Sorry, wasn't aware we were in debate. We're sitting here in general last I checked. Weird.
How is providing the 'worst case' cherry picking? I didn't use it to make any argument, I even put the best case scenario for the Delta right in the body of my post. The same for SpaceX has already been provided previously. I'm not attempting to do anything with it beyond presenting it as more information that could be of use.
I'm saying NASA's costs are higher, because their tech is older/aging. It doesn't have the same efficiencies that SpaceX was able to build into their rockets, because they didn't exist when the current 'fleet' of NASA rockets were created.
.
.
.
Disregarding the fact that you have yet to present a single shred of evidence for any of these claims, let's talk about one thing. "They can charge less than Nasa" and "For profit company". Alright, if they're in this for a profit (as is, so you claim NASA) and are having to WORK with NASA, why oh why are they presenting their costs as being 10-20% of those of NASA? How does this make any sense? Seeing as supposively these numbers are just made up, why not 80-70% of the cost to still look like it's progress, but keep a nice profit margin? Or hell, why worry about showing a reduced cost at all? I think you're just making word salad here.
you really like to parse words to fit your argument. we are going back and forth on something, so yes, for intents and pursposes...this is a DEBATE. geez
anything the governement (NASA) is involved in is going to be more expensive than private companies....$10k toilet ring a bell?
Regarding decreased costs. if they didnt offer a substantial savings over NASA costs they wouldnt get any contracts. NASA is trusting them a lot to be able to deliver the payloads to the ice wall without the rocket blowing up, for them to not be in control there has to be a demonstrated reduction. Remember these nonsense costs are based on going into orbit, not just to the ice wall, so there is already a huge inflation. They can also play with the pounds of payload to increase profits, such as saying the payload weight 2x as much as it did. put this all together and plenty of profit.
In the end, the rocket launces are just about keeping up the show the fund NASAs budget, the majority of the shipments are still going via ship delivery, but that isnt in NASA budgets so they need something to fund everything else..i.e. high altitude planes (satellites), CGI, etc etc.
BTW the proof that they are using planes as satelittes is not very well hidden on their own page. high altitude planes (70,000 ft cruising altitude) that "test" satellite sensor development...lol, ok:
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-046-DFRC.html