SpaceX, flying again

The Washington Post has an article by Christian Davenport, who covers the defense and space industries for The Post's financial desk; he joined The Post in 2000 and has served as an editor on the Metro desk and as a reporter covering military affairs; he is the author of the book As You Were: To War and Back with the Black Hawk Battalion of the Virginia National Guard, about the next flight by Elon Musk's company:

SpaceX said that it has discovered the cause of its September of 2016 explosion and plans to return to flight soon. The conclusions of the company’s investigation have yet to be approved by the Federal Aviation Administration, and the agency has yet to provide it a license to launch. But SpaceX’ statement means that it has confidence that Federal agencies will approve its remedies for the problem, and that it will soon receive the green light.
SpaceX’ Falcon 9 rocket exploded (video, above) while being fueled on a launchpad at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station ahead of an engine test firing on 1 September 2016. No one was on board the rocket, and there were no injuries, but the blast touched off a massive fireball and caused extensive damage, including the loss of a commercial satellite.
In its statement, SpaceX said it traced the cause to a pressure vessel in the second-stage liquid oxygen tank. The tank buckled, the company said, and supercooled liquid oxygen pooled in the lining. The fuel was ignited by breaking fibers or friction. The company said that, in the short term, it plans to change the way it loads fuel. Eventually, it plans to change the design of the pressure vessels to prevent buckling.
SpaceX led the investigation, which was overseen by the FAA, the Air Force, NASA, and the National Transportation Safety Board. Shortly after the explosion, Musk had said it was “turning out to be the most difficult and complex failure we have had in fourteen years” and asked the public for help. Over the past four months, the investigation took several bizarre twists and turns. Musk said there was a mysterious “bang sound” that may have come from “the rocket or something else” seconds before the explosion. And at one point, SpaceX officials asked for access to the roof of a nearby facility used by rival United Launch Alliance, implying sabotage.
The explosion was a major setback for SpaceX, which has a significant backlog of commercial satellite launches. The company is also under contract to fly cargo and, eventually, astronauts to the International Space Station. But the accident, the company’s second failure in less than two years, touched off concerns about its ability to fly safely and reliably.
If all goes according to plan, SpaceX plans to launch communications satellites for Iridium, a McLean, Virginia-based company, on Sunday from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
In an interview in November of 2016, Matt Desch, Iridium’s chief executive, said he wasn’t worried about entrusting its three billion dollars worth of satellites to Musk. “We’ve been privy to the thinking and the analysis and the data involved at a very deep level,” Desch said. “So, yes, we know why he is saying what’s he’s saying and concur that they have found the issue. We’re encouraged, too, that it was procedural. We are back on the path for a first launch and, yes, I feel very confident that the issue that was found won’t be repeated for our launch.” Still, he said on Twitter that the company would wait to load the satellites onto the rocket until after the prelaunch engine test.

Rico says hopefully this'll fix the problem...