This would be OK if Space-X had fixed their problems with the Falcon 9. Space-X has been very quiet - they haven't issued a news release for almost four months now. There's still no date for the next launch. Spaceflight Now said "early November" in an article back in September[1], but that date has come and gone. There's "TBD" launch date in December, but that's probably not realistic.
The Falcon 9 explosion, Space-X claims, was due to a strut being far under-strength. When they tested their inventory of struts made by a contractor, some failed at 20% of the rated load. Space-X hasn't provided further details. They claim to be "tightening up their supply chain". That probably means requiring 100% traceability of every structural part back to the raw material and much more testing at incoming inspection. This is standard in aviation (which is why structural failure airplane crashes of production aircraft are very rare) but something Space-X wasn't doing.
One wonders what other problems they've found as they put part after part through strength tests. Probably more than they've admitted, or they'd be launching by now.
You're just not paying attention. They've wrapped up their investigation of the problem, they've conclusively identified it and figured out how to prevent it from happening again (both through more thorough part testing and through beefing up the specs on the particular component so it has even more margin in a "belt and suspenders" approach). They've bundled their mitigation techniques into the roll-out of the next iteration of the F9 (sometimes called the v1.2 but officially called the "FT" or "Full Thrust" version) which will be the version which gets launched from now on. They've done a static fire test on the first stage that has a planned launch in early December and they've done all the other prep-work for a launch then. It's very likely that if the weather cooperates they'll have a return to flight within about 3 weeks.
All the pieces are coming together for the next launch, now.
One itty-bitty nitpick. There's one more F9 1.1 launch scheduled: Jason 3 set to launch out of Vandenberg as the 3rd launch after they resume. After that the old ones are done, though.
> This is standard in aviation (which is why structural failure airplane crashes of production aircraft are very rare) but something Space-X wasn't doing.
That is going to require sources. Primary responsibility for quality is going to have been the original manufacturer's. SpaceX of course will have had to (and I don't believe didn't) done their own check testing of components, but you write a contract with a supplier to put the risk on them for the timely supply of to-spec and to-tolerance parts.
And then you take it to your supplier when they've failed to meet their contracted failure rates, which could also be called "tightening up your supply chain."
I'm sure there'll be more quality involvement on SpaceX's side but I'd be awfully surprised if they weren't generally following industry standards.
One should also take into account that the return to flight is going to be with what is called "Falcon 9 Full Thrust" - essentially, Falcon 9 v1.2 - a lengthened and upgraded rocket. Some of the extra delays have undoubtedly been due to teething problems with this new stack.
The Falcon 9 explosion, Space-X claims, was due to a strut being far under-strength. When they tested their inventory of struts made by a contractor, some failed at 20% of the rated load. Space-X hasn't provided further details. They claim to be "tightening up their supply chain". That probably means requiring 100% traceability of every structural part back to the raw material and much more testing at incoming inspection. This is standard in aviation (which is why structural failure airplane crashes of production aircraft are very rare) but something Space-X wasn't doing.
One wonders what other problems they've found as they put part after part through strength tests. Probably more than they've admitted, or they'd be launching by now.
[1] http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/01/falcon-9-rocket-to-be-g...