Thursday, July 30, 2015

NTSB Releases Virgin Galactic Findings

November 3, 2014 ... NBC News interviews NTSB officials investigating the SpaceShipTwo crash. Video source: NBC News YouTube channel.

Nearly nine months after the loss of Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo vehicle VSS Enterprise on October 31, the National Transportation Safety Board held a public hearing on July 28 to release its preliminary findings.

Click here for the report synopsis. The final report is in final revisions. The video of the hearing is available on the agency's web site until the end of October; I will try to obtain a video copy to post on YouTube as a permanent archive.

Despite public perceptions that Virgin Galactic was responsible for the flight tests, those were performed by the ship's designer, Scaled Composites, which employed the test pilots.

In January, Virgin Galactic announced it would assume control of the testing program from Scaled.

The investigation concluded that Scaled co-pilot Michael Alsbury prematurely released the ship's feather system.

Afterward, the aerodynamic and inertial loads imposed on the feather flap assembly were sufficient to overcome the feather actuators, which were not designed to hold the feather in the retracted position during the transonic region. As a result, the feather extended uncommanded, causing the catastrophic structural failure.

Although the NTSB concluded the probable cause was pilot error, much of the criticism was levelled at the Federal Aviation Administration and its Office of Commercial Space Transportation (whose acronym is AST). Inspectors were not familiar with Scaled operations, and waivers were routinely issued without verifying that Scaled was in compliance. The NTSB recommended ten actions — eight for the Federal Aviation Administration, and two for Scaled Composites.

During the hearing, it was noted that one FAA evaluator had claimed that “political pressure” had been responsible for the waivers. Apparently the allegation was made by only one person, and no specifics were provided during the meeting. The implication was that the agency was under pressure to issue permits within the procedural deadline of 120 days.

The Office of Commercial Space Transporation is a popular target for budget cuts by Congress. A May 9, 2014 Space News article warned that the agency was going to be “overwhelmed by a rising tide of nongovernment launches and experimental space activities” thanks to Congress cutting President Obama's funding requests.

Reporter Dan Leone wrote:

Under the Commercial Space Launch Act, which was last amended in 2004, AST must review applications for an experimental permit, such as the one used by Scaled Composites of Mojave, California, to test fly Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo, within 120 days of receiving them.

The President's Fiscal Year 2016 budget requested a $1.5 million increase from its FY15 budget of $16.6 million, but the House of Representatives has voted to appropriate only a $250,000 increase from FY15.

Founded in 1982 by Burt Rutan, Scaled Composites was acquired in 2007 by aerospace giant Northrop Grumman. The corporation employed over 65,000 nationwide in 2014, and in its 2014 report stated an operating income of $3.2 billion on $24 billion in sales. $20 billion of that was in sales to the U.S. government.

Northrop Grumman is designated a “heavy hitter” by Its political action committee spent $2.3 million in campaign contributions in 2014.

Government agencies typically are regulated by two congressional committees. The authorization committee establishes policy and budget, but the appropriations committee releases the actual dollars to fund operations. The authorization committee, for example, could budget an agency for $100 in a fiscal year, but the appropriations committee could choose to provide only $50. Or it could choose to provide $150, more money than requested. reports which members of Congress received Northrop's largesse. Members of the FAA's authorization and appropriations subcommittees received campaign contributions from Northrop.

The FAA's House authorization committee is the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee's Aviation Subcommittee. The House appropriations committee is the Commerce Subcommittee.

On the Aviation authorization subcommittee, chair Frank LoBiando (R-NJ) received $10,000 in 2014 as did ranking member Rick Larsen (D-WA). The full committee's chair, Bill Shuster (R-PA), received $10,000. On the Commerce appropriations subcommittee, chair John Culberson (R-TX) received $10,000, while ranking member Chaka Fattah (D-PA) received $7,500. The full committee's chair, Hal Rogers (R-KY), received $10,000.

The FAA's Senate authorization committee is the Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee's Aviation Operations Subcommittee. The Senate appropriations committee is the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies subcommittee.

On the Aviation Operations Subcommittee, chair Kelly Ayotte received $5,000. Full committee chair John Thune (R-SD) received $6,000. On the appropriations subcommittee, chair Susan Collins (R-ME) received $5,000 and ranking member Jack Reed (D-RI) received $10,000. Full committee chair Thad Cochran (R-MS) received $10,000.

