Once and for all, FACT: COTS monies were used for Falcon 9 development

[Jim]

From this thread

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43851.msg1732217#msg1732217

No, it is fact. It is sourced on the wikipedia Falcon 9 article, with a quote directly from Shotwell.

NASA ultimately gave us about $396 million; SpaceX put in over $450 million ... [for an] EELV-class launch vehcle ... as well as a capsule

Repeating this.  COTS money was used for Falcon development.

[Jim]

This is to correct the misinformation that has been spread at all these places:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43290.msg1703332#msg1703332

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38021.msg1675629#msg1675629

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41712.msg1621851#msg1621851

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39540.msg1494911#msg1494911

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40640.msg1705725#msg1705725

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37873.msg1394631#msg1394631

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35157.msg1229497#msg1229497

[ncb1397]

Repeating this.  COTS money was used for Falcon development.

Considering that SpaceX was essentially broke after the 4th Falcon 1 flight, it has always been obvious that CRS milestone payments and COTS payments sustained them during Falcon 9 development.

[jpo234]

Repeating this.  COTS money was used for Falcon development.

Considering that SpaceX was essentially broke after the 4th Falcon 1 flight, it has always been obvious that CRS milestone payments and COTS payments sustained them during Falcon 9 development.

Not just SpaceX, but Elon personally stared into the abyss. SpaceX was saved by COTS and Tesla was saved by Daimler.

[Lar]

This is to correct the misinformation that has been spread at all these places:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43290.msg1703332#msg1703332

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38021.msg1675629#msg1675629

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41712.msg1621851#msg1621851

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39540.msg1494911#msg1494911

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40640.msg1705725#msg1705725

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37873.msg1394631#msg1394631

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35157.msg1229497#msg1229497

Good work saving all those links.

Whenever I see a state government say "we are spending all the lottery money on schools" I laugh. Because it's one big budget... lottery money is one income source among many, schools are one expenditure among many.

NASA bought a service which had multiple components, multiple deliverables, multiple milestones.... Did SpaceX money fund Dragon and NASA fund F9? or was it the other way around? Or half and half?

Answer: You can't say. It doesn't work that way.  I don't think that anyone disputes that SpaceX got money from NASA. Or SES, or Iridium, or the government of Taiwan, etc.

[meekGee]

Who cares.

The question is whether SpaceX became a stagnant government-dependent risk-averse contractor, or did they retain their drive, innovation, independence, while also servicing government contracts.

This is what matters and the answer to that is clear.

[Ludus]

Or is SpaceX funding NASA by offering drastically lower bids for launch services they need than they could ever get from another contractor or by any other means?

[Jim]

Who cares.

Many care, hence the number of links
The rest has nothing to do with the topic

[Jim]

Or is SpaceX funding NASA by offering drastically lower bids for launch services they need than they could ever get from another contractor or by any other means?

Spacex has only launched one spacecraft for NASA

[Ludus]

Or is SpaceX funding NASA by offering drastically lower bids for launch services they need than they could ever get from another contractor or by any other means?

Spacex has only launched one spacecraft for NASA

Cargo/Crew support of the ISS isn’t part of the NASA budget?

[envy887]

Many care, hence the number of links
...

TIL that "many" = Coastal Ron.

[McDew]

From by personnel experience with NASA HQ during the COTS procurement, they were very forth comming in admitting that the one of the objectives of the COTS procurement was to fund development of a Delta II replacement.

[spacenut]

Anyone could have bid on COTS.  Anyone.  SpaceX used the money more wisely than others. or it wasn't enough for others.  They had a plan for Falcon 5, later Falcon 9, and they had developed the Merlin engine on their own dime.  They got the contract and used the money wisely and developed Falcon 9.  Now that allowed them to launch private satellites as well as service ISS.  Yes it helped get them over the hump.  Lockheed and Boeing have taken far more money from the government to do things for far longer.  The good thing about COTS is NASA didn't tell SpaceX or Orbital how to develop their engines or rockets, just the capability to deliver the payloads.  This is how they should have developed SLS.  Get Boeing or Lockheed or Grumman to develop a rocket to deliver say 100 tons to LEO.  Then choose the lowest cost provider.  They probably should get out of the launch vehicle business now, and just concentrate on payloads for these various vehicles. 

[Space Ghost 1962]

Or is SpaceX funding NASA by offering drastically lower bids for launch services they need than they could ever get from another contractor or by any other means?

