> That's mostly guessing, though, as I'm not a rocket scientist and can't find hard information on this.
Yeah, my understanding is that you're wrong on this, though I too am not a rocket scientist. But a few points:
> SpaceX has launched and landed about 10 of these rockets, and has so far reused one. That rocket was first used about a year ago.
While this is factually correct, extrapolating from this will not give any useful insight.
> the amount of effort needed to prepare a rocket for reuse relative to that needed to produce a new rocket
It may be somewhat counter-intuitive, but an already-flown rocket is easier to fly a second time than it is the first time: it's already been "flight-proven." For example, a lot of defects on a microscopic scale simply cannot be detected ahead of time, and the only way to truly detect them is to test the rocket. This is why there are static fires ahead of launch. And it is also why there is a lot of over-engineering (in many things, not just rockets, but airplanes etc.)
The important thing here is that they land the rocket without too many additional stresses. It's not like the Space Shuttle boosters which were dumped into the ocean and had to deal with a lot of refurbishment.
> if they were, I think they would have launched a used rocket earlier.
The first one will always take longer. They're also finalizing the design, and had an accident investigation last year that was a big burden.
> I understand the enthusiasm, but
I'm not sure you do, but I hope I may have convinced you otherwise ;) The answers to your questions could really be "close to 100%" and "a few weeks to months" (more optimistic people will say "days or hours" to that last question).
What they've managed today is a huge milestone, and they're iterating on an astonishing timeframe. They hadn't even landed a single rocket a few years ago, and that was the truly difficult part. It's incredible how fast their progress has been, especially in the context of the space industry generally.
Yeah, my understanding is that you're wrong on this, though I too am not a rocket scientist. But a few points:
> SpaceX has launched and landed about 10 of these rockets, and has so far reused one. That rocket was first used about a year ago.
While this is factually correct, extrapolating from this will not give any useful insight.
> the amount of effort needed to prepare a rocket for reuse relative to that needed to produce a new rocket
It may be somewhat counter-intuitive, but an already-flown rocket is easier to fly a second time than it is the first time: it's already been "flight-proven." For example, a lot of defects on a microscopic scale simply cannot be detected ahead of time, and the only way to truly detect them is to test the rocket. This is why there are static fires ahead of launch. And it is also why there is a lot of over-engineering (in many things, not just rockets, but airplanes etc.)
The important thing here is that they land the rocket without too many additional stresses. It's not like the Space Shuttle boosters which were dumped into the ocean and had to deal with a lot of refurbishment.
> if they were, I think they would have launched a used rocket earlier.
The first one will always take longer. They're also finalizing the design, and had an accident investigation last year that was a big burden.
> I understand the enthusiasm, but
I'm not sure you do, but I hope I may have convinced you otherwise ;) The answers to your questions could really be "close to 100%" and "a few weeks to months" (more optimistic people will say "days or hours" to that last question).
What they've managed today is a huge milestone, and they're iterating on an astonishing timeframe. They hadn't even landed a single rocket a few years ago, and that was the truly difficult part. It's incredible how fast their progress has been, especially in the context of the space industry generally.