Ah yes, the one NASA paper that Musk fans love to cite, including all of Space shuttle's R&D costs and a very low estimate of the Falcon 9 cost. Falcon 9 launches currently sell for about $80k per kg to LEO.

Yup, they're not comparable. The Shuttle values are cost, the Falcon9 values are price. Which makes the comparison even worse, because we know that Falcon9 flies with a very healthy profit, meaning their costs are significantly below the price that NASA pays.

Until there is competition or they aren't filling their rockets anymore SpaceX has no reason to lower it further.

Exactly. They don't need to sell at cost, they just need to slightly underbid the competition. Which they've executed perfectly. EU has no flying rockets right now and Ariane6 is basically DOA if it ever gets over the finish line. ULA has launched only 3 rockets this year.

SpaceX has eaten the entire western launch market by simply pricing their launches slightly below legacy prices. And at the same time they give themselves (starlink) the at-cost price so no one can compete with them there either.

Maybe Jeffery Bezos and his deep pocket book will eventually present some competition, but Blue will be fighting headwinds the entire way down to the bottom price. SpaceX has this down pat and BO will be learning on the go. Any price improvement BO makes for years to come can be matched effortlessly by SpX.

The only other plausible challenger is China, but those launches are not really available to the west.

Don’t forget Rocket Lab.

RL's current offering is a smaller rocket. There are a handful of small launcher companies out there, but I was talking about the launching of big payloads. Rocket Lab has plans to enter that category too, but hasn't flown anything yet.

I don't think that includes all of the Space Shuttle's R&D costs - those are more like $50 billion in 2023 money. The actual paper says "Total cost per launch".

Besides, Nasa doesn't uses SpaceX because they are secretly a bunch of Musk fanboi's... I suspect they are actually cheaper!

That's absolutely ridiculous, their costs are nowhere near that. Their rideshare price is $5500/kg, and every kg they sell is displacing their own payloads so there's simply no way they're pricing it at 7% of their costs. Even excluding R&D Shuttle was far more costly.

All rocket ridesharing is really cheap, because it's essentially free once the rocket has been paid for by the main payload. The only real cost to the rocket provider is ensuring that you don't interfere with the main payload.

That would be true if the main payload left the rocket with spare capacity but that just isn't the case. SpaceX's main payload can use every last kilogram of capacity. Every kilogram they sell as rideshare is a kilogram they lose for Starlink. They'll still have to pay the cost to launch that kilogram later so there's nothing free here. As I already pointed out...

SpaceX hasn't launched any production Starlink satellites as extra payload. They have all been full groups on dedicated launches.

There are two types of Starlink rideshare. Transporter goes to SSO and is dedicated to rideshare. But the other is Starlink adjacent LEO which bumps a Starlink or 3 for your payload. There haven't been many of those but there have been a few.

Starlink satellites are huge (500 kg) and a small number of them are often are the main payload.

Yeah even if there's an order of magnitude error in those calculations Falcon 9 still comes out on top. Plus, the proof is in the pudding, SpaceX is launching more frequently and putting more mass into orbit than anyone else. They could never afford it if Falcon 9 was more expensive than the Shuttle. It's crazy the mental gymnastics people will do once they've decided to hate someone.