA paying directly or indirectly for a launch vehicle development through service contract with a private entity still does not mean that the public has the right to all information.

Certainly the Atlas V and Delta IV were partially government funded, and ULA keeps their information confidential.

NASA (the relevant parts) has full access to the report. SpaceX obviously does as well. The rest of us are simply going to have to be happy to see what we see.

Well said.

[Andy Bandy]

The story clearly says NASA said for months it would release a public summary. If it couldn't because of confidentiality NASA should have said so last September. It's hard to understand why NASA got that wrong for months.

You guys have all missed the really important part of the story. SpaceX had problems with helium leaks in 2014 then an inflight explosion involving a helium tank in 2015 and then a helium tank breach in 2016. For the CRS-7 flight SpaceX's investigation had 11 company employees and 1 FAA rep (who didn't sign final report) who concluded that an outside vendor was to blame.  The conclusions of NASA's investigation was different. Therein lies the value of NASA releasing a summary.

[savuporo]

The U.S. Government does not pay for things that are not explicitly called out for in a properly executed contract, and the COTS contract was very specific about what it paid for.

The SAA explicitly called out integrated F9/Dragon system. You are doing a lot of mental gymnastics here.

https://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/home/spacex_9enginefire.html

SpaceX Conducts First Nine Engine Firing of Falcon 9 Rocket
08.01.08
McGregor TX – August 1, 2008 - Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX ) conducted the first nine engine firing of its Falcon 9 launch vehicle at its Texas Test Facility outside McGregor on July 31st. A second firing on August 1st completed a major NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) milestone almost two months early.

At full power, the nine engines consumed 3,200 lbs of fuel and liquid oxygen per second, and generated almost 850,000 pounds of force - four times the maximum thrust of a 747 aircraft. This marks the first firing of a Falcon 9 first stage with its full complement of nine Merlin 1C engines . Once a near term Merlin 1C fuel pump upgrade is complete, the sea level thrust will increase to 950,000 lbf, making Falcon 9 the most powerful single core vehicle in the United States.

“This was the most difficult milestone in development of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle and it also constitutes a significant achievement in US space vehicle development. Not since the final flight of the Saturn 1B rocket in 1975, has a rocket had the ability to lose any engine or motor and still successfully complete its mission,” said Elon Musk, CEO and CTO of SpaceX. “Much like a commercial airliner, our multi-engine design has the potential to provide significantly higher reliability than single engine competitors.”

“We made a major advancement from the previous five engine test by adding four new Merlin engines at once,” said Tom Mueller, Vice President of Propulsion for SpaceX. “All phases of integration went smoothly and we were elated to see all nine engines working perfectly in concert.”

Also, have you forgotten about the $100 M IDIQ contract awarded to SpaceX by USG that covered both F1 and F9 ?

[Andy Bandy]

http://parabolicarc.com/2017/07/24/nasa-promised-public-report-crs7-multiple-times/

Article shows NASA's responses to Parabolic Arc last fall in which the agency repeatedly promised a public summary of CRS-7 accident would be released. No mention of complete prohibition on release on public summary due to confidentiality requirements. NASA's story didn't change until this July. 

[whitelancer64]

The story clearly says NASA said for months it would release a public summary. If it couldn't because of confidentiality NASA should have said so last September. It's hard to understand why NASA got that wrong for months.

You guys have all missed the really important part of the story. SpaceX had problems with helium leaks in 2014 then an inflight explosion involving a helium tank in 2015 and then a helium tank breach in 2016. For the CRS-7 flight SpaceX's investigation had 11 company employees and 1 FAA rep (who didn't sign final report) who concluded that an outside vendor was to blame.  The conclusions of NASA's investigation was different. Therein lies the value of NASA releasing a summary.

NASA's conclusion was not substantially different. The OIG report said NASA also included some other possible causes, and noted that SpaceX took actions on those other possible causes, as well.

[Jim]

There are no specific and unambiguous "Falcon 9 Development" milestones on the COTS contract, only the ambiguous milestone #12 for a "Multi-Engine Test", which I think is for Draco testing and you disagree, but even if that was Falcon 9 it was only a Dragon-related Falcon 9 test, and not related to development of the Falcon 9.

Wrong.  It is completely unambiguous.  Multi-Engine Test is for the Falcon 9. 
And it is idiotic to claim that it is a " Dragon-related Falcon 9 test" because the Falcon 9 engines apply to all payloads and not just Dragon. 