In the 2014 election cycle, Northrop gave $2 million to House members — $1.1 million to Republicans and $0.9 million to Democrats. In the Senate, where only one-third of the members are up for election each cycle, Northrop gave only $298,000 — $210,000 to Republicans and $88,000 to Democrats.

You can draw your own conclusions why the FAA may have been under political pressure to approve Scaled's permits while the agency lacked resources to do a proper evaluation.

NewSpace Advocate Rep. Chaka Fattah Indicted for Racketeering

Rep. Chaka Fattah addresses the Alliance for Space Development press conference on February 25, 2015. Video source: National Space Society YouTube channel.

One of the few supportive voices in Congress for NewSpace faces criminal charges.

WPVI-TV Channel 6 in Philadelphia reports that Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA) “was indicted Wednesday in a racketeering case stemming from the alleged misappropriation of hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal, charitable and campaign funds after his failed 2007 run for mayor.”

The 11th-term Democrat led a conspiracy that engaged in bribery, fraud, money laundering and other crimes, and netted him hundreds of thousands of dollars, federal investigators said.

Prosecutors said the charges covered several schemes, including the use of federal grants and charitable contributions to Fattah's educational foundation to pay back $600,000 of a $1 million loan from a wealthy campaign supporter and arranging a federal grant in lieu of a $130,000 payment to a political consultant.

Four others are also charged in this case.

Rep. Fattah posted this statement on his web site:

This has been an eight-year effort by some in the Department of Justice to link my public service career to some form of wrongdoing. With today’s charges, this misguided campaign has now moved from speculation to specific allegations.

As I have previously stated, I have never participated in any illegal activity or misappropriation of taxpayer dollars as an elected official. For the last 21 years, I have represented the people of Philadelphia in Congress with honor and dignity, helping millions of families through my efforts focused on education, employment, mortgage relief, and health care. I will proudly continue to serve my constituents and look forward to helping millions more.

Per House rules and precedent, I have stepped aside from my role as Ranking Member on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science.

This will not be a distraction from my service to the people that elected me, and I am confident that I will be cleared of these charges.

Fattah and fellow NewSpace advocate Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) co-hosted the February 25 media event in Washington, D.C. announcing the formation of the Alliance for Space Development. According to their web site, ASD “is dedicated to influencing space policy toward the goals of space development and settlement. The founding, executive organizations are the National Space Society and the Space Frontier Foundation.”

Roll Call reports that Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA) will replace Fattah as the Democrats' ranking member on the appropriations subcommittee. His district includes the NASA Ames Research Center. Rep. Honda faces his own ethics probe; emails “appeared to violate House rules regarding campaign activity by discussing contributors and fundraising efforts related to an official event.”

(Hat tip to Jeff Foust at Space News for the Roll Call reference.)

Rep. Fattah questions NASA Administrator Charles Bolden during a March 4, 2015 hearing. Video source: Chaka Fattah YouTube channel.

Saturday, July 25, 2015

Retro Saturday: Человек вышел в космос (Man Went Into Space)

Click the arrow to watch the film. Video source: Dan Beaumont Space Museum YouTube channel.

It will be a 42-minute investment of your time, but this week's Retro Saturday film is a rare 1965 Russian documentary (with English narration) about the early days of the Soviet space program, primarily about Alexei Leonov perparing for the first human spacewalk on March 18, 1965.

The documentary's title is Человек вышел в космос, which roughly translates as “Man Went Into Space.”

It's worth watching just for the extremely rare footage. Like many space documentaries of the era — American and Soviet — this one borders on propaganda, but it's fascinating to watch how the Soviet space program trained its cosmonauts compared to all the NASA documentaries of the era.

Friday, July 24, 2015

For What It's Worth

January 25, 2012 ... Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich delivers a space policy speech in Cocoa. He didn't win.

Dear presidential candidate,

Congratulations on offering yourself as the next leader of the free world. (Except for you, Donald Trump. Go away.)

You will have many issues to debate on the campaign trail. The space program will be one of them, especially when you troll for votes near NASA space centers and the companies that have long enjoyed uncompetitive contracts from the government.

I'm not running, nor am I likely to do so any time soon, so I'm providing my free advice on space policy to any candidate who wants it.

To begin ...

You are probably a child of the Space Age. You grew up watching the Moon landing on television. You may have built spaceship models. Maybe you sat in a cardboard box in your backyard and pretended you were Neil Armstrong.

You will be tempted to cite John F. Kennedy as the model for how a government space program should be conducted. You may condemn your predecessors for not repeating that model.

