Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

At this point, we are highly confident of being able to land
successfully on a floating launch pad or back at the launch site
and refly the rocket with no required refurbishment.

Isn't that last bit a tad, well, optimistic? Have they really
recovered enough of these things to know there won't be any
refurbishment required? I would have thought that actually getting
one back fully intact would be something of a pre-requisit for
determining no refurbishment was required.

I'd say so, at least for "land successfully on a floating launch
pad". Unless we're talking about something as stable as a platform
like those used in oil drilling, the "floating launch pad" is going
to be bobbing around in the sea, making landing on it quite a bit
more difficult than a fixed landing pad. We'll have to wait until
Flights 14 and 15 to see exactly what SpaceX is going to try next.

Well, there is that, but I was actually referring to the "no required
refurbishment" assertion.

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, Hummer H2 with California Save Our Coasts and Oceans plates
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...