Read all the documentation.  COTS was for ISS cargo delivery system which included rocket and spacecraft. 

Notice that all COTS finalists were using new launch vehicles?  That is because it was part of the intent of COTS program. 

Every progress payment that was for a System Requirements Review, Preliminary Design Review, Critical Design Review, Readiness Review was for both Dragon and Falcon 9.  The reviews went into both launch vehicle and spacecraft equally.  There was no emphasis of one over the other.

[Andy Bandy]

The story clearly says NASA said for months it would release a public summary. If it couldn't because of confidentiality NASA should have said so last September. It's hard to understand why NASA got that wrong for months.

You guys have all missed the really important part of the story. SpaceX had problems with helium leaks in 2014 then an inflight explosion involving a helium tank in 2015 and then a helium tank breach in 2016. For the CRS-7 flight SpaceX's investigation had 11 company employees and 1 FAA rep (who didn't sign final report) who concluded that an outside vendor was to blame.  The conclusions of NASA's investigation was different. Therein lies the value of NASA releasing a summary.

NASA's conclusion was not substantially different. The OIG report said NASA also included some other possible causes, and noted that SpaceX took actions on those other possible causes, as well.

The IG report is a bit vague on that.

"In addition to the material defects in the strut assembly SpaceX found during its testing, LSP pointed to manufacturing damage or improper installation of the assembly into the rocket as possible initiators of the failure. LSP also highlighted improper material selection and such practices as individuals standing on flight hardware during the assembly process, as possible contributing factors."

Does the first part of that sentence say there were material defects in the strut assembly that failed. Or merely acknowledge that SpaceX found material defects in some of the other struts that it tested after the accident. Could improper installation of the assembly have damaged the helium tank in some way? And what does improper material selection mean? What material? 

It's not a small matter. The official SpaceX story is the strut was defective, it broken in flight, and the supplier is to blame. The only blame SpaceX took was not testing the strut for strength prior to the flight. This and the letter that Bolden and Gerst wrote later on suggest much deeper problems.

A more detailed report might answer some of the questions and potentially rule out any connection to the launch pad explosion that occurred in 2016.

[whitelancer64]

The story clearly says NASA said for months it would release a public summary. If it couldn't because of confidentiality NASA should have said so last September. It's hard to understand why NASA got that wrong for months.

You guys have all missed the really important part of the story. SpaceX had problems with helium leaks in 2014 then an inflight explosion involving a helium tank in 2015 and then a helium tank breach in 2016. For the CRS-7 flight SpaceX's investigation had 11 company employees and 1 FAA rep (who didn't sign final report) who concluded that an outside vendor was to blame.  The conclusions of NASA's investigation was different. Therein lies the value of NASA releasing a summary.

NASA's conclusion was not substantially different. The OIG report said NASA also included some other possible causes, and noted that SpaceX took actions on those other possible causes, as well.

The IG report is a bit vague on that.

"In addition to the material defects in the strut assembly SpaceX found during its testing, LSP pointed to manufacturing damage or improper installation of the assembly into the rocket as possible initiators of the failure. LSP also highlighted improper material selection and such practices as individuals standing on flight hardware during the assembly process, as possible contributing factors."

Does the first part of that sentence say there were material defects in the strut assembly that failed. Or merely acknowledge that SpaceX found material defects in some of the other struts that it tested after the accident. Could improper installation of the assembly have damaged the helium tank in some way? And what does improper material selection mean? What material? 

It's not a small matter. The official SpaceX story is the strut was defective, it broken in flight, and the supplier is to blame. The only blame SpaceX took was not testing the strut for strength prior to the flight. This and the letter that Bolden and Gerst wrote later on suggest much deeper problems.

A more detailed report might answer some of the questions and potentially rule out any connection to the launch pad explosion that occurred in 2016.

"In addition to" is does not seem ambiguous to me. It is clearly an agreement with the results of the SpaceX investigation.

"Manufacturing damage or improper installation," "improper material selection and such practices as," must refer to the struts. Helium tanks are not mentioned at all.

"Material selection" likely refers to the type of steel alloy used in the strut assembly.

There's a caveat at the end of the quoted section of the OIG report - that the listed findings are only "possible contributing factors," not that they found that these things led to the failure of the strut for certain.

I have yet to see anyone convincingly explain why the CRS-7 incident and the Amos-6 incident must be linked - both failures were extremely different, in location, speed, and effects of the failure.

... or, a more detailed report would only further confirm what we already know about the incident.