That would be a big mistake.

The fact of the matter is that most of the American public couldn't care less about the government space program. Sure, they like to watch rockets launch, like fireworks on the Fourth of July. But for years polls have shown that a majority of Americans disagree when asked if more money should be spent on a government space program.

“Let's do Apollo again” plays to a few people in the Space Coast, Houston and Huntsville, but all those districts are safely Republican and don't represent a significant voting bloc. “Let's do Apollo again” is code for “Vote for me, and I'll create tens of thousands of taxpayer-funded space jobs for you” which any rational person knows won't happen.

You never hear a “Let's do Apollo again” speech in Iowa or New Hampshire. Only in towns that would benefit from space jobs. Which tells you it's just trolling for votes.

NASA was never intended to be Starfleet, much less workfare. It was created in October 1958 as a political response to the mistaken perception that American space technology was inferior to the Soviet Union. NASA was created by merging the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics with various civilian space research programs, most of which were in the Department of Defense.

One of those was Project Vanguard. Nominally a civilian program, the Naval Research Laboratory developed the booster rocket and satellite for this nation's contribution to the International Geophysical Year. Vanguard was transferred to NASA to complete its objectives, which were to study the geophysics of the Earth and atmospheric phenomena. That's why the first objective in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 is “The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space.”

So candidate Ted Cruz is wrong when he claims that NASA's core mission doesn't include earth sciences. documented in March 2015 that Cruz “made some misleading claims regarding the agency’s budgets and the science that it conducts.”

NASA was supposed to be an aerospace research and development agency, a space version of the NACA. NASA was to uplift American space technology so it could be passed to other agencies and the private sector. Nothing in the 1958 NASA charter requires the agency to fly people into space or to own its rockets.

President Kennedy perverted NASA into a propaganda organ.

Kennedy campaigned on a mistaken claim that a “missile gap” existed between the United States and the Soviet Union. Once he assumed office in January 1961, it became his responsibility to close the non-existent “gap.”

Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarian became the first human in space on April 12, 1961. The next week, the Bay of Pigs invasion failed miserably, so Kennedy had two public relations crises to address. The Kennedy and Khrushchev staffs were planning a summit in Vienna in June; Khrushchev during the Eisenhower administration had used another summit to gloat about supposed Soviet technological superiority.

A space policy task group chaired by Vice President Lyndon Johnson recommended a program to place an American on the Moon by the end of the 1960s. Documents and recordings from the Kennedy administration prove that Kennedy's motivation was “prestige.” John Logsdon's John F. Kennedy and the Race to Moon amply documents that, despite the lyrical public prose, Kennedy made it clear to his executives that NASA's top priority was to prove to the rest of the world that American technology was superior to the USSR.

November 21, 1962 ... President Kennedy and NASA Administrator James Webb argue about the Moon program. Video source: JFK Library YouTube channel.

In current dollars, it's estimated that the Moon program cost the U.S. taxpayer about $150 billion. Yes, it was one of the most notable technological achievements in human history, but it was before its time. By the end of the 1960s, neither the electorate nor their elected had much of an appetite for spending billions on human spaceflight.

For forty-five years, Presidents and the Congress have tried to figure out what to do with the agency and infrastructure left by Apollo.

Today's congressional space authorization and appropriations committees are populated by members who represent districts and states hosting NASA space centers or their legacy aerospace contractors. The members are on those panels to assure that the pork continues — but not to resurrect Apollo, no matter what rhetoric they spew in public hearings.

NASA's history is littered with human spaceflight programs that fell years behind schedule while running billions of dollars over budget. The reasons are many and complex. The bottom line is that NASA is all but incapable of innovation in human spaceflight. Congress, in fact, passed a law in 2010 requiring NASA to build the Space Launch System using existing Space Shuttle and Constellation contractors and technology. NASA was discouraged from innovating.

Several presidents have delivered Kennedyesque space speeches. All of them amounted to naught.

Barack Obama gave a space policy speech at Kennedy Space Center in April 2010. He proposed increasing NASA's budget by $6 billion over five years, hoping to invest in new technologies that could send humans to Mars in the 2030s. Congress didn't care and wrote legislation that ordered the Space Launch System based on 1980s Space Shuttle technology.

During the 2012 Florida Republican primary, Newt Gingrich came to the Space Coast to deliver a space policy speech, then participated in a space policy roundtable. It got him mocked by fellow candidates, and by Saturday Night Live.

