In article , says...

On 8/1/2016 7:06 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
But will they really learn that much more from N (greater than one or
two as you implied from "life leader") iterations of "fill, fire and
inspect" on the ground from a stage which has been launched only once
than from one that wasn't launched?

I get your point but... Given that they have several recovered boosters
now, why would they use a new one? And if they DID use a new one,
everyone would ask "why not a recovered one? What are they trying to hide?"

Also, I am sure that SpaceX has tested enough Merlin engines on their
test stands to have a very educated idea about their MTBF without even
bothering to test a recovered booster. IMO, Part of the point of this
present testing of a recovered booster surely is to convince customers
and underwriters that pre-used boosters can be a safe bet.

In other words, it's not just science and engineering that's happening
here, it's also a public relations and sales campaign. Which is why I
wonder why it took them so long to start it.

My guess is it only made sense to spend the money on this sort of
testing *after* it had been proven that they could recover a good
percentage of flown stages. We seem to be beyond that point, with even
the most risky of landings (the three engine hover slams on the barge)
proving to be somewhat successful.

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.