I think that these sorts of articles are confusing the larger cost driver here: the payload. Other SpaceX-tier companies can emerge in the realm of cost per kilogram, but if you look at the total cost of one of their F9 launches, it rarely ever comes close to the price of the payload. Where price per kilo actually does matter in these instances are for small-sats and there just isn't a big enough market for small-sats to ensure the sort of growth you'd want. There are small-sat launchers out there, and a lot of them are trying to figure out ways they can amortize the cost of their vehicle toward zero (full reuse, never needing to do maintenance or minimal maintenance, barebones number of employees), since the market for small-sats just isn't anywhere near as large. The problem has lessened a bit now that the launchers have managed to exist longer than a few years, but I don't think we'll ever see a small-sat launch market that's anywhere near as healthy as the medium and heavy payload ones.
If NASA actually wants to make costs go down, they ought it be focusing on how they can construct their next space telescope at a tenth the cost, not focus on how to make rockets cheaper. Someone else will figure out how to do that, but no one is looking at the payload issue.
Server16Ark t1_j8nm7fz wrote
Reply to NASA's "evolved structures" radically reduce weight – and waiting by Maxcactus
I think that these sorts of articles are confusing the larger cost driver here: the payload. Other SpaceX-tier companies can emerge in the realm of cost per kilogram, but if you look at the total cost of one of their F9 launches, it rarely ever comes close to the price of the payload. Where price per kilo actually does matter in these instances are for small-sats and there just isn't a big enough market for small-sats to ensure the sort of growth you'd want. There are small-sat launchers out there, and a lot of them are trying to figure out ways they can amortize the cost of their vehicle toward zero (full reuse, never needing to do maintenance or minimal maintenance, barebones number of employees), since the market for small-sats just isn't anywhere near as large. The problem has lessened a bit now that the launchers have managed to exist longer than a few years, but I don't think we'll ever see a small-sat launch market that's anywhere near as healthy as the medium and heavy payload ones.
If NASA actually wants to make costs go down, they ought it be focusing on how they can construct their next space telescope at a tenth the cost, not focus on how to make rockets cheaper. Someone else will figure out how to do that, but no one is looking at the payload issue.