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

[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.