[Jim]

The story clearly says NASA said for months it would release a public summary. If it couldn't because of confidentiality NASA should have said so last September. It's hard to understand why NASA got that wrong for months.

You guys have all missed the really important part of the story. SpaceX had problems with helium leaks in 2014 then an inflight explosion involving a helium tank in 2015 and then a helium tank breach in 2016. For the CRS-7 flight SpaceX's investigation had 11 company employees and 1 FAA rep (who didn't sign final report) who concluded that an outside vendor was to blame.  The conclusions of NASA's investigation was different. Therein lies the value of NASA releasing a summary.

NASA's conclusion was not substantially different. The OIG report said NASA also included some other possible causes, and noted that SpaceX took actions on those other possible causes, as well.

The IG report is a bit vague on that.

"In addition to the material defects in the strut assembly SpaceX found during its testing, LSP pointed to manufacturing damage or improper installation of the assembly into the rocket as possible initiators of the failure. LSP also highlighted improper material selection and such practices as individuals standing on flight hardware during the assembly process, as possible contributing factors."

Does the first part of that sentence say there were material defects in the strut assembly that failed. Or merely acknowledge that SpaceX found material defects in some of the other struts that it tested after the accident. Could improper installation of the assembly have damaged the helium tank in some way? And what does improper material selection mean? What material? 

It's not a small matter. The official SpaceX story is the strut was defective, it broken in flight, and the supplier is to blame. The only blame SpaceX took was not testing the strut for strength prior to the flight. This and the letter that Bolden and Gerst wrote later on suggest much deeper problems.

A more detailed report might answer some of the questions and potentially rule out any connection to the launch pad explosion that occurred in 2016.

Wrong, a NASA report is not needed, much less a more detailed one.   NASA was able to participate in both investigations and get the answers it needed.  Any connection to the AMOS-6 explosion would not have been possible because the report would have come out before it.
NASA would not have approved the launch of Jason-3 if it wasn't happy with the results of CRS-7 investigation.

NASA is happy with the with the results of AMOS-6 investigation because CRS-10 and 11 would not have launch.  The NRO would not have let NROL-79 launch.

[whitelancer64]

Jim's quite right. According to the OIG report,

"In order for the Falcon 9 to return to flight, the FAA had to approve the SpaceX investigation team’s findings and any corrective action plans. As noted previously, the team submitted its final report to the FAA in November 2015 with the finding that a strut assembly failure in the rocket’s second stage was the most probable cause of the launch failure. Following its review of the report, the FAA issued SpaceX a new launch license 3 days before the December ORBCOMM launch.

Separate from the FAA requirements, the CRS-1 contract required SpaceX to submit an accident investigation plan to NASA. Pursuant to the plan, if a failure occurs during launch but before reaching the ISS, SpaceX is responsible for the investigation, although NASA has discretion to conduct its own, independent investigation as well. After the SPX-7 failure, NASA initiated an investigation through LSP’s contract authority rather than based on its CRS-1 contract authority as it had in the Orb-3 mishap. NASA was able to call on LSP because LSP had an existing contract with SpaceX to fly the Jason-3 payload on a Falcon 9. Before using a particular launch vehicle for a NASA mission, LSP certifies the vehicle for flight through insight and approval processes. The LSP investigation confirmed SpaceX’s implementation of corrective actions before approving the January 2016 Jason-3 launch."

[Jim]

Also, NASA has other systems where such investigations, followups, inquiries, etc are documented.  When AV-006 had the prop leak, did anybody see the NASA assessment on it?. How about OA-7?. GPS-IIF 3?

[tvg98]

http://spacenews.com/senate-restores-funding-for-nasa-earth-science-and-satellite-servicing-programs/

The Senate bill also directs the FAA to provide the committee with a report into the June 2015 “catastrophic launch failure by a commercial launch provider,” a reference to the SpaceX Falcon 9 accident on a commercial cargo resupply mission to the International Space Station. That report, which consolidates previous investigations by or for the federal government, would also include a summary for public release.

[Coastal Ron]

Every progress payment that was for a System Requirements Review, Preliminary Design Review, Critical Design Review, Readiness Review was for both Dragon and Falcon 9.  The reviews went into both launch vehicle and spacecraft equally.  There was no emphasis of one over the other.

Sorry, Falcon 9 "review" wrt COTS does not equal Falcon 9 "development", which was the claim I was responding to - in case you have forgotten what you're arguing for or against...

