On 7/24/2014 1:36 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:


"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...
Fair enough - but in the case of DC-X they were able to look at the
engines etc after each of the tests. And I'm not questioning the
principle of "no refurb" reuse as much as the "confidence" assertion.
Unless one includes Grasshopper (which may indeed be applicable here
at least to a point) I would think that having confidence in knowing
there will be no refurb required would call for examining a few
successfully recovered stages. Sure, they've brought two stages to
sea level (more or less) but just how much of those stages have they
been able to examine?

It all depends on how confident SpaceX is with their hardware. Not only
does Grasshopper (and the follow-on Falcon 9R first stage test vehicle)
use the same engine(s) and other hardware as a flight stage, but SpaceX
has done numerous test stand runs of its Merlin engines. As a
consequence of all this testing, they know quite well if their engines
are capable of rapid reuse.


I suspect that the first reflights of a Falcon 9R will be "free/cheap"
payload flights.

While SpaceX may be confident, I doubt customers will be.


Greg I agree with that up until about flight 7 or so. After that, I
think the customer view will switch 180 degrees. And SpaceX will soon
discover discount pricing will be needed to convince customers to fly on
the NEW (i.e. untested) rockets! After all, this attitude is unique to
the rocket biz. You don't see people clamoring to ride in first run
hardware in the aviation biz. Even new jets get test flown a few times
before being turned over to paying customers. It *is* exciting to see
this becoming a reality in the space biz as well.

Dave