The “Newt Gingrich: Moon President” sketch on “Saturday Night Live,” February 4, 2012. Video source:

U.S. Census statistics show that more people alive now were born after Apollo (185 million) than before (123 million). For the majority of the population, the 1960s Space Age is a page in a history book, and has little personal emotional resonance.

So do yourself and the nation a favor. Don't invoke Kennedy.

As your campaign staff develops its space policy white paper, begin with a fundamental question — why should people be in space?

John Logsdon wrote in After Apollo: Richard Nixon and the American Space Program that the Nixon administration didn't want their President to go down in history as the one who ended American human spaceflight. People in space became the end goal. “Why” was never quite answered, other than the “prestige” argument.

In 2015, robots are the explorers.

Earlier, this month, NASA's New Horizons probe flew past Pluto. Almost ten years passed from launch to flyby. According to the 2006 New Horizons launch press kit, the probe cost about $700 million. Imagine the cost to keep humans alive all that time — not to mention the cost of returning them. The United States is the only nation to explore all planets in the solar system with robotic probes.

NASA's Curiosity rover landed almost three years ago on Mars. It's proven that water was once abundant on the planet, and continues to seek evidence of the chemical building blocks for life.

Humans evolved on Earth, not in a vacuum with solar radiation and lots of cosmic debris whizzing about the solar system at umpteen thousand miles per hour.

So is there a place for humans in space?


Robots perform tasks too complicated or dangerous for humans. They prepare the way for humanity.

But we shouldn't send people into space as an end. Human spaceflight is a means to an end.

Humans have always explored to find resources, not just for the thrill of it. Food, water, land, gold, oil — those are reasons why humanity explores.

Your space policy team must define a 21st Century space program that wisely evolves technology to serve humanity as it expands naturally into low Earth orbit and then the solar system.

Do you espouse American exceptionalism?

If so, then you probably champion the merits of American capitalism. (It's okay, Bernie Sanders, you can read this next part too.)

In June 2004, a commission appointed by President George W. Bush issued a report with a section titled, “Building a Robust Space Industry.” The report stated:

The Commission finds that sustaining the long-term exploration of the solar system requires a robust space industry that will contribute to national economic growth, produce new products through the creation of new knowledge, and lead the world in invention and innovation. This space industry will become a national treasure.

NASA opened its Commercial Crew/Cargo Project Office in November 2005. In the nearly ten years since, the agency has struggled to liberate human spaceflight from the government — an inherently contradictory task, since the primary goal of most government agencies is self-preservation.

April 21, 2005 ... NASA Administrator Michael Griffin meets with SpaceX founder Elon Musk. Image source: Wikimedia.

The Obama administration made “NewSpace” a priority, funding the commercial crew program which had gone unfunded under the prior administration. Two companies, SpaceX and Orbital ATK, offer robotic ships that deliver cargo to the International Space Station. Unlike the Space Shuttle, NASA no longer risks lives to deliver cargo. The cost of a SpaceX delivery is about $130 million. The cost of a typical Shuttle flight was about $1 billion. The cost of a SpaceX commercial crew flight will be about $450 million.

For the first time in our history, private entrepreneurs are encouraged to invest in their own space programs. The NewSpace economy is the hot new investment opportunity.

Click to watch the ISS R&D panel titled, “New Space: Funding New Ideas and Businesses in the Emerging Commercial Space Sector.” Video source: ISSCASIS YouTube channel.

Click to watch the NewSpace panel titled, “Incentivizing A Local Space Industry.” Video source: Space Conferences YouTube channel.

Earlier this month, the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space hosted in Boston its annual ISS R&D Conference. The next week, the Space Frontier Foundation hosted its annual NewSpace conference in San Jose. Both events enjoyed record attendance, in particular from entrepreneurs and companies seeking to learn more about the emerging economy beyond the atmosphere.

This is your 21st Century U.S. space program.

It should be measured not just by the size of NASA's budget, but also by all the money being invested by the private sector in NewSpace.

Commercial products are on the market or in clinical trials that were developed in microgravity.

Some research suggests that cancer tumors are less aggressive in microgravity.

Zero Gravity Solutions, Inc., a Boca Raton biotechnology company, already has an agricultural product on the market based on its microgravity research. If you're campaigning in Florida, you could stop by to plant your NewSpace roots, so to speak.

