You're assuming that every launch will be at maximum capacity. That is not true.
No, I'm recognising that reusability can significantly reduce the capacity.
Why would it take more resources to reuse a rocket that's designed to be reused than to build a new disposable rocket?
Due to the complexity in refurbishing.
Why do you think the shuttle was abandoned?
A big part was how much reusability was costing.
F9 reusable has multiple tons of additional fuel it can use to save the payload at the loss of recovering the booster.
Not after the booster has disconnected and they are relying on the second stage.
We are not trying to evaluate what it cost to get a payload into Orbit, your trying to evaluate the cost feasibilities of re-use.
And in order to evaluate the feasibility of reuse, you need a valid comparison.
Do you think comparing a hypothetical rocket which could launch 100 t to LEO in disposable configuration to one which can launch 1 t to LEO in reusable configuration would be a valid comparison?
I certainly wouldn't.
But according to you, if that hypothetical 1 t launch costs any less than the 100 t disposable launch then reusability is cheaper and feasible.
All Falcon Heavy side boosters are ALWAYS reused boosters.
No they aren't.
The first commercial flight used brand new boosters.
Compare FH disposable to FH reused to make an apples to apples comparison.
No, I will compare an 8 t launch capacity to an 8 t launch capacity.
An actual apples to apples comparison.
But now your just grasping at anything that helps your point, and its not going well.
No, that would be you.
I am making honest valid comparisons.
Its a image taken at IAC
Which one?
When was it?
Are those numbers the actual capacities, or just Musk projections?
So far your narrative requires you to ignore actual facts we have available.
No it doesn't. My "narrative" uses facts which are available.
- Acknowledging that FH has multiple modes to be reused
I fully accept it has multiple modes. Where it can reuse all three 1st stage boosters, or just the side boosters, or none. And they can either return to the landing site or land on a drone ship.
- Actual use for the rockets where customers chose a FH over F9 disposable
And what about those that went the other way, choosing F9 over FH?
And there are questions of the motivation for doing so.
- multiple sources that contradict your narrative
What sources?
But you chose the worst recovery option, and then call it "Apples to apples". Your being dishonest in what your trying to analyse.
No, I'm being honest, comparing an 8 t launch to an 8 t launch.
I am using the numbers I could find from sources which should be deemed to be reliable.
You instead want to be dishonest and compare vastly different capacities and pretend that being able to put a lot less into orbit for cheaper somehow makes reusability better.
Except your using the worst layout for FH to the best layout for F9 Disposable.
Citation needed, and I don't just mean a random picture.
We also have multiple sources saying that refurb is mostly just checking, cleaning and only replacing small engine parts, not entire engines.
What sources? An audit by an independent third party?
OVER TIME!
Again WHY?
Because there is nothing in the laws of physics that forbids it. The STS was reused, but had technical and management issues.
And was impractical for reuse. One of the major issues was the tiles for the reusable heat shield instead of a disposable heat shield.
But even they didn't reuse the main fuel tank.
Dragon capsules are reused.
When you have people inside needing to get back down to Earth, you kind of need the vehicle to be recoverable, and that means you already need the components which would be needed to make it reusable.
But notice that they still aren't recovering the second stage.
Also note that strainer is not recovering the entire thing, and instead just recovering the crew capsule.
The physics for F9 are not the same as for Starship.
The fundamental issues are still there.
You are taking a craft and accelerating it to orbital speed at orbital height.
You then need to slow it down, get it through the atmosphere without burning up and being destroyed, and then recovering it.
Comparing rocket development to rocket development is not relevant, but looking at solar roadways proves something about rocket development? You make zero sense.
No, I'm making perfect sense, you are just being intentionally obtuse.
A company looking into it doesn't mean it has merit.
EVERYONE looking into rocket re-use tells you that there is a good reason to look at rocket re-use.
Not really.
Lots of companies looking into it just indicates it would be an ideal goal to achieve.
That doesn't mean it actually has merit and should be looked into.
I know it was not invented by Musk, who said it was? It was literally just an idea he threw out in the open and said "try it if you want". I dont even know why it so strongly relates to Musk.
Because of the cult of Musk that things everything he does is perfection.
Until the idea is dead, we dont know if it will work or make sense.
A lot of ideas never really die.
Look at how many people you can find using homeopathy, or thinking Earth is flat, or still wanting solar roadways, or the centuries old vactrain, and so on.
You really are the, "only old ideas are good" person.
No, I'm fine with good ideas, even new ones.