There are no numbers available on SpaceX on the interesting level, namely the profit split between government and commercial launches. And as I said, there is nothing wrong with upselling on government work, everybody is doing it one way or the other. And when you use the addtional profit on government contracts to offset potential losses on commercial ones, which is totally fine, you are subsidizing. And the profit margins of SpaceX are considered razor thin, the Motely Fool did a couple of articles on that topic. As is Arianespace margin, ULA, as a main contractor of the DoD is a different case.

In terms of insurance premiums, everthing I found was statements from the launch, read first, customer of re-used Falcon-9s. If you have a source for real numbers I would really apprecoate that. As you said, insurance factors in.

Regarding price, if the basic package gets a slot at the very end and everybody is being upsold they are offering the equivalent of Ryanair's $19.99 tickets. Nothing wrong with upselling, but in the end I think we can agree it's the average revenue / cost that matters, everything else is just marketing. Again nothing wrong with that. Also I never doubted that SpaceX is the cheapest provider at the moment (significantly lower development costs), I just doubt the actual difference (I consider it to be really small). And whether competitors are unable to catch up.

I did find a study from the DLRG (German Center for Aerospace, crude translation) that saw a real benefit around 100 launches per year. Dated, and I would assume with experience the numbers change.

Important to note, SpaceX is advertising reused launchers at a 30% discount. If they don't find enough customers (I would assume low value payloads would be a perfect market segment for those, also inlone with SpaceX mission to open space for everybody. Traditional high value missions would be a different thing) they are facing an inventory problem nobody else has in the industry.

EDIT 2: In addition to inventory risk, there is the cost for fuel to get the stages back and refurbushing them. And, without enough customers, potential recycling.

But I do see why VC money is flowing their way, all of the points you mentioned make agreat story. Space being a nation state zhing, all it needs is political commitment an VC is basically competing with the bank.

And FUD, I think I lay out my thoughts pretty clearly using numbers whenever possible. I try to avoid cranking out statements without fact as much as possible. And since I don't have anything to do with space travel I don't think my opinion on HN changes anything.

EDIT: I just checked on SpaceX website, future launches are at 35 / 36 if I counted correct, not sure where the 100 comes from.

One other point regarding insurance. Costs are one thing, as is getting your money back. Loosing a unique payload setting you back months or years a different one. Honestly I'd love to see the real LSA and RAMT numbers for both Ariane-5 and Falcon-9. A pitty these will never be public in the next 50 to 80 years if ever.

EDIT 2: Typos, plus an other point on re-usability. It really sucks to type on a German keyboard, especially mobile. Z is right next to T, so the Germans are quick to become zhe Germans.