[morei]

> $50m is still a lot, and not every sat costs that much. How does a corporate bean counter justify spending $50m more than they have to?

That's seems pretty easy? The satellite easily has a 2 year lead time, and it's 100s of millions so you can't afford to build a spare 'just in case'. At that point, spending an extra $50M to reduce the (perceived?) chance of a 2-year project delay starts to look pretty cheap.

Of course, this is dependent on there being a material reduction in the probability of RUD. And as SpaceX has accumulated more data on reliability, it starts to get very hard to argue that there is indeed a material reduction.

[cryptonector]

The Falcon 9 launch cadence is simply incredible right now. You have to start wondering if the uneconomical competitors will be able to stay on schedule while losing business and money. How does one perceive a "chance of a 2-year project delay" with SpaceX under the current circumstances but not with Ariane? It's quite a stretch. Would it stand up in court if shareholders sued over unnecessary spending of an extra $50m/launch?