It's clear from looking at the COTS contract that NASA was not responsible for Falcon 9 development, meaning SpaceX paid for Falcon 9 development out of their own pocket - which would have included investment money, customer launch deposits, and profit from government contracts like COTS.

[savuporo]

Sorry, Falcon 9 "review" wrt COTS does not equal Falcon 9 "development", which was the claim I was responding to - in case you have forgotten what you're arguing for or against...

Maybe just admit that you are wrong ? Do you understand at all why these reviews are conducted, and what the outcomes are ? A CDR or a PDR is as much part of development process as taking an engine to a stand.

Plus, you were given straight quotes one inch up thread, there aren't really two ways to parse these statements.

...(SpaceX ) conducted the first nine engine firing of its Falcon 9 launch vehicle at its Texas Test Facility outside McGregor on July 31st. A second firing on August 1st completed a major NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) milestone almost two months early.
...
“This was the most difficult milestone in development of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle

[Andy Bandy]

http://spacenews.com/senate-restores-funding-for-nasa-earth-science-and-satellite-servicing-programs/

The Senate bill also directs the FAA to provide the committee with a report into the June 2015 “catastrophic launch failure by a commercial launch provider,” a reference to the SpaceX Falcon 9 accident on a commercial cargo resupply mission to the International Space Station. That report, which consolidates previous investigations by or for the federal government, would also include a summary for public release.

That's interesting. It's a rather specific requirement for what NASA claims is only of historical value. Someone in the Senate or on his/her staff thinks there's more to the accident than NASA has released and wants the FAA to provide it.

[Andy Bandy]

Jim's quite right. According to the OIG report,

"In order for the Falcon 9 to return to flight, the FAA had to approve the SpaceX investigation team’s findings and any corrective action plans. As noted previously, the team submitted its final report to the FAA in November 2015 with the finding that a strut assembly failure in the rocket’s second stage was the most probable cause of the launch failure. Following its review of the report, the FAA issued SpaceX a new launch license 3 days before the December ORBCOMM launch.

Separate from the FAA requirements, the CRS-1 contract required SpaceX to submit an accident investigation plan to NASA. Pursuant to the plan, if a failure occurs during launch but before reaching the ISS, SpaceX is responsible for the investigation, although NASA has discretion to conduct its own, independent investigation as well. After the SPX-7 failure, NASA initiated an investigation through LSP’s contract authority rather than based on its CRS-1 contract authority as it had in the Orb-3 mishap. NASA was able to call on LSP because LSP had an existing contract with SpaceX to fly the Jason-3 payload on a Falcon 9. Before using a particular launch vehicle for a NASA mission, LSP certifies the vehicle for flight through insight and approval processes. The LSP investigation confirmed SpaceX’s implementation of corrective actions before approving the January 2016 Jason-3 launch."

Interesting that Senate appropriators thinks that a report with a public summary is needed from the FAA. That's been written into the funding bill for FY 2018. There must be some reason for that. What do you and Jim think that might be?

Edit/Lar: "the Gator guy" has a name. Use it.

[tdperk]

The conclusions of NASA's investigation was different. Therein lies the value of NASA releasing a summary.

No, there is no evidence NASA came to any such conclusion.

[Rebel44]

http://spacenews.com/senate-restores-funding-for-nasa-earth-science-and-satellite-servicing-programs/

The Senate bill also directs the FAA to provide the committee with a report into the June 2015 “catastrophic launch failure by a commercial launch provider,” a reference to the SpaceX Falcon 9 accident on a commercial cargo resupply mission to the International Space Station. That report, which consolidates previous investigations by or for the federal government, would also include a summary for public release.

That's interesting. It's a rather specific requirement for what NASA claims is only of historical value. Someone in the Senate or on his/her staff thinks there's more to the accident than NASA has released and wants the FAA to provide it.

Most likely someone (possible someone with an axe to grind) read that recent article that complaned about that issue and decided to ask for it and since that request wasnt very controverisal, it was passed

[Jim]

Every progress payment that was for a System Requirements Review, Preliminary Design Review, Critical Design Review, Readiness Review was for both Dragon and Falcon 9.  The reviews went into both launch vehicle and spacecraft equally.  There was no emphasis of one over the other.

Sorry, Falcon 9 "review" wrt COTS does not equal Falcon 9 "development", which was the claim I was responding to - in case you have forgotten what you're arguing for or against...