Spacex has only launched one spacecraft for NASA

As has Antares.

[ZachF]

Money is fungible. This is pedantic.

[meekGee]

Who cares.

Many care, hence the number of links
The rest has nothing to do with the topic

Actually, most people care about SpaceX's achievements and future plans.

Some, however, care about that F9S2 is not reusable, and that BFR is not 12m but "only" 9.

Hence the premise of this thread.

[AncientU]

Possibly the best $396M spent by the USG this century.

[QuantumG]

I believe the claim is that SpaceX didn't receive the money for Falcon 9 development, they received it for Dragon development and used it for Falcon 9 development... but even that isn't 100% correct as there were explicit payments for Falcon 9 risk reduction.

[meekGee]

I believe the claim is that SpaceX didn't receive the money for Falcon 9 development, they received it for Dragon development and used it for Falcon 9 development... but even that isn't 100% correct as there were explicit payments for Falcon 9 risk reduction.

And in either case, what's the OP's point exactly?

SpaceX developed and is operating F9 and Dragon (and Merlin, and FH) for much less than what the competition charge, and has done it with a fraction of the manpower.

If you look at how much of that pie was government money, it's even a smaller fraction.

Even before you count little annual $1B payments for "assurance".

And since there is no argument on whether SpaceX received government payments for work it has performed, what is the premise here?

[savuporo]

NASA bought a service which had multiple components, multiple deliverables, multiple milestones.... Did SpaceX money fund Dragon and NASA fund F9? or was it the other way around? Or half and half?

Answer: You can't say. It doesn't work that way. ..

Yes you can, when contracts and NASA press releases explicitly say so.

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

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

[Lar]

That suggests that NASA approved a particular Falcon achievement and then SpaceX got a milestone payment for it.

That is NOT the same as cost plus where the contractor is being paid what it cost them, provably (theoretically). The NASA funds were fungible. Your citation makes my point I think.

[meekGee]

In other news, another FACT:  The USG also kicked in some funds for developing Raptor.

Therefore, BFR, BFS, BFC, and in fact the entirety of the Mars colonization drive is just another case of EELV.

[QuantumG]

More importantly, NASA wrote a check so clearly everything SpaceX has ever done is NASA's achievement. That's how it works.

[savuporo]

That suggests that NASA approved a particular Falcon achievement and then SpaceX got a milestone payment for it.

That is NOT the same as cost plus where the contractor is being paid what it cost them, provably (theoretically). The NASA funds were fungible. Your citation makes my point I think.

Maybe i'm thick or my english is failing me, but the facts as i read them: COTS had an explicit milestone, as proposed by Sx and approved by NASA, to do the F9 test fire. After the milestone was done, NASA paid for it.

Hence, NASA directly paid for F9 development. Which, i believe, is the subject of this thread and the claim being contested.

[Lar]

No, NASA paid for milestones, including profit on them, at the price negotiated in advance. SpaceX could then use the money for that milestone to fund whatever they wanted. Funding work that got them additional milestones would be wise and no doubt they did, but NASA didn't "pay for development"

Paying for development means paying the costs (SpaceX presents receipts for things they bought and gets reimbursed), not the negotiated prices.  Semantics, but this whole thread is semantics...

[savuporo]

IDK i'd call this mental gymnastics and i question the motivation for it.

NASA: Here's a cool $30 million or whatever for getting that rocket engine firing as we agreed to, good job chaps
SpaceX: kthx, we'll blow it on blackjack.

QED, NASA didnt pay for Falcon9 development !

[CTC]

Why are people trying to argue about this fact? Funds seem to have been spent well.
Shouldn't taxpayers feel proud for contributing to SpaceX success? Specially SpaceX fans and space geeks.

[Semmel]

I think the discussion got kickstarted in the linked threads on the question whether or not SpaceX received government funding for the development of F9. Since this is a thread on semantics, lets keepit that way.

* SpaceX got money for completing milestones in the COTS program. How they spend that money is irrelevant.
* If at least one of the milestones included a milestone payment for development of parts of F9, SpaceX received government funding for the development of F9. If not, then not. I think its that simple.
* Shotwell said in her presentation that SpaceX USED money from the milestones to fund F9 development. That statement provides no information on whether or not SpaceX received money FOR the development of F9.

