JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-10-29 11:23, Fred J. McCall wrote:

But that would certainly be the way to bet. This will never be
'proven' to your satisfaction, because there will always be more
stages to turn around.

This issue is that the cheer leaders are claiming they have done it.
They haven't YET done it.


Which part of "over 20% of boosters launched this year were 'used'" is
it that you don't understand?


And the range of uncertainty is in how fast they can turn stages around
and with how much work needed. Consider the differences between having
to ship stage from KSC landing pad to Los Angeles for refurb, then texas
for engine tests and then back to KSC for relaunch vs, trucking stage
from KSC landing pad to KSC assembly building for mating with second
stage and then to the pad.


At current launch rates the difference is zero. However, we now see
what your problem is. You don't think they've "done it" until turn
around is ZERO TIME, which is a preposterous notion.


While all of that range still makes SpaceX hugely more cost efficient
than others, it does affect whether many promises if VERY cheap
spaceflight will or won't happen, whether one can launch hundreds of
satellites to give cheap internet access to everyone etc etc.


You seem to have confused a 'vision statement' with goals for the
Falcon 9 program. Falcon 9 was never intended to do any of the things
you claim above.


The ability to use rockets like commercial aircraft is a great promise,
and SpaceX's plans look promising. But they aren't there YET.


Everyone else is talking about Falcon 9. You, on the other hand, are
talking like a Falcon idiot.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine