Fwiw we don't model the rocket as ever really getting to the rapid re-useability that SpaceX are targeting. Since SpaceX are not currently counting on Starship bringing any humans back, even a single re-use followed by burn up on second re-entry would be a huge win (in this way it very much differs from the Space Shuttle--every failed landing was literally catastrophic.) In our modeling we assume that refurbishment cost = turn-time (in fraction of a year) x estimated capital cost of the top stage (basically if you have to spend a year refurbishing you'd be better off just building from scratch), and that upon first re-use it takes them three months to turn the rocket (diminishing on a learning curve trajectory per launch from there.) SpaceX enjoys a huge advantage relative to NASA in that they can incinerate the craft as part of testing. It may be that the economic optimization is on rapid re-use until failure (with the inspection portion only designed to insure that it's ascent-ready rather than descent-ready, and they determine descent-readiness on the way down--"We're doing it live!"--diverting from the tower if it becomes too compromised.) People underestimate how meaningful it is that SpaceX has moved into a domain where it effectively has attriteable equipment. That they launched 20(!) experimental satellites knowing that they would all only have 20 minutes of time in space is a huge advantage relative to a team where each component and part is not designed for manufacture and so therefore extraordinarily precious, not least because any data coming off those components and parts may not duplicate for the next 1 of 1 semi-prototype.