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.
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...
...(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
http://spacenews.com/senate-restores-funding-for-nasa-earth-science-and-satellite-servicing-programs/QuoteThe 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.
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."
The conclusions of NASA's investigation was different. Therein lies the value of NASA releasing a summary.
Quote from: tvg98 on 07/28/2017 09:37 pmhttp://spacenews.com/senate-restores-funding-for-nasa-earth-science-and-satellite-servicing-programs/QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Jim on 07/25/2017 05:54 pmEvery 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.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 07/28/2017 10:04 pmQuote from: Jim on 07/25/2017 05:54 pmEvery 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.
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"
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".
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
This back and forth is boring. Stop.
...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.
Quote from: Andy Bandy on 08/06/2017 05:21 pmQuote from: tvg98 on 07/28/2017 09:37 pmhttp://spacenews.com/senate-restores-funding-for-nasa-earth-science-and-satellite-servicing-programs/QuoteThe 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.