So in the term of what this threads title is and what Jim means: Yes, this confirms that SpaceX used COTS money for the development of F9. I think no one seriously disputed that. However, it does not answer the question that that was asked in the linked posts: whether or not the Government (through COTS) payed for the development of F9. So the dispute that happened earlier and is still raging is difference between "using received money for something" or "receiving money to use it for something".

[ZachF]

This thread is boring. It's like the movie "Inception", but instead of diving down into deeper dream states we're diving down into deeper and deeper levels of semantics/pedantry.

[JBF]

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SP-2014-617.pdf page 112. Item #12 Multi-engine test.
SpaceX's announcement http://www.spacex.com/press/2012/12/19-1 
GAO report page 13, item #12 $22mil for multi-engine test. www.gao.gov/assets/130/126310.pdf

This took me ~20 minutes of research. It is all primary sources so can be considered definitive.  My question to everyone who has posted on this topic is why didn't you do this research?


edit: Added a scathing closing statement.

[AncientU]

More importantly, NASA wrote a check so clearly everything SpaceX has ever done is NASA's achievement. That's how it works.

Yes, without NASA...  You're right as always, Jim.

[Rik ISS-fan]

Trolling: Which version of Falcon 9 is implied in this topic. only F9v1 or also F9v2; V4; V5? 

[Rocket Science]

I don't know why it was even a question, NASA paid for a system...

[spacenut]

Well, the military wanted a long range bomber in WWII, so Boeing developed the B-29.  The military bought 100's of them.  After the war Boeing switched to passenger planes using the technology developed for high altitude B-29 flying.  The government didn't develop the B-29, Boeing did.  NASA didn't develop the Falcon 9, SpaceX did.  Now NASA is buying flights.  Yes, they gave them some milestone money, because they needed cheaper rockets.  Orbital went the cheaper route developing their rocket using Russian engines and an ATK second stage.  The key here is Falcon 9 is an all new rocket developed an built here in the US and yet is cheaper than others to fly and operate, and SpaceX made it with a reusable booster to boot. 

I think the COTS experiment was a huge success.  So why not use this for the Moon or Mars.  No expensive cost plus stuff that Boeing and Lockheed has been getting away with for years.  Pay for milestones, and get the job done cheaper. 

[alexterrell]

From this thread

Repeating this.  COTS money was used for Falcon development.

Excellent news. Most of NASA's programs seem to end up wasting money. Good to hear that COTS has actually contributed to something lasting.

Of course, SpaceX aren't the first company to fund their expansion on the back of a Government contract.

[john smith 19]

From this thread

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43851.msg1732217#msg1732217

No, it is fact. It is sourced on the wikipedia Falcon 9 article, with a quote directly from Shotwell.

NASA ultimately gave us about $396 million; SpaceX put in over $450 million ... [for an] EELV-class launch vehcle ... as well as a capsule

Repeating this.  COTS money was used for Falcon development.

It's an excellent presentation that gives some insight into how SX works.

I note Shotwell mentioned it included about $200m of VC investment.

Wheather or not that's in a form SX have been able to pay off, or if they are in till an IPO, is another matter.

[ZachF]

Many care, hence the number of links
...

TIL that "many" = Coastal Ron.

e pluribus Ronum

[jak Kennedy]

Some people running out of negative things to post about SpaceX!! I think whatever they received they have made better use of government money than the $1 B b b billion that ULA received for how many years?

OK COTS used for Falcon 9, can we move on

[Jim]

Or is SpaceX funding NASA by offering drastically lower bids for launch services they need than they could ever get from another contractor or by any other means?

Spacex has only launched one spacecraft for NASA

As has Antares.

Antares hasn't launched any NASA spacecraft

Spacex has only launched Jason-3 for NASA.

[Jim]

No, NASA paid for milestones, including profit on them, at the price negotiated in advance. SpaceX could then use the money for that milestone to fund whatever they wanted. Funding work that got them additional milestones would be wise and no doubt they did, but NASA didn't "pay for development"

Wrong.  Spacex use NASA money to paid for F9 development.  There is no profit on milestone payments.

[Jim]

Nowhere was it stated that NASA paid for all of F9 development.  The point was that many stated that no NASA money went towards the F9 development.  What has happened since COTS doesn't matter, this was only about a certain timeframe.

Other comments about Raptor, F9S2 and BFR have no bearing on the topic or the premise of topic. 

The premise of the thread was to clarify incorrect information that permeated many threads.

There are no other motives despite what others posters think.

