> SpaceX is getting paid for a successful launch, meeting their contractual obligations. I would assume most contracts for space launches involve putting the p

> SpaceX is getting paid for a successful launch, meeting their contractual obligations. I would assume most contracts for space launches involve putting the payload in question into the correct LEO/GEO, or at least an agreed upon point at which the payload maneuvers itself into the intended orbit. > The booster landed perfectly. That benefits SpaceX. The customer isn't likely to care what happens to the rocket after it launches their payload. > There's no damage to the launchpad delaying other rockets. Not the customer's problem even if it did explode on the pad. That would be between the launch company and the launch facility. In the case of a private customer, the payload is almost always insured (though insurance does little to help with schedule delays in manufacturing a new payload). > There's no investigation into "what went wrong?" holding back further launches. There might be for the US military, we don't know. > No real customer is looking at this and going "Wait, maybe we'd better use ULA instead!" because they know SpaceX launched just fine. According to SpaceX's account of the launch. > This is an absolute win for SpaceX, despite however anyone wants to spin it. Wouldn't an "absolute win" be launching the payload into the intended orbit with no anomalies?