A few years back there was some Demwit success story in Congress who complained that gubmint contracts shouldn't be used to pay for "used" rockets.
Even a new Falcon 9 runs something under $70 million for a new one, and subsequent launches run a bit over $50 million, which means using a booster ten times (which has been done) makes everyone (except the Demwit broad) happier, and SpaceX a nice profit.
Even with the added complexity of (partial) reusability, the Falcon 9 cost a mere $400 million to develop. The Shuttle used to run about $500 million PER LAUNCH. :^) And that was when $500 million *was* $500 million. :^D
SpaceX hasn't had its IPO, and given the hassles Musk has endured, I doubt it will while he's still alive and well. The only way I know of to get a piece of it is indirectly, through one of the Baron Funds (I think the symbol is BFGIX).
Just shows how much of a cost of rocket is wrapped up in graft. If NASA needs $500 million for each rocket launch, but Musk’s entire cost for rockets, several launches, is $500 million for the year, that’s like 80% or better graft under NASA.
Whoever wrote that should know that some Falcon-9 boosters are over TWENTY flights. At ten, they're just getting warmed up.
It doesn't even have to be graft. My father-in-law was recruited by JPL, a major NASA contractor because he had the specific skillset they needed. He retired back when NASA was still a fairly well-run agency. He told me a few stories of the layers of bureaucracy which wasted money needlessly despite the best of intentions. It was just built into the system.
One can only imagine the graft and corruption now that it attracts the type of people (including DEI hires) whose objective is to milk the system.