>>1658220>The fact that a reusable rocket costs much less and is at least as dependable as a disposable rocket.Hardly a fact at all. It's highly situational, in fact. While I'll agree that reusable rockets have the POTENTIAL to be much less costly, it certainly isn't inherently the case that they are. STS was designed to be reusable, but wound up being one of the most costly launch systems to date.
As for reliability, again it's situational but generally speaking I would be inclined to disagree with you and argue that expendable rockets have the advantage with dependability. What would you expect to perform more dependably - a brand new product straight from the original box, or a refurbished one that's seen some use? The new one, obviously, all else being the same. I see no reason why the same notion shouldn't apply to rockets as well - they live a hard life, after all.
>>1663229Perhaps, but they did land intact. Numerous times. SpaceX's efforts towards reusability mirror the STS program in a lot of ways. Increasingly so, with Starship. And it's far from given that things will work out all peachy this time. Falcon 9 was successful largely because it was initially designed to be useful even as a fully expendable launch vehicle in the event that reuse didn't pan out, so being able to successfully and economically reuse the boosters is just gravy. With Starship however, SpaceX seems to be risking it all, just like the Shuttle program did. And I don't like it one bit.
