Back the day, before SpaceX came along a serious launch provider, ESA conducted a study on the financial viability of reuseable rockets. The conclusion was, that they are viabke, technically feasible but only financially interestung with a number of launches per year for which there was no demand.
SpaceX for sure is launching a lot of their own Starlink satellites...
> Breakeven in 2 to 3 flights
But then, 7 days ago he posted on https://www.reddit.com/r/ula/comments/17wos9u/tory_bruno_ceo...
> As I have said before, propulsive fly-back generally requires an average reuse of 10x per booster, which has been achieved.
So maybe it is difference between SMART (catch by helicopter) re-use and propulsive landing
But he does acknowledge in comments that reuse can improve launch cadence.
Today, it seems, a lot of the launch volume comes from Starlink, which is basically SpaceX in-house demand for something we have no clue about its financial viability or profitability. Hence, I am quite sceptic about a lot of the space launch stuff. We have quite reliable numbers for SpaceX competitors (launch costs, development...) while SpaceX is somewhat of a black box. That alone makes comparing claims from SpaceX (which might well be true, but we cannot tell either way) to verifiable numbers from others dubious at best.
Starlink achieved cash-flow breakeven it seems: https://www.reuters.com/technology/elon-musk-says-starlink-h...
But the journalism... that statement is only in the title.
Edit: This is the first time I hear the term "Cash-Flow Break-even"... Is this metric from the same set as "Cash-flow before outside investment" and "Community adjusted EBITDA"?
What's questionable is starlink, starship and Falcon Heavy
Starlink has been their solution to that but it is still an open question how well that makes money and for how long...
And we have not really seen a space market exploding behind it.