I showed you the source with one of the Chief SpaceX engineers presenting that information.
A source with incorrect numbers for F9.
But its fairly obvious that a FH returning to down range will have more capacity than returning to launch site.
And as I said, that would require moving the drone ship (or both depending on the direction) to a different ocean.
Define what this means. Because its not oversized for reuse.
According to your prior claim it certainly is oversized for reuse as well. Remember you claimed the majority were less than 5 t, which is much less than the ~16 t for LEO.
I would define it where the actual payload is less than 90% of the capacity.
An AtlasV
Is from a different company, significantly complicating the comparison.
You have additional issues that for every rocket you reuse, you dont need to build an additonal booster.
This means lower fixed cost, which adds to the picture.
For a model of reuse.
For a model of disposable, that would not be part of the fixed costs.
Your ignoring that SpaceX can launch 60+ rockets
Another hypothetical "can"?
Rather than what they have actually done?
in 2021, their best total year, they launched 31 rockets. Roughly half of your claim of 60+.
In 2022, so far they have launched 33, with more planned, noting that several of those planned have been delayed from prior years, and don't have definitive dates.
Hydrogen means you cant use certain materials that could be used for other fuels. Its not a cold problem, its a Hydrogen problem.
Almost all launches that are held during countdown for hydrolox rockets are due to Hydrogen leaks.
And you have similar issues of leaks, even those causing explosions:
https://spacenews.com/spacex-narrows-down-cause-of-falcon-9-pad-explosion/You have very badly misunderstood what I was saying here.
Or have you very badly stated what you meant to say?
According to all other rockets given as examples, it would cost more.
Again, how much would a theoretical smaller rocket cost?
One more appropriately sized for the payloads?
Lets look at what a reusable factory needs to produce a year vs a disposable for 10 launches a year
And don't forget what is needed for the refurbishment either, and all the additional components required for landing.
You are acting like reuse needs nothing extra so it is just a case of make the booster once and you can then just use it as many times as you want with no additional costs.
Reusability depends on a high flight rate. This model falls apart if you only fly a few times a year
So imagine how much worse off SpaceX would be if they weren't continually launching starlink or other useless space junk?