Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, so your argument for Starship not being the best choice for all mission profiles is based solely on cost. If Starship was cheaper, then you'd agree that it serves the mission profiles? An estimate of 2 billion per launch is laughable, and suggests you are not arguing in good faith. 100m is more accurate for a fully disposable launch, and SpaceX has demonstrated great progress on reusability of the booster, which…
2 billion at the high end isn’t actually unreasonable when compared to falcon 9’s costs which are sitting around 100m/launch right now largely due to inflation. There’s a have a fairly linear relationship between rocket payload and size, and for large structures going big tends to increase cost per pound so ~10x the size resulting in ~20x the cost is just mildly pessimistic. If and only if they the thing is both rapi…
SpaceX's financial situation argues very differently. They have raised relatively little money for a company that is spending multiple billions on two very expensive development programs (Starship and Starlink).
If Falcon cost $100M per launch the 134 launches this year would have bankrupted the company. The $1.7B they raised in spring 2022 was their last major capital injection, and have been self funded since.
If Falcon cost substantially more than $20M to launch SpaceX would need to be getting external money from somewhere. They aren't. Their revenue is well understood and is around $10B per year, and salary costs fot 13,000 people are going to consume most of that. What NASA and the Space Force pay is public knowledge, what they charge for a private launch is known, and the number of Starlink subscribers has been revealed.