In article ,
says...

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-10-30 14:14, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Those are two different things. NO ONE has claimed the former because
Falcon 9 isn't intended to go there. As for the latter, over 20% used
boosters in the first year of offering them commercially IS a 'high
rate' for anyone who is sane.


I argued that they had not YET achieved higgh reflown rate. The response
was that they had done 15 this year and this constituted high rate of
launches.


No, that's not what happened, Mayfly. If I didn't know how defective
your communication skills and long term memory are, I would assume you
were deliberately lying. What happened was that you complained that
SpaceX has not demonstrated an (unqualified) launch rate yet. People
told you what the LAUNCH RATE was so far this year. If you had meant
launch rate of 'used' boosters you should have said that. You didn't.


The mentality in this group is that the reflying is a mission
accomplished when it is still at a prototype/evaluation stage.


No. I've been using the word 'production', assuming you knew what it
meant. Perhaps I need to explain and go over the timeline once again
for you. PAY ATTENTION, YOU ****ING YAMMERHEAD!

In 2014-2015, SpaceX did DEVELOPMENTAL TESTING of reflying boosters,
including both 'water landings' and some 'solid surface' landings. In
2016 SpaceX did OPERATIONAL TESTING of reflying boosters. At the
beginning of 2017 SpaceX declared reflying boosters to be COMMERCIAL
PRODUCTION and has not had a failure so far this year. Now, what
'production' means in this context is that they are done testing and
are engaging in routine commercial sale. So reflying *IS* "a mission
accomplished" and it most decidedly is ***NOT***
"prototype/evaluation". "Prototype/evaluation" ended in 2015.

Agreed. And if JF needs some cites...

News from yesterday:

Falcon 9 tasked with Koreasat 5A mission as NASA approves flown boosters
October 30, 2017 by William Graham
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017...easat-5a-nasa-
approves-flown-boosters/

Quote from above:

According to L2 coverage of extensive reviews, NASA has
internally cleared SpaceX to begin using flight-proven
Falcon 9 vehicles to launch Dragon.

While NASA?s official stance remains one of no decision
being made, information has pointed to CRS-13 being the
first mission, re-using the first stage of the rocket
that carried CRS-11 to orbit earlier this year.

If this proves true (e.g. if "upper management" doesn't overrule the
engineers), then NASA will officially approve of flying on reused Falcon
9 first stages. When this does become "official", it will be big news.

And this:

SPACEX SET TO RESUME LAUNCHES FROM SPACE LAUNCH COMPLEX 40
LLOYD CAMPBELL, OCTOBER 29TH, 2017
http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/or...e-exploration-
technologies/spacex-set-resume-launches-space-launch-complex-40/

Quote from the above article:

The CRS-13 mission will utilize a previously flown Dragon
resupply spacecraft that carried some 4,387 pounds (2,015 kg)
on the CRS-6 mission in 2015. The Falcon 9 booster that will
propel the mission off the pad is slated to return to CCAFS,
landing at SpaceX's Landing Zone 1 (formerly Cape
Canaveral's SLC-13).

So, the next CRS mission to ISS, paid for by NASA, is shaping up to be a
previously flown Dragon on top of a previously flown Falcon 9 first
stage. Since this is scheduled to fly in December, we should get to see
this (historic, IMHO) flight this year.

That will be quite the endorsement of reuse, IMHO.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.