Click the arrow to watch a CASIS video about Merck research in microgravity. Video source: ISSCASIS YouTube channel.

While campaigning in New Jersey (your home field, Chris Christie!), visit Merck Laboratories to learn how the company is using microgravity to reveal the structure of antibodies that could lead to treatments for a number of human diseases.

Beyond low Earth orbit, Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries are planning to harvest and mine asteroids for commercial profit. On July 16, Planetary Resources deployed its Arkyd spacecraft to test asteroid prospecting technology.

Bigelow Aerospace will deploy to the ISS on the next SpaceX cargo flight demonstration technology for its new expandable habitats that will be the 21st Century equivalent of the forts scattered across the Old West wilderness. Many U.S. cities and towns grew up around forts. The Bigelow habitats can be deployed in lunar orbit, on the lunar surface, at Lagrangian points and attached to crew modules for deep space human exploration.

Bigelow habitats are much stronger than the aluminum and steel used to build the ISS. Objects that would penetrate the ISS will bounce off the Bigelow habitats. It's also believed that the habitats will keep out more solar radiation, making them safer for humans on deep space missions.

Click the arrow to watch a Bigelow Aerospace promotional film. Video source: Bigelow Aerospace YouTube channel.

All this American entrepreneurial spirit seems exceptional to me.

Your space policy team should write a policy paper that defines a specific path into the solar system that follows these steps:

  1. Utilize the ISS as a demonstration platform for technologies to push humans and robotics into the solar system for commercial enterprises.
  2. As recommended by the 2004 Bush-appointed commission, expand on NASA's Centennial Challenge program to encourage entrepreneurs to invest in NewSpace.
  3. Using the competition model, offer milestone payments and awards to companies that use microgravity to pursue treatments for debilitating diseases.
  4. Define a path for entrepreneurs to invest in lunar commerce. A NASA funded study issued July 20 suggests that public-private partnerships could create a viable human lunar program at one-tenth the cost of a purely government program.
  5. Create a competition for commercial companies to position the 21st Century “forts” at logical sites in cislunar space, lunar orbit and on the surface. The government could be the anchor tenant, but the “forts” would be privately owned and operated.
  6. Aid the private sector in identifying asteroid mining candidates and the means for diverting the rocks to a harvesting location in cislunar space. A commercial habitat would be a logical parking spot.
  7. Direct NASA centers to privatize their facilities, using Kennedy Space Center's 21st Century Launch Complex as a model.
  8. Echoing its NACA roots, NASA should focus on developing 21st Century propulsion systems and robotic technologies that can be licensed to the private sector.

No doubt you will be asked, “How much will all this cost?”

The answer is not much. Most of it will be paid for by the entrepreneur, not the taxpayer, because the entrepreneur will own it.

We've done this before. In the 1920s, the Post Office issued contracts to entrepreneurs willing to invest in airplanes to deliver the mail. Later in the decade, the airlines received incentives to fly people. The routes, the airfields, the safety rules we enjoy today all trace back to the commercial contracts awarded by the Harding and Hoover administrations.

Your space policy team should read Airlines & Air Mail: The Post Office and the Birth of the Commercial Aviation Industry by F. Robert van der Linden. You will find the template for how to encourage a 21st Century NewSpace economy.

But what to do with our OldSpace economy, you might ask?

To be politically realistic, there isn't much you can do. Congress will continue to guard its pork. In 2010, the Obama administration proposed cancelling the failing Constellation program. Congressional members of both parties howled — “oinked” is probably more accurate — but in the end they agreed to kill Constellation. Congress unfortunately replaced it with the Space Launch System, another pork program that's already two years behind schedule.

You have no choice but to view the $3 billion spent per year on SLS as protection money. The racketeers on the space subcommittees will threaten to kill any NewSpace programs if you go after their pork. For years, Congress has cut the funding for the commercial crew program, extending U.S. reliance on Russia at least two years. For Fiscal Year 2016, the House has already voted to cut commercial crew 20%. The Senate as a body has yet to vote, but its Appropriations Committee has voted to cut commercial crew by 30%. These cuts would continue NASA reliance on Russia for ISS access at least two more years, to 2019.

Porkery has been a congressional institution since its founding, so don't look at me for an answer. You're the presidential candidate.

A GAO audit released earlier this month estimated that the first SLS flight will cost the taxpayer about $10 billion. For that uncrewed flight and the first crewed flight in the early 2020s, the cost will be about $23 billion.