It's clear from looking at the COTS contract that NASA was not responsible for Falcon 9 development, meaning SpaceX paid for Falcon 9 development out of their own pocket - which would have included investment money, customer launch deposits, and profit from government contracts like COTS.

Wrong again. The "review" was of Falcon "development". 
You really don't know what you are talking about.
COTS was not contract, It was SAA for ISS  cargo delivery which included launch vehicle development.  There are words specfic to that.  The words in the SAA were not specific to just to Dragon.

NASA, my organization and people I worked with, gave money via COTS to SpaceX for Launch vehicle development.

"On May 5, 2006 the COTS Round 1 finalists were selected. NASA made the decision to select two companies in order to allow for competition, while at the same time being able to distribute sufficient amounts of money to each partner for their development programs. Of the six finalists, Horowitz and his team found SpaceX to be the clear leader for both the technical strengths of the company’s Falcon rocket and Dragon spacecraft"

Development programs...... Falcon.....Dragon

[AndersofOz]

Every progress payment that was for a System Requirements Review, Preliminary Design Review, Critical Design Review, Readiness Review was for both Dragon and Falcon 9.  The reviews went into both launch vehicle and spacecraft equally.  There was no emphasis of one over the other.

Sorry, Falcon 9 "review" wrt COTS does not equal Falcon 9 "development", which was the claim I was responding to - in case you have forgotten what you're arguing for or against...

It's clear from looking at the COTS contract that NASA was not responsible for Falcon 9 development, meaning SpaceX paid for Falcon 9 development out of their own pocket - which would have included investment money, customer launch deposits, and profit from government contracts like COTS.

SpaceX has made numerous statements that both Dragon and F9 were developed under COTS.  The one I could most readily find was Gwynne Shotwell speaking at the Atlantic Council on June 4, 2014 where she states (emphasis added by me):

"The Falcon 9 launch vehicle and the Dragon capsule was developed under a really unique partnership with NASA called the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services.  It has to be one of the finest examples of a public/private partnership.  NASA ultimately gave us about 396 million dollars, SpaceX put in over 450 million dollars of our own money and what came out of that, a Falcon 9, excuse me an EELV class launch vehicle which is competitive on the international scene…we haven’t seen that since the 80s frankly in the US, as well as a capsule, spaceship which can berth with the International Space Station and transfer large amounts, significant amounts of critical science payload."

I have always taken that to mean that SpaceX developed both the F9 and Dragon in partnership with NASA.

[symbios]

Every progress payment that was for a System Requirements Review, Preliminary Design Review, Critical Design Review, Readiness Review was for both Dragon and Falcon 9.  The reviews went into both launch vehicle and spacecraft equally.  There was no emphasis of one over the other.

Sorry, Falcon 9 "review" wrt COTS does not equal Falcon 9 "development", which was the claim I was responding to - in case you have forgotten what you're arguing for or against...

It's clear from looking at the COTS contract that NASA was not responsible for Falcon 9 development, meaning SpaceX paid for Falcon 9 development out of their own pocket - which would have included investment money, customer launch deposits, and profit from government contracts like COTS.

SpaceX has made numerous statements that both Dragon and F9 were developed under COTS.  The one I could most readily find was Gwynne Shotwell speaking at the Atlantic Council on June 4, 2014 where she states (emphasis added by me):

"The Falcon 9 launch vehicle and the Dragon capsule was developed under a really unique partnership with NASA called the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services.  It has to be one of the finest examples of a public/private partnership.  NASA ultimately gave us about 396 million dollars, SpaceX put in over 450 million dollars of our own money and what came out of that, a Falcon 9, excuse me an EELV class launch vehicle which is competitive on the international scene…we haven’t seen that since the 80s frankly in the US, as well as a capsule, spaceship which can berth with the International Space Station and transfer large amounts, significant amounts of critical science payload."

I have always taken that to mean that SpaceX developed both the F9 and Dragon in partnership with NASA.

And what was the estimated cost of the Falcon 9 rocket? 450 million? I do not think that anyone is disputing that NASA was not involved, I think that what people is arguing about is the cash/funding part of it.

So according to this statement, SpaceX payed for the rocket and NASA for the Dragon capsule...?

[Coastal Ron]

COTS was not contract, It was SAA for ISS  cargo delivery which included launch vehicle development.  There are words specfic to that.  The words in the SAA were not specific to just to Dragon.

According to Wikipedia:

"A contract is a voluntary arrangement between two or more parties that is enforceable by law as a binding legal agreement."

