>This figure is wrong. It's closed to 22 tons expended.

I didn't give data for expended, and not expended is 16.7 t to LEO:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9

FT: 22.8 t (50,000 lb)[1] Expended
16.7 t (37,000 lb)[6] when landing on ASDS

Note also that the "price" given on the SpaceX PR material is for non-expended launches, while the "performance" to LEO/GTO is for expendable launches. The $67 million are for 17.6 t to LEO / 5.5 to GTO. What are you criticizing here? BTW, let me know if you have an actual valid source for prices for FT launches, I was unable to find any.

>Further, you're basing your figures on the list price in an industry with little competition. SpaceX doesn't need to cut prices as much as they can because no one can compete on price anyway.

Yet you're basing your claims on an article that only argues based on (inaccurate) prices given by SpaceX. If you have valid sources regarding the actual production, support and launch costs, by all means let's hear them.

>We know roughly how much the stages of the rocket cost, and the cost of refurbishment. If anything, my numbers are conservative.

"Roughly", the same way the article makes inaccurate and false claims based on "rough calculations" and aspirational launch costs?

I honestly doubt that you have any knowledge regarding the actual costs, apart from speculations based on twitter posts and PR-BS. Remind me again when Starship was supposed to be launching people to that CGI Mars colony. Again, if you have actual valid sources, by all means let's hear them.

>That's the spirit! If we followed that logic, The United States wouldn't exist.

Lol, faulty logic. Maybe look up who founded Columbus' ships&trips and for what reason. I don't know why people are still so delusional to compare spaceflight to naval exploration. As far as I can tell it has been pointed out to oblivion why that is gigantic fallacy based on ignorance with a nice sprinkling of dunning-kruger.

There is no reason and no feasible way - and there won't be using purely chemical rockets - to build up a "space mining industry or a space manufacturing industry". Because it's order of magnitudes more costly to do any of this in space than to do it on earth.

Neither is any form of actual "space tourism" realistic apart from ferrying obscenly rich people to small existing stations. The whole notion of "space hotels" is so utterly stupid that I'm have trouble comprehending that people would actually fall for these grifters, apart from a basic lack of knowledge regarding the compelxity of orbital operations. Space tourism isn't simply "like cruise ships, but in space".

You can't just add "space" to stuff and pretend that that's going to be the next big thing because "Space" and Daddy Elon whispering sweets nothings into your ear. If you actually do the math and look at the feasibility you'll notice that not only do none of these space mining and tourism visions to defraud investors add up. You'll also note that instead of funding those Mars colonies, Starlink is literally burning money and desperate for investors.

And again, what does Moore's law have to do with any of this?