[Jim]

That suggests that NASA approved a particular Falcon achievement and then SpaceX got a milestone payment for it.

That is NOT the same as cost plus where the contractor is being paid what it cost them, provably (theoretically). The NASA funds were fungible. Your citation makes my point I think.

Not true at all.  A cost plus contractor can also take the money and spend it elsewhere.

[Khadgars]

Thank you Jim.  The issue I have are when comments are presented as undeniable fact when they don't really know such as the below comment from Coastal Ron which is clearly not true.

Read the GAO report from 2011 that outlines the COTS milestones (report here).  On page 13 of that report you'll see that every milestone is related to Dragon, and none are related to Falcon.  Nor did NASA pay for any Antares development thru the COTS program.

So no, the COTS program did not pay for ANY Falcon 9 development - that was for SpaceX to fund on their own.

Edit: I should preface this comment by stating I think there is nothing wrong with SpaceX using NASA money to fund F9 development.

[Patchouli]

No, NASA paid for milestones, including profit on them, at the price negotiated in advance. SpaceX could then use the money for that milestone to fund whatever they wanted. Funding work that got them additional milestones would be wise and no doubt they did, but NASA didn't "pay for development"

Wrong.  Spacex use NASA money to paid for F9 development.  There is no profit on milestone payments.

Though it was money well spent NASA got a much needed resupply vehicle in the deal.
But Spacex did have other sources of funding which is one reason why I think they succeeded while Kistler didn't.
The other they learned all their hard lessons with F1 which was cheap enough to have blow up.
If they tried to fly F5 or F9 at first they probably would not have succeeded.

[Coastal Ron]

Wow, this is entertaining. And just so everyone knows, Jim did not even PM me so that I could see his handiwork, since it's pretty obvious that I "inspired" his urge to create this dedicated thread.

Unfortunately, the 2014 video Jim dug up does not change any facts.

In the video (~12:20 mark) Shotwell stated that the Falcon 9 and Dragon were developed as part of a public/private partnership, and that NASA put in $396M and SpaceX put in over $450M.

My background includes working for government contractors, and in my role I was responsible for identifying requirements in government contracts (my group scheduled all product for procurement & manufacturing). In other words, making sure that we understood what we were supposed to deliver to the government. And since misinterpreting contracts can lead to bad outcomes, I paid attention to the details. Interpreting the GOA report on the COTS Program for what was and was not being paid for was very clear to me.

Jim claims that the U.S. Government paid for the development of the Falcon 9, and so far all that he can point to is Milestone #12 of the SpaceX COTS contract that calls for a multi-engine test. I don't consider that "development", I consider that "test", since development has been done and now it's just a matter of testing.

In fact, according to a SpaceX briefing to NASA in 2006, 90% of the Falcon 9 tooling was complete, and the Falcon 9 engines, structure and avionics were in fabrication. There were no COTS milestones that would have covered any of that, nor any COTS milestones that explicitly paid for "development" - and the government does not hide requirements in contracts.

So was NASA directly paying for Falcon 9 development using the COTS Program? No.

Was there a test activity related to Dragon development that was common with Falcon 9? Yes.

Time to move on...

[Herb Schaltegger]

Jim claims that the U.S. Government paid for the development of the Falcon 9, and so far all that he can point to is Milestone #12 of the SpaceX COTS contract that calls for a multi-engine test. I don't consider that "development", I consider that "test", since development has been done and now it's just a matter of testing.

*record scratch* Um, not so fast ...

Waaaaay back in my days as a baby engineer overseeing some small but significant bits of ECLSS hardware design and development at Boeing for Space Station Freedom, the contractors we utilized did both "development testing," "qualification testing," and "acceptance testing," depending on the hardware and the specifics of the design requirements - e.g., depending on exactly how "standard" the parts were, the particular design requirements for the part(s), and so on.

So to my way of thinking, your blanket statement is incorrect.

[spacenut]

How much did NASA pay for EELV when Atlas V and Delta IV were developed?  In todays dollars, is or was that as much as any SpaceX made? 

[Kansan52]

Can we at least agree there would be no Space X unless NASA had awarded them the COTS contract?

Elon seems to think so. That award allowed them to go from the brink of closing the doors to now. The contract meant income which meant investments. I can only go by my own experience, but once a company gets money, that money isn't siloed.

It comes down to, 'No COTS money, No SX'.

[Nigeluna]

Agree no COTS money no SpaceX - Musk has effectively said so.

