sbaglio o questa praticamente non è una notizia? Se non sbaglio avevamo giá parlato del fatto che sia boeing che spaceX non avrebbero potuto lanciare la manned nel 2017, da qui tutta una serie di problemi e discussioni sui contratti Soyuz?
Onestamente? Con tutti i rinvii che si sono susseguiti in questi ultimi anni, ho perso la rotta a dirtela tutta Regulus… 
Cmq per come me la ricordo io, Boeing ha annunciato ufficialmente il ritardo si, ma SpeceX no, magari mi sono perso insieme al WJS qualche puntata…
Vediamo cosa ci dicono chi segue con precisione questa vicenda.
C’era appunto stato l’annuncio ufficiale di Boeing e voci su SpaceX ma nessuna comunicazione ufficiale prima di questa.
In effetti è un dato obiettivo che stride non poco con l’annunciata volontà di effettuare missioni con cadenza pressoché mensile…
Una interessante analisi di Doug Messier su SpaceX a tutto tondo e in particolare su alcuni aspetti che abbiamo discusso più volte qui e che tornano periodicamente a galla anche su altri lidi, partendo dall’annuncio di NASA che il report sul primo incidente a SpaceX richiederà 2 anni per la chisura.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/12/13/year-wait-nasa-report-falcon-9-failure-2015/
The solution sounded simple enough. Switch strut suppliers and test all the struts when they come in to weed out defective ones rather than relying on the contractor’s guarantee. At least that’s how SpaceX and founder Elon Musk described the fix, anyway. [...] The really intriguing question is: how could NASA’s investigation into the failure of a single defective strut produce a report with “hundred pages of highly detailed and technical information” restricted by export regulations?That seems like overkill, doesn’t it? Unless, of course, the failure was more complicated than that.
In February 2016, the NASA Administrator and the Associate Administrator for the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate sent a letter to SpaceX expressing concerns about the company’s systems engineering and management practices, hardware installation and repair methods, and telemetry systems based on LSP’s review of the failure…
That conclusion was reached by an investigation board stacked with 11 SpaceX employee and a single FAA representative. [b]The FAA official was the only board member not to sign the final report.[/b]“We acknowledge SpaceX’s investigation was transparent and the observers from FAA, ISS, LSP, NTSB, and USAF had access to the investigation’s data and analysis,” the NASA IG report notes. “However, an investigation led by the employee responsible for the SPX-7 launch and run by the contractor responsible for the failure raises questions about inherent conflicts of interest.”
With rock bottom prices, a low launch cadence, repeated failures, a head count exceeding 5,000 employees, and programs that include Crew Dragon, massive satellite constellations and human Mars missions, it’s not clear whether SpaceX is actually profitable. In fact, the company removed the claim that it was profitable and cash-flow positive from its own website.If there’s another launch failure any time soon, SpaceX could be in serious trouble.
[b]And SpaceX is asking the space agency to overturn a half century of safety practices in order to launch NASA’s most valuable assets.[/b]