Your space policy team might want to appeal to taxpayers by arguing there's a far cheaper way to put people into space, which means more people into space. Porkers answer only to their constituencies, so nationwide polls will be meaningless, but at least you can stake out a principled position as a space fiscal conservative while also appealing to visionaries who want more people in space.

The beauty of NewSpace is that it offers a parochial appeal to almost any taxpayer. Not many places have a NASA space center. But everyone can identify with finding a cure for cancer, a vaccine for MRSA, or a treatment for osteoporosis. For the younger generations, robotics offer a technology they can easily understand and embrace.

September 12, 1962 ... President Kennedy's “Moon” speech at Rice University. Video source: Video YouTube channel.

If you must embrace your inner Kennedy, do it with a speech that challenges the nation to a 21st Century Space Race which creates an entirely new economy opening space to the masses. Unlike 1961, when Kennedy thought we were behind, this time we're already in the lead.

Direct your space policy team to contact NewSpace organizations such as the Space Frontier Foundation for the names and addresses of NewSpace companies. As you campaign across the country, arrange to visit these companies. Make friends and influence people. Encourage them to pressure their elected members of Congress to support NewSpace.

As I wrote, most of the public couldn't care less about space. NewSpace won't get you elected. But if you want to fix all that ills the American space program, hopefully this free advice points you in the right direction.

After all, Kennedy said it wouldn't be easy. It will be hard.

Monday, July 20, 2015

Struts and Frets

Click here to watch the SpaceX CRS-7 launch and loss. Video source: NASAKennedy YouTube channel.

“Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

— “Macbeth”
Written by William Shakespeare

Click here to listen to an audio recording of the media event. Audio source:

SpaceX founder Elon Musk held a teleconference today to announce the preliminary findings of the company's investigation into the June 28 loss of the Dragon CRS-7 cargo delivery to the International Space Station.

According to an accompanying SpaceX press release:

Preliminary analysis suggests the overpressure event in the upper stage liquid oxygen tank was initiated by a flawed piece of support hardware (a “strut”) inside the second stage. Several hundred struts fly on every Falcon 9 vehicle, with a cumulative flight history of several thousand. The strut that we believe failed was designed and material certified to handle 10,000 lbs of force, but failed at 2,000 lbs, a five-fold difference. Detailed close-out photos of stage construction show no visible flaws or damage of any kind.

In the case of the CRS-7 mission, it appears that one of these supporting pieces inside the second stage failed approximately 138 seconds into flight. The pressurization system itself was performing nominally, but with the failure of this strut, the helium system integrity was breached. This caused a high pressure event inside the second stage within less than one second and the stage was no longer able to maintain its structural integrity.

Despite the fact that these struts have been used on all previous Falcon 9 flights and are certified to withstand well beyond the expected loads during flight, SpaceX will no longer use these particular struts for flight applications. In addition, SpaceX will implement additional hardware quality audits throughout the vehicle to further ensure all parts received perform as expected per their certification documentation.

Musk said he thought the next Falcon 9 launch wouldn't be until at least September, and could not predict which customer it might be. A F9 was scheduled to launch this month from Vandenberg AFB in California Jason 3 ocean topography satellite for NOAA and other agencies. The next Cape Canaveral launches were to be commercial satellites for SES of Luxembourg and New Jersey-based Orbcomm.

The next Dragon cargo delivery, CRS-8, had been scheduled to launch in September. Among the payloads is the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM), a technology demonstrator for the larger expandable habitats now being built at the Bigelow Aerospace factory in North Las Vegas.

A 2014 Bigelow Aerospace promotional film. Video source: Bigelow Aerospace YouTube channel.

Bigelow's expandable habitat technology is cited by many as a critical component for government and commercial space operations in upcoming decades. The habitats may be the eventual replacement for the ISS, as well as colony structures on the Moon and perhaps the habitat module for a multi-year human space flight to Mars.

The ISS has suffered the loss of three cargo deliveries in less than a year — an Orbital ATK Cygnus last October, a Roscosmos Progress last April, and the SpaceX CRS-7 flight last month. Another Progress delivery on July 5 helped with station supplies, but the Dragon is key as the only vehicle capable of returning significant amounts of payload to Earth, including experiments and samples.

The investigation also redirected SpaceX resources working on operational status for the next-generation Falcon Heavy rocket to launch at Kennedy Space Center's Pad 39A. Musk now believes the earliest a test vehicle could launch is Spring 2016.