This is a long way from saying COTS money directly paid for F9. Such a promise of money surely would lubricate initially supply of money from other investment sources rather than cashing a big COTS cheque at the beginning? I'm trying to understand if this was effectively staged payments by results (milestones) or as a big bucket of money from COTS directly entering SpaceX bank account. My understanding is that the big bucket was not the route. Am I wrong?

[savuporo]

Eh, No USAF, no SpaceX either.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2005/05/spacex-awarded-100m-usaf-contract/

Or DARPA

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2004/09/darpa-names-spacex-to-develop-rapid-satellite-launching.html

[meekGee]

Can we at least agree there would be no Space X unless NASA had awarded them the COTS contract?

Elon seems to think so. That award allowed them to go from the brink of closing the doors to now. The contract meant income which meant investments. I can only go by my own experience, but once a company gets money, that money isn't siloed.

It comes down to, 'No COTS money, No SX'.

How about "COTS was instrumental and awesome for SpaceX"?  Hardly anyone would argue with that...

You don't know what would have happened to SpaceX sans COTS?  Maybe complete ruin, and maybe more private money, less equity for Musk, slower progress, but still the same ambition and goal? 

[john smith 19]

How much did NASA pay for EELV when Atlas V and Delta IV were developed?  In todays dollars, is or was that as much as any SpaceX made?

Nothing.

EELV was (AFAIK) part funded by the DoD through the USAF. The original mfg, LM and Boeing put up the rest of the money.

They felt comfortable doing so partly because of the talk around LEO constellations for comms at the time.

Sound familiar?

Jim claims that the U.S. Government paid for the development of the Falcon 9, and so far all that he can point to is Milestone #12 of the SpaceX COTS contract that calls for a multi-engine test. I don't consider that "development", I consider that "test", since development has been done and now it's just a matter of testing.

Would people agree that NASA's COTS payments partly funded F9 development, and NASA contributed close to half the funding needed to get F9 flying indirectly?

That seems a reasonable statement of the facts from listening to Shotwells presentation.

BTW It helps if you realize that Jim tends to make absolute, rather than qualified statements (For some reason I hear the words "Rule 6. Never qualify statements. It's a sign of weakness"  in my head when I think of this)

Time to move on...

Probably.

There is no doubt that Musk and SX have achieved a very great of progress over the SoA in ELV.

There is also no doubt that a large part of the funds to make that progress (either as a customer, or a potential customer) came from NASA.  Musk and Shotwell are quite open about this, but it seems very hard for some people to accept.

That has nothing to do with the facts. It has to do with those peoples internal narrative about "The lone pioneer beating the government and making the govt agency obsolete"  but IRL that's not viable. SX is a company of about 5000 people.

I like the line "You need a mess of help to stand alone." Musk (and the team around him) understands that idea very well.

But what help you ask for, and how you use what you get, make a huge difference in the result.

[Dave G]

Would people agree that NASA's COTS payments partly funded F9 development, and NASA contributed close to half the funding needed to get F9 flying indirectly?

Yes, that's my understanding as well.  Around 1/2 of the cost to develop F9 and Dragon was paid by NASA.  The other 1/2 was paid by SpaceX, mostly through private investors, but also partly by SpaceX comm sat contracts.

Note that, compared with other launch systems NASA has funded, F9 and Dragon were much less expensive to develop, and SpaceX launch costs are a fraction of their competitors.  So it seems NASA got a good deal with the SpaceX COTS contract.

Also, as I understand it, NASA is funding roughly 1/2 of the Dragon 2 development under the commercial crew contract.

And I wouldn't be surprised to see NASA do more public/private partnership projects with SpaceX.  That model seems to be working well for NASA.

[spacenut]

One thing I like and liked about COTS.  NASA just gave them the goals or what they wanted.  They didn't micro manage SpaceX and tell them how to achieve the goals.  They let SpaceX design the engines and the rocket, and Dragon. 

Now, NASA trying to build SLS, is being micro managed, not only by their large bureaucracy, but by the senate (who are mostly lawyers). 

COTS achieved a lot, especially with SpaceX.  NASA with COTS operates like venture capital, and gets results.  This should be how they operate going back to the moon or MARS.  Tell the contractors what they want, and how much money they can get if they achieve certain goals within a reasonable time frame. 

