JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-10-31 06:24, Jeff Findley wrote:

I see, so you're picking on the "only three" reflight number and
ignoring the success of the 12 flights of "new" first stages?


My issue is with claims by cheerleaders that SpaceX had already proven
it was capable of high reflight rate, not high flight rate.


So your issue is with your poor communication skills rather than with
anything anyone has actually said.


You guys have since admitted that the current batch will only get one
reflight (if any) ...


'Admitted'? Hell, Mayfly, everyone but you knew this already.


... and not till block 5 will multiple reflights be
possible.


Lie. No one has said any such thing. Please explain to us benighted
heathens just what a rocket expert like you thinks prevents Block 3
hardware from being reflown more than once. Be specific. *I* think
it's 'prevented' by the calendar, because there's no need to refly any
of them more than once between now and when the cheaper and easier to
refly Block 5 hardware is available. You obviously think something
happens to the booster that takes it from 'reliable when refurbished'
to "cannot be refurbished sufficiently to be reflown". Just what do
you think that 'something' is?


But have yet to agree that multiple reflights or quick
turnaround has yet to be demonstrated.


I love the way you keep changing the words (and thus your claim).



By the way, only three of those 15 flights this year have "expended" the
first stage, so they've gotten quite good at recovering stages.


Yes they have. But what is not YET known is the state of those 12
recovered stages and how much work is needed to put them on a launch pad
(or what percentage are not worth refurbishing).


You don't seem to understand. I'm curious what kind of damage you
think a booster that successfully landed with no visible damage could
take that would make it "not worth refurbishing", which would mean
that it is cheaper to build a new one than fix the old one. Enlighten
me.


3 have been reflown and a few more slated to refly, 5 out of 15 means
33% recovery rate. If they go up to 7, then roughly 50% recovery rate.


So it'll never be enough to shut you up.


It's possible that all 12 can and will be recovered, but none of the
current launch plans show this. So this remains speculation by cheerleaders.


No, this remains obvious (to everyone but you). Just think a bit. How
mangled does a new car have to get in order to be 'totaled'? I don't
think there's a way to damage a new car with no visible damage that
would 'total' it. Now apply that same thinking to a new rocket.



At any rate, there is now a huge backlog of boosters to refurbish and
refly. 2018 and 2019 should have a much higher portion of "previously
flown" stages than 2017.


If they accumulate landed new stages at faster rate than they can
refurbish them, then at one point, they have to start to throw some
away. So again, this is an unknown.


Again, you don't seem to comprehend. You appear to think that they
can only do one at a time and must complete that one before they start
the next one. We know they've managed to refurbish at least SEVEN so
far this year. And that's a minimum number. We don't know how many
more they have done but not scheduled for use yet. And two of those
seven required some structural modification into the bargain (the two
Falcon Heavy side boosters).


There is a difference between what SpaceX plans to do and what it has done.


And there is an even bigger difference between what they plan to do
and what they would need to do to 'prove' it to you.


And while there will always be a difference between its ambiutions and
what it has delivered (and nothing wrong with that), what is wrong is to
consider its ambitions to be "deone deal" when it hasn't been done yet,


And the words change yet again, and in the same article.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn