Maybe