Same thing happened in WWII.  They needed fighter planes.  The P-40 army and F4 Wildcat were slower than the Zero.  Companies came out with several other better fighters, F6 Hellcat, P-47, P-51, and other planes to meet and exceed the enemies capabilities.  Same with bombers.  Government didn't tell them how to build it, they just told them what they wanted and they got it. 

I would go for a COTS for a moon base and COTS for getting to MARS.  See what others come up with beside SpaceX for some competition. 

[Jim]

1.  My background includes working for government contractors, and in my role I was responsible for identifying requirements in government contracts (my group scheduled all product for procurement & manufacturing). In other words, making sure that we understood what we were supposed to deliver to the government. And since misinterpreting contracts can lead to bad outcomes, I paid attention to the details.

2.  Jim claims that the U.S. Government paid for the development of the Falcon 9, and so far all that he can point to is Milestone #12 of the SpaceX COTS contract that calls for a multi-engine test. I don't consider that "development", I consider that "test", since development has been done and now it's just a matter of testing.

 3.  according to a SpaceX briefing to NASA in 2006, 90% of the Falcon 9 tooling was complete, and the Falcon 9 engines, structure and avionics were in fabrication. There were no COTS milestones that would have covered any of that, nor any COTS milestones that explicitly paid for "development" - and the government does not hide requirements in contracts.

4.  So was NASA directly paying for Falcon 9 development using the COTS Program? No.

1.  Your background is not applicable here.

2.  It is not a claim, but a fact.  The other milestones that were reviews included the launch vehicle.  What you consider doesn't matter.

3.  It doesn't matter what the specific COTS milestones are.  They are just places for progress payments and not for a specific product the government.  The government buys launch services which means no hardware, yet bases some milestone payments on vehicle production, on hardware that the government does not receive or own.  So you argument on the actual content of the milestones holds no water. 

4.  Wrong, your opinion does not change the facts.  NASA gave Spacex money for launch vehicle and spacecraft development.  I knew people in the COTS program office and they have stated the same facts.
 

[Jcc]

Ok, so we have established that NASA funding significantly helped pay for F9 development. What's the point here?
Is it to suggest that SpaceX can't make F9 "redundant" and discontinue it without NASA approval?

[Jim]

Ok, so we have established that NASA funding significantly helped pay for F9 development. What's the point here?
Is it to suggest that SpaceX can't make F9 "redundant" and discontinue it without NASA approval?

NASA has no say in SpaceX plans

[M.E.T.]

I'm trying to understand what exactly is being claimed here.

My understanding: SpaceX got a COTS contract from NASA, under which they had to produce certain goods and services,  measured by achieving periodic milestones to unlock payment tranches.

I'm assuming the payments would not have been received if the milestones were not achieved. So presumably NASA got what they paid for. Is the contention then that SpaceX charged more for these milestones than it actually cost them, thereby using some of the NASA money for F9 development? If so, is there something wrong with that? If both parties agreed to the contract, does it matter if the service provider ends up doing the work cheaper, while still delivering the goods?

If that is not the claim, then I can only assume that the accusation is that SpaceX got paid despite not delivering on some or all of the milestones, with the reason for non delivery being that the money was instead spent on F9 development.

Am I interpreting this correctly, or is there a third scenario in there somewhere which I have overlooked?

[savuporo]

If that is not the claim, then I can only assume that the accusation is that SpaceX got paid despite not delivering on some or all of the milestones, with the reason for non delivery being that the money was instead spent on F9 development.

Am I interpreting this correctly, or is there a third scenario in there somewhere which I have overlooked?

No thats not the claim. The entire COTS agreement was signed for a combined F9 and Dragon combined capability. In fact, F9 was pretty much only born from previous F5 concept thanks to COTS contract materializing. NASA paid for both things, SpaceX paid a large share themselves too with investor money too, obviously.

And it was a good deal for everyone involved. Thats the whole story, but for whatever reason people see the need to try and mental gymnastics around it

EDIT: and the whole counter only seems to amount to 'hey i went and thought i paid for a haircut, but she actually used the money i gave her for lunch, not to buy scissors and stuff, hence i actually didnt pay for a haircut'

[meberbs]

EDIT: and the whole counter only seems to amount to 'hey i went and thought i paid for a haircut, but she actually used the money i gave her for lunch, not to buy scissors and stuff, hence i actually didnt pay for a haircut'

By "whole counter" which side are you referring to exactly?

