The problem is ESA/Arianespace rocket simply operate very differently. Because of solid boosters and hydrogen first stage, the first stage for their rocket rea

The problem is ESA/Arianespace rocket simply operate very differently. Because of solid boosters and hydrogen first stage, the first stage for their rocket reaches a far higher speed then SpaceX first stage does. And that makes it much harder to recover, and much more costly. SpaceX regularly recovers boosters for GEO missions and soon even moon missions, because it doesn't matter so much for them, the profile of the first stage is not all that different. If the Falcon 9 can't handle it, they rather use the Falcon Heavy and land that, rather then throw away a Falcon 9 core. Only in the most extreme situation, would Falcon Heavy drop its core booster. SpaceX has 1 mission on its books that will require the Falcon Heavy booster to expand its core. The side booster would still land in this case. So SpaceX has 100+ launches on its manifest right now and of all those a single launch is planned to not fully reuse its first stage. > I would love to see SpaceX financials Your not the only one. We have lots of different analysis that have been done and most put marginal internal cost for a SpaceX mission to 20-30 million. And SpaceX sells launches for 60M, with extra cost depending on what costumers ask for.