Inspecting a landed stage just validates that it survived landing. It doesn't increase its launch reliability appreciability
They aren't going to structurally test it before launching again
If that was true you would not be able to validate that a *new* stage will launch reliably before it launches. But through testing you *clearly* can.
Unsure. If they'd landed on before the doomed CRS mission, they may have been able to identify weaknesses in struts. There may be other things in there that are on a knife edge in terms of failing.
Who says? The struts that failed were in the second stage, which they are far from being able to recover yet.
Quote from: rpapo on 06/01/2016 11:34 amWho says? The struts that failed were in the second stage, which they are far from being able to recover yet.They said the same kind struts were used all over the first and second stage. Doesn't mean that they could have detected the problem on a landed stage. Maybe, maybe not.
Any engine improvement for example.
Quote from: JamesH65 on 06/01/2016 07:01 amAny engine improvement for example.That can be found on a test stand
Were there features of the Shuttle and RS-25 launch reliability that were improved upon as a result of recovering the spacecraft and examining it? (Booster recovery certainly showed evidence of o-ring blow-by that could have been fixed but weren't, to tragic end.) Seems a lot more promising development tactic (if you can do it, of course) than launching generations of rockets until your failures diminish toward zero.