Because what you are saying here sounds more like Jim's argument than Costal Ron's. NASA payed SpaceX to demonstrate cargo delivery, with milestones generally focused on the spacecraft, some of that spacecraft development money no doubt went to F9 development, but they were still generally paying for the Dragon development. (i.e. paying for the haircut, not the lunch)

Jim, why don't you add up just how much of the contract was for F9 vs. Dragon development. Many milestones clearly are Dragon specific. Split the value in half for milestones such as early requirements reviews that would cover both Falcon 9 and Dragon. This is probably being overly generous to your position, since the contract is clearly more focused on Dragon than the rocket, so these would be a less than even split.

Also, you better have a good explanation if you want to include any demo 2 or demo 3 related milestones as counting against F9 development, since demo 1 would demonstrate that the vehicle can launch, so demo 2 and 3 would only be about demonstrating further capabilities of the Dragon.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/06/01/spacex-milestone-progress-payments-delays/

[savuporo]

This is probably being overly generous to your position, since the contract is clearly more focused on Dragon than the rocket, so these would be a less than even split.

The COTS contract was for integrated capability to deliver cargo to ISS. NASA paid for developing that capability, not for rockets, dragons, canteen lunches to employees or anything else. It's not that hard.

Milestones were defined - by the contractor, mind you, as significant points of measure against achieving that capability, and that capability required development of Dragon, F9, GSE and a bunch of other things, like going through a number of certifications. All of these things NASA helped pay for.

[meberbs]

This is probably being overly generous to your position, since the contract is clearly more focused on Dragon than the rocket, so these would be a less than even split.

The COTS contract was for integrated capability to deliver cargo to ISS. NASA paid for developing that capability, not for rockets, dragons, canteen lunches to employees or anything else. It's not that hard.

Milestones were defined - by the contractor, mind you, as significant points of measure against achieving that capability, and that capability required development of Dragon, F9, GSE and a bunch of other things, like going through a number of certifications. All of these things NASA helped pay for.

I asked you a question:

By "whole counter" which side are you referring to exactly?

You did not answer this question. Without knowing what you are even trying to argue, it is hard to respond. Also kind of pointless because we might just be in violent agreement.

Also when you say "milestones were defined by the contractor," are you trying to imply that NASA was not involved at all and there were no negotiations or guidance from NASA?

[Jim]

Many milestones clearly are Dragon specific.

Not really.  3 Dragon specific, 1 Falcon, and the 18 remaining are integrated

[meberbs]

Many milestones clearly are Dragon specific.

Not really.  3 Dragon specific, 1 Falcon, and the 18 remaining are integrated

You are including the demo 2 and demo 3 related milestones that as I pointed out were clearly past the point of counting as "F9 development" since those were for after the F9 had already flown successfully. I specifically asked for an explanation if you were going to count those.

Also you are ignoring milestones 23-40 which account for $118 million of the total, and those are pretty much all obviously dragon specific. A few are arguable depending on what specifically they refer to.

[meekGee]

Many milestones clearly are Dragon specific.

Not really.  3 Dragon specific, 1 Falcon, and the 18 remaining are integrated

You are including the demo 2 and demo 3 related milestones that as I pointed out were clearly past the point of counting as "F9 development" since those were for after the F9 had already flown successfully. I specifically asked for an explanation if you were going to count those.

Also you are ignoring milestones 23-40 which account for $118 million of the total, and those are pretty much all obviously dragon specific. A few are arguable depending on what specifically they refer to.

Quite so.

And the whole premise, from the title, is a strawman's argument.

SpaceX bid for NASA contracts and won.  SpaceX used earned income for development.  So what?

SpaceX never became a stagnant government-dependent company incapable of doing any meaningful development - that's what is important.

--

Quite the opposite, it channeled said money into developing even more things - more rockets, more vehicles, a world-wide telecom network, and eventually an entire Mars program.

That, once and for all, is FACT.

[Space Ghost 1962]

Suggest that one either uses this thread to litigate history (potentially to support/undermine specific agendas), or one uses this thread to create a corpus all sides can agree on.

Otherwise it will be an unending continual argument (which may be what some want but I don't).

Suggest the force of Jim's presentation of this could actually bell fannish extremism ... to all our joint benefit ... if only it were disciplined as a unifying means, by careful skill. Much better than it devolving to pugilism, as often eventually happens.

Suggest finding commonality, specific "bones of contention", ... and only direct "confront/deny/displace" to those narrowly ...and keep contributors to this thread to that standard.