(I recall Deke’s comments but not precisely and think you are more or less morphing them… Uh, no. And Chaikin has reiterated same.

“SpaceX has no contractual obligations…”

Except they do. And fulfilling them would enhance their chances if they want more business.

“What actually has happened is that in the dry run for this test flight FRR last fall the Space X software just plain did not work. NASA has been working with Space X since that time to fix Space X software problems. It would be interesting to know – for those who claim to believe that the COTS program is commercial – where the money to pay the non-Space X personnel to help Space X fix its software problems is coming from.”

Well said, Joe.

Taxpayers, of course- Even DBN admits that:”There is a small pot of money (~5%, IIRC) within the COTS budget for the NASA program office.” Small pot. More spin from a ‘commercial’ firm. And, of course, the LC40 facilities refutrbishment was taxpayer funded as well.

@Dark Blue Nine wrote @ May 5th, 2012 at 10:54 pm

“Don’t be a flaming shilliot, fella. The schedule slippages are due to Space X, not NASA.” There, fixed that for you. Leave it to CBS News to reaffirm that the only thing reliable about Space X is their uneliability:

“NEXT MONDAY’S SPACE X FALCON 9 LAUNCH DATE IN DOUBT- by Bill Harwood, CBS News http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/003/120501delay/

“It would be interesting to know … where the money to pay the non-Space X personnel to help Space X fix its software problems is coming from”

Do you know that there are “personnel” helping SpaceX fix their software problems, or are you speculating? If you know, then provide details.

Remember though that part of the function of the Commercial Crew and Cargo Program Office (C3PO) is to work with it’s private industry partners to help them solve the problems they are having.

Also, you are aware that part of NASA’s mission is to share it’s knowledge with American industry? Here is just one example.

And customers helping their suppliers solve problems is not unusual in business – it happens all the time in the manufacturing world, especially when you’re dealing with unique products and services.

Fair criticism.

“What actually has happened is that in the dry run for this test flight FRR”

Do you have a link or other evidence?

“where the money to pay the non-Space X personnel”

There is a small pot of money (~5%, IIRC) within the COTS budget for the NASA program office.

An interesting progression of descriptive language. First MSNBC reports:“but more time is needed to analyze changes in SpaceX’s flight software and make sure all systems are go.”

Then MSNBC reports (siting their own previous article):”but SpaceX said liftoff would be held up while NASA was double-checking changes in the flight software.”

So “analyze changes” had been changed to “double-checking”.

Then “Dark Blue Nine” changes the description again:“because NASA technicians need more time to understand the mission software”.

So “double-checking” is now changed to “understand”.

Then “Dark Blue Nine” asserts:“The schedule slippage is due to NASA, not SpaceX.”

Blaming the delay on NASA not understanding Space X software (even though he is the only one to imply that NASA does not understand Space X software).

What actually has happened is that in the dry run for this test flight FRR last fall the Space X software just plain did not work. NASA has been working with Space X since that time to fix Space X software problems. It would be interesting to know – for those who claim to believe that the COTS program is commercial – where the money to pay the non-Space X personnel to help Space X fix its software problems is coming from:
– Is Space X being billed?
– Is the money coming from COTS (and how does that match up with ‘fee for service’)?
– Or is the money being transferred from other NASA accounts?

SpaceX has no contractual obligations under COTS, it’s a Space Act Agreement. They only get paid if they deliver, unlike your cost-plus friends. Your transparent and grotesque lies are why no one here takes you seriously.

It’s time for Congress to step in over the commercial coddlers at NASA, hold hearings and call the management of this firm and the commercialists within NASA on to the carpet for an investigation on the failure of this firm, after being granted so many breaks in scheduling and subsidizes, to meet schedules and fulfill its contractual obligations. Better still, their failure to meet schedule is testimony enough. Terminate the contract. Fire them.”

NASA is not going to fire a company because NASA technicians need more time to understand the mission software:

“The launch of SpaceX’s Dragon capsule atop a Falcon 9 rocket at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida had been set for May 7, but SpaceX said liftoff would be held up while NASA was double-checking changes in the flight software.”

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/03/11525131-spacex-chief-wants-to-be-spaceflier?lite

Don’t be a flaming idiot, fella. The schedule slippage is due to NASA, not SpaceX.

” an aerospace WPA project,” I find your comments churlish but I am that way sometimes…what is really annoying is when you try and rev up the knowledge of history and know almost nothing about it…sigh”

Hmmmm. LOLOLOL Speak for yourself, RGO. Those were Deke Slayton’s words, RGO. History has never been your strong point.