Your post is an object lesson for my growing loss of interest.
Avoiding the point. I hammer the idea of reusability until I am blue in the face and you act like you never hear of it. When I specify the cost of a Falcon 9 launch in terms of non-reusable upper stage, it follows I am talking about the end goal of Falcon pricing:
Falcon 9 Cost = main booster/100 + upper stage ($21M) = upper stage + change.
From Spacex directly:
By the way, NASA has already purchased a Falcon 9 launch for an X ray satellite project at a price of $50.3M:"SpaceX believes a fully and rapidly reusable rocket is the pivotal breakthrough needed to substantially reduce the cost of space access. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket currently carries a list price of about $54 million. However, the cost of fuel for each flight is only around $200,000—about 0.4% of the total. The majority of the launch cost comes from building the rocket, which flies only once. Compare that to a commercial airliner. Each new plane costs about the same as Falcon 9, but can fly multiple times per day, and conduct tens of thousands of flights over its lifetime. Following the commercial model, a rapidly reusable space launch vehicle could reduce the cost of reaching Earth orbit by a hundredfold."
This is an intermediary point along the development of Falcon 9 reusability. As the 4th, 5th, 10th flight etc reused booster flies, Spacex will gain more margin in pricing to lower them further.“The total cost for NASA to launch IXPE is approximately $50.3 million, which includes the launch service and other mission-related costs.”
Obfuscation. I mentioned our perspectives being polar opposites on virtually everything including the basic nature of the Chinese government (made by me to you not long ago on another thread). Nothing at all to do with Chinese launchers but we get a paragraph on them.
More obfuscation. I linked a Spacenews article where Viasat Government Systems president Ken Peterman makes a point that NASA can get far more done far more quickly by accepting the role as end customer and letting private companies design and manage technical solutions on their own. This results in a paragraph about regulations. Well at least I am as uninformed as a senior aerospace president.
Narrative building. When I see Spacex dump years of composite development and tooling and make a sudden switch to steel, I see Musk being Musk based on internal Spacex analysis. You create a story of Spacex being corrected and guided by more reasoned outsiders but don't provide an actual case of it. I saw a lot of criticism when this happened. Didn't seem to make any difference.
It keeps boiling down to accepting your explanations of how and why things are the way they are versus what I see with my own eyes and can deduce through my own common sense.