That said, platform construction costs only dominate when you can't re-use the platform. Anything you can re-use gets amortized over each re-use. That is what had made Falcon 9 so cost effective. Mostly because they get nearly 10 flights per booster.
You’re way out of date. Multiple boosters have flown over 20, a couple are at 23.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage...
In this conversation, I think the relevant point is that as the 'resusability' of the F9 booster has gone up, so has the cost to make a single booster. That's because they've added things and changed how they make them in order to boost re-usability. I expect the same evolution in Starship/Booster which will increase the unit cost in order to make them more reusable which will lower overall cost of launches because you can amortize those costs across multiple flights.
Just curious: what year is your data from?
What you said is akin to looking at the Wright brothers plane and saying “no way that thing crosses the Atlantic.”
It will improve rapidly until it does.
