In article . com,
says...

On 2016-06-20 21:59, Jeff Findley wrote:

I'm betting it's the huge backlog of launches to take care of. Paying
customers no doubt come first.


Would it be correct to state that production of new stage1s has been
"productized" and is now running smoothly ? If they need to increase
production rate, then it is a matter of duplicating machines and
employees. Easier said than done, but folks like Boeing, Airbus increase
production rates routinely.

Sure, but that sort of capital investment costs a lot of money. Better
to reuse vehicles you've got than build new ones needlessly.

Would it be correct to state that recovery, inspection and attempts at
relaunch of used stage1s would be an R&D effort that would operate
separately from the production line ?

Most likely, but they would both share engineering, ground test, and
launch resources. SpaceX isn't building an entire spaceport in Texas
just for fun.

If so, it would not be impacted by attempts at increasing production of
new parts for stage1.

Nope. Building new stages is just one part of the overall process. The
rest is shared between new and flown stages.

However, budgets may be such that the R?D for reflight is limited
because not so strategically important/urgent. or maybe they reaslize it
is more work tnan they had thought.

It's limited by their orbital flight rate, since at this point in time
the test program is to recover and refly stages from actual orbital
missions. SpaceX has gone well beyond the realm of analysis and ground
test to the point that needlessly performing additional ground tests (on
unflown stages) just adds costs and generates little to no useful data.

Wher I can see some impact with production is in inspecting the landed
stages, they discover some part that is damaged and then tell production
folks to strenghten that part. (and then wait for that stage with
improve part to land so they can inspect it and perhaps use that one for
first reflight).

There are too many possibilities to draw any conclusions on this.

Yes, they'll find problems and fix them. That's a given. But to
timidly assume that vehicles are bad just because they've flown to space
and back is silly, especially since they've been designed from the
beginning to do just that.

Somehow we've lost our "guts". There are streets at Edwards Air Force
Base named after men who weren't afraid to climb into a flown vehicle
(many powered by rocket engines) and fly it again. Their names on the
streets were proof that this wasn't always successful. But, it is also
proof that they believed so strongly in advancing the state of the art
of aviation technology that they literally put their own lives on the
line in order to do it.

Why in the hell have we become so risk averse and timid? At times this
disgusts me, since it greatly limits progress.

Rand Simberg wrote a book about this very issue:

Safe Is Not an Option Paperback ? October 31, 2013
by Rand E. Simberg (Author), William Simon (Editor), Ed Lu (Foreword)
https://www.amazon.com/Safe-Not-Opti.../dp/0989135519

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.