According to the U.S. NASA, its “commercial partner SpaceX Falcon 9 was targeted to lift off on Sunday, June 28, for the launch of its seventh cargo delivery to the International Space Station under the agency’s Commercial Resupply Services Contract. The space launch was on Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. The Dragon spacecraft was filled with more than 4,000 pounds of supplies and payloads, including

critical materials for the science and research investigations that were to occur during Expeditions 44 and 45. The first of two International Docking Adapters for the station (would have been) delivered in Dragon’s unpressurized trunk. The adapters (would have enabled) space station docking of commercial crew spacecraft, including the Boeing CST-100 and SpaceX Crew Dragon. The Dragon spacecraft arrival at the space station was scheduled for Tuesday, June 30, 2015. Expedition 44 Flight Engineer Scott Kelly of NASA would use the station's Canadarm2 robotic arm to reach out and capture Dragon at approximately 7 a.m. Station commander Gennady Padalka of the Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscommon) (would have) supported Kelly as (they operated) from the station's cupola.”

However, Space entrepreneur Elon Musk’s investors and NASA suffered a major setback Sunday when its Falcon 9 rocket carrying an unmanned cargo capsule had a catastrophic failure, breaking up shortly after liftoff from Florida’s Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. If the private company flight had been successful, the Dragon spacecraft would have returned with more than 1,400 pounds of cargo, including science experiments, crew supplies, hardware and computer resources, space station hardware, and trash. If this SpaceX Falcon9 launch vehicle did not explode shortly after lift-of, the, Dragon resupply spacecraft (could have been) the seventh commercial resupply services mission to the (ISS) International Space Station.

The weather was ideal for the launch, and “with all nine engines of the lower stage operating normally as the rocket climbed to an altitude of 27 miles, officials said sensors revealed excessive pressure buildup in a liquid-oxygen tank in the upper stage a little more than two minutes into the mission. Video showed the rocket disintegrating over the Atlantic Ocean at about 10:23 a.m. EDT as it flew faster than the speed of sound.”

The NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said immediately after the spectacular explosion, “We are disappointed in the loss of the latest SpaceX cargo resupply mission to the International Space Station. However, the astronauts are safe aboard the station and have sufficient supplies for the next several months. We will work closely with SpaceX to understand what happened, fix the problem and return to flight. The commercial cargo program was designed to accommodate loss of cargo vehicles. We will continue operation of the station in a safe and effective way as we continue to use it as our test bed for preparing for longer duration missions farther into the solar system.”

Ironically, considering the daily White House and Corporate hate-Russia print and digital media in the U.S., it is a Russian built Progress that is scheduled for a July 3, 2015 launch, which will act as a back-up for the SpaceX Dragon in case of another Falcon 9 catastrophic resupply event that would leave the ISS without supplies thus endangering the lives of the crew. According to NASA, “the Russian Progress resupply vehicle is an automated, unpiloted version of the Soyuz spacecraft that is used to bring supplies and fuel to the International Space Station. The Progress also has the ability to raise the Station's altitude and control the orientation of the Station using the vehicle's thrusters. The Progress normally takes two days to reach the Space Station. The rendezvous and docking are both automated, although once the spacecraft is within 150 meters (492 feet) of the Station, the Russian Mission Control Center just outside Moscow and the Station crew monitor the approach and docking.” The Progress has over fifteen years of reliability and safety.

It is doubtful and dangerous to think that a Falcon 9 should carry U.S. astronauts to the international space station which NASA scheduled for later in 2017. This will be a high risk political decision by the U.S. President and his hand-picked NASA administrator. However, Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX’s president stated later after the destruction of the Falcon 9 and the Dragon that the company would find the cause of the problem and correct it so that no more critical missions end up as launch failures. Orbital Sciences Corp. now a part of ATK, the only other U.S. company able to resupply the orbiting laboratory, is struggling to resume its flights after an earlier rocket failure. No matter, many questions should be raised by NASA and U.S. Air Force about SpaceX’s ability to serve both the U.S. government and a growing list of global commercial customers.

However, Mr. Bill Gerstenmaier of NASA said the loss of the rocket “could help us nail down designs” to improve safety as NASA prepares for those commercial-space taxis. More broadly, he said, “it points out the difficulties we face in space flights and the importance of avoiding complacency.” Finally as reported by Dow Jones, “the failure also represents a big and unexpected challenge for the Pentagon. After years of debate and controversy over whether to allow SpaceX to carry sensitive (C4ISR) Pentagon payloads, the Air Force officially cleared the Falcon 9 late last month to start launching Air Force satellites and some U.S. spy satellites. Sunday’s events could prompt Pentagon brass to reassess that strategy and build in additional safeguards.”

The CRS-7 Launch investigation by various government agencies will take place as the private company SpaceX has been allowed to use U.S. Government assembly and launch resources without payment. Will Falcon flights be suspended? Considering the bravado of Elon Musk, it is highly unlikely. As SpaceX was given political priority by the current U.S. President to place a spacecraft into orbit, to send a capsule to rendezvous with the international space station, and to deliver cargo to the ISS; it is clear that SpaceX’s Founder and CEO are in vortex of risk and future uncontrollable consequences.

Was the White House decision to lower the defense budget and importance of NASA while elevating the unproven Silicon Valley venture of Draper Fisher Jurvetson and other investors, a sound one? NASA provides the mission control facilities and technical oversight for SpaceX. NASA had funded SpaceX “between $400 million to $500 million dollars” and still counting. How can SpaceX be viewed as nothing more than a disguised U.S. government/military commercial space project?