If they're not time critical, chances are they don't care that much. They've got insurance on the launch and payload. It'd have to happen enough for the premiums to start going up.

The US government doesn't buy launch insurance.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2012/05/22/248566.... says NASA self-insures, and the CRS missions appear to carry commercial insurance http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2014/10/29/345...

>NASA self-insures

This just means they don't insure and instead absorb losses. AFAIK they don't even set aside a pool of money like corporate self-insurance tends to do.

>CRS missions appear to carry commercial insurance

This is to (partially) cover the losses to the commercial space companies, since NASA withholds money in the event of a failure. None of it covers the payload. (Actually at least in Orbital's case they get paid a portion of the CRS contract, since there's technically two milestones – ignition/liftoff and mission success. They lose out on the latter.[1])

[1] http://spacenews.com/42658orbital-sciences-entitled-to-parti...

Thanks for bringing this up. This is a oft forgotten point as to why private space flight is so difficult in the US. Private ventures can't compete when the rules are set up so they've been kneecap'd from the start.

Ironically, I can't drive my car without insurance but I can fly a plane without it.