I was using the general definition of the term. Forests for the trees and all Jim...

NASA, my organization and people I worked with, gave money via COTS to SpaceX for Launch vehicle development.

"On May 5, 2006 the COTS Round 1 finalists were selected. NASA made the decision to select two companies in order to allow for competition, while at the same time being able to distribute sufficient amounts of money to each partner for their development programs. Of the six finalists, Horowitz and his team found SpaceX to be the clear leader for both the technical strengths of the company’s Falcon rocket and Dragon spacecraft"

That quote does not specifically mention NASA paid for Falcon 9 development. You'd think if your allegations were true that it wouldn't be so hard to find evidence of it. If anything the U.S. Government is usually pretty verbose and specific with it's legal documents, especially when $278M is involved.

And member savuporo found an interesting interview with SpaceX employee #5, Tim Buzza, who said:

"But there’s no doubt that through years of working together, fingerprints of meetings and discussions with NASA have ended up on the rocket. Like where there was a selection of a particular type of material on Dragon, due to certain regulations on outgassing. I don’t have a list in front of me that says where I think NASA had a fingerprint on the design of the rocket. We worked together for so many years, it’s all over it."

So are NASA's "fingerprints" all over the Falcon 9? According to SpaceX, yes. Is there explicit evidence that NASA directly funded Falcon 9 development? No.

Find a contract that explicitly states the U.S. Government is paying for Falcon 9 development and that will change the current conclusion, but otherwise the conclusion is still "NO".

[savuporo]

Find a contract that explicitly states the U.S. Government is paying for Falcon 9 development and that will change the current conclusion, but otherwise the conclusion is still "NO".

Sir, come on. One more time:
https://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/home/spacex_9enginefire.html

the first nine engine firing of its Falcon 9 launch vehicle at its Texas Test Facility outside McGregor on July 31st. A second firing on August 1st completed a major NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) milestone almost two months early.
..
“This was the most difficult milestone in development of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle

There is no room for interpretation.

[Lar]

This back and forth is boring. Stop.

[gongora]

This back and forth is boring. Stop.

Seriously.  Stop.  As in not continue.

[mme]

http://spacenews.com/senate-restores-funding-for-nasa-earth-science-and-satellite-servicing-programs/

The Senate bill also directs the FAA to provide the committee with a report into the June 2015 “catastrophic launch failure by a commercial launch provider,” a reference to the SpaceX Falcon 9 accident on a commercial cargo resupply mission to the International Space Station. That report, which consolidates previous investigations by or for the federal government, would also include a summary for public release.

That's interesting. It's a rather specific requirement for what NASA claims is only of historical value. Someone in the Senate or on his/her staff thinks there's more to the accident than NASA has released and wants the FAA to provide it.

...

Interesting that Senate appropriators thinks that a report with a public summary is needed from the FAA. That's been written into the funding bill for FY 2018. There must be some reason for that. What do you and Jim think that might be?

Edit/Lar: "the Gator guy" has a name. Use it.

The reality is that there are pro-commercial space Senators, anti-commercial space Senators and could-not-care-less-about-commercial space Senators. Most Senators are in the last category. The Senators in the former categories battle it out for their respective constituents and/or ideologies.

In all seriousness, what non-political value is served by a public summary?

[Andy Bandy]

http://spacenews.com/senate-restores-funding-for-nasa-earth-science-and-satellite-servicing-programs/

The Senate bill also directs the FAA to provide the committee with a report into the June 2015 “catastrophic launch failure by a commercial launch provider,” a reference to the SpaceX Falcon 9 accident on a commercial cargo resupply mission to the International Space Station. That report, which consolidates previous investigations by or for the federal government, would also include a summary for public release.

That's interesting. It's a rather specific requirement for what NASA claims is only of historical value. Someone in the Senate or on his/her staff thinks there's more to the accident than NASA has released and wants the FAA to provide it.

Most likely someone (possible someone with an axe to grind) read that recent article that complaned about that issue and decided to ask for it and since that request wasnt very controverisal, it was passed

Maybe. Maybe not. Interesting speculation without clear evidence one way or the other. If the accident truly was a defective strut provided by an outside supplier, then there should be no problem.

[Jim]

Maybe. Maybe not. Interesting speculation without clear evidence one way or the other. If the accident truly was a defective strut provided by an outside supplier, then there should be no problem.

No, it isn't maybe not.   you seem to be grinding an axe too.