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

[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.