JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-10-30 18:01, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Over 20% of all boosters flown this year were 're-used boosters'.
That's a pretty high flight rate for the first year of the capability
being production.


3 first flights, which likely got a lot more tender loving care than
would normally happen in production when your refurb procedures are
established and becomes routine.


Once it's commercial production it *IS* 'routine' by definition.


They've proven it can be done. They haven't proven they can launch 15
times per year with reflown stages.


Of course they have.


When I argued that had not yet proven with high reflight rate, one of
the cheerleaders reponded that they had done 15 flights this year and
that was proof of high rates. But only 3 of those are reflight.


You didn't argue that. You've been corrected on this numerous times
by several people. Now you're not only mentally challenged, you're an
outright liar.



and will also probably refly only once. Block 5 hardware is the final
design and will refly 10 times with only inspections and up to 100
times with refurbishment.


Perfect example of cheerleading. Has any Block 5 flown yet ? has any
been reflown? How many times has a block 5 been reflown?


Gee, I'm sorry you consider THE FACTS to be cheerleading. Run along
back to your delusions, Mayfly.


So you make assertions the same way people predicted the Shuttle would
turn around quickly and make dozens and dozens of flights per years.


And you're a lying sack of **** with substandard communication skills
and large mental challenges.


You are using goals and turning them into accomplished deeds when none
of those have actually happened yet.

Just because peoople have high confidence in SpaceX achieving a large
part of their goals doesn't mean they have already achieved them. And
that is my argument.


They've already demonstrated that they can refly BLOCK 3 hardware with
sufficiently short turn around times and low enough costs so that they
could conduct the bulk of a year's launches on used hardware. Your
'argument' is conflating multiple things and that's why your argument
is moronic.


--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain