I also like to think if you build lots of anything, the price comes down exponentially.
...
I think if we had applied the same theory, build a bunch of shuttles, we could have seen more savings, and a smaller loss.
According to
this page, the last shuttle built cost $1.7 billion. Probably a good deal more if you include development costs, but still comparable to the cost you quote for a B-2. Average cost to launch a shuttle: $450 million. I haven't seen any figures for B-2 sortie costs, but I'm probably safe in guessing they're a whole lot less than $450 million.
If NASA had bought 10, or 20, or 100 shuttles, the unit cost would have come down, but it still would have cost hundreds of millions for each launch. Much of that cost comes from the hordes of skilled workers required to refurbish the shuttle after each mission. With ten times as many orbiters, you would need ten times as many workers to maintain the same flight rate per orbiter. More VABs and launchpads would likely also need to be built. Otherwise you'd get the same flight rate from the shuttle program as a whole, but with each orbiter flying a lot less often. Not to mention you'd need more astronauts, more mission control staff, more trainers, and so on. Also, and not to be morbid, but after each shuttle disaster you'd have an even more enormous capital asset sitting on the ground for years, accomplishing nothing but still costing you a ton of money.
I also think sending seven people on a mission and bringing them all back is a bad idea. 3 or 4 could have accomplished the same missions, and been far less risky to the riders.
I doubt that fewer crew on each shuttle mission would have improved anything. Everybody had a job to do, so with fewer people on board they would just get less done, requiring more flights to accomplish the same goals. Given the same failure rate, more launches means more risk of losing a crew. Also, more launches equals more expenses.
The basic problem with the STS was that 1970s technology (and timeless politics) could not deliver a reusable launch vehicle at a reasonable price. Too many things needed too much work between flights, like the SSMEs, the ludicrously finicky TPS, and who thought shipping SRBs across the country to refuel them was a good idea?
It was a grand dream, but let's face it, STS would have been replaced long ago if there hadn't been so many vested interests, in NASA, congress, and industry, keeping it alive.
Perhaps something like Skylon will make the dream a reality before too many more decades pass.
