Video about the Single Person Spacecraft.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bysvILy5Mck

They were still working on this project in August. I do not know the level of funding.

It sounds like science fiction but is a case of truth being far stranger than fiction. Ask Freeman Dyson.

https://www.cnet.com/news/trip-to-mars-brain-damage-space-x-elon-musk-university-of-california-irvine/

Of course, a SpaceX fanboy could simply read that as SpaceX has decided that they want 20% more profit on the reused flights.

Or a more measured reading could be:
SpaceX may still be targeting a 30% cost reduction, but they aren’t there yet. Currently a 10% cost reduction is feasible.

Or as you say:
SpaceX has determined that it isn’t as easy to reuse the boosters as they thought.

As we are discussing SpaceX economics here is an interesting point.

SpaceX’s Shotwell has previously stated that attempted recovery of the Falcon 9 first stage requires a 30% reduction in payload capacity and (in a separate statement of course) the savings for reuse would also be 30%. As I have mentioned before that is pretty much a wash.

Now, however, that appears to be changing.

The payload hit would seem to be the same (she announced no changes) but, you will find (well down in the article) that the stated savings from reuse have now been reduced to 10%.

http://spacenews.com/spacexs-shotwell-on-falcon-9-inquiry-discounts-for-reused-rockets-and-silicon-valleys-test-and-fail-ethos/

“What is your current thinking on the savings for customers using a reused Falcon 9 first stage? Is a 30 percent discount realistic?

We are not decreasing the price by 30 percent right now for recovered and reused vehicles. We’re offering about a 10 percent price reduction.”

Reality of what it will take to refurbish a Falcon 9 first stage appears to be sinking in on Shotwell. Wonder if it ever will on Musk.

I think you mean Challenger’s loss.

Otherwise, the other loss was Columbia.

“The International Panel on Fissile Materials, at Princeton University, estimates the stockpiles of weapons-grade plutonium at 88 metric tons for the United States and 128 metric tons for Russia. To give you a sense of how much plutonium that is, it is an unclassified fact that a nuclear weapon can be made with as little as 4 kilograms of plutonium. It’s a slightly touchier subject that this is the average in the U.S. stockpile — one can make do with less. But let’s do the math: Even at 4 kilograms per nuclear weapon, 88 metric tons represents enough material for 22,000 nuclear weapons.

One hundred and twenty-eight metric tons is enough for 32,000 nuclear weapons.”

From: ‘The United States and Russia Are Prepping for Doomsday’
October 8, 2016
At: https://www.yahoo.com/news/united-states-russia-prepping-doomsday-165806407.html

So, 22,000 and 32,000 equals 54,000 pulses…

That should be enough to get a large Orion pulse ship to Ceres and back several times.

Or pick some other useful destination or destinations.

If we are wise, the plutonium would become available.

Let’s be wise and put it to good use.