Is a great goal, but a huge compomise.

For cars and airplanes, reusability is the go, and maintainance is a regular chore. The more sophisticated and high-performance the vehicle, the more difficult the maintenance becomes, because the vehicle is built to tighter tolerances with smaller spaces and harder access, more aerodynamic, and more integrated in stress distribution AND more sophisticated systems.

For a spacecraft, the cost of adding a hatch to open to get at the parts to check them and allow replacement adds so much to launch weight and system complexity that it's almost an impossible ask. It's MUCH cheaper in the long run to stamp out cheap one-offs on an assembly line like model T fords and fling them up, then toss them away afterwards. You can recycle the *materials* but not the structure or the parts, due to wear and fatigue.

This equation is even further biassed against reusability if dumb short-term political decisions are made that compromise the ideal in favour of short-term cost and politics.

Like making the srb's in segments, or not having titanium leading edges on the shuttle.

Tom may have some useful comments about how re-usability CAN be acheived but it always seems to be in lower-stress applications than the cutting edge. e.g. suborbital flight or LEO missions vs cis- and trans-lunar.