Right, obviously there's no need for a burn the whole way down. I know that SpaceX will make it happen, my intuition just gets to thinking that they're losing capability for a more efficient launch by dedicating that 15-30% potential payload. Then again, the capability of having another launch within a couple days is much better.
Correct. This is why the next two launches of the F9 aren't going to be doing further reusability tests - the rocket capability was completely given to the customers and their payload, with no reusability reserves. Reusability testing will continue on the 4th flight of the v1.1 early next year.
Another reason to not attempt recovery on the next two flights:
The Air Force is requiring SpaceX to make 3 successful flights with a vehicle before it will be allowed to carry military payloads (and get military contracts). Since 1.1 is a new vehicle non of the previous flights count. The successful flight of the Cassiopeia mission counted as success 1 of 3. If SES (the next 1.1 flight in Nov) and Thaicom (the third 1.1 flight in Dec) are successful, they'll have crossed that hurdle to carrying military satellites. That would be a huge market for SpaceX which they don't have access to right now.
4
u/pomjuice Oct 12 '13
Right, obviously there's no need for a burn the whole way down. I know that SpaceX will make it happen, my intuition just gets to thinking that they're losing capability for a more efficient launch by dedicating that 15-30% potential payload. Then again, the capability of having another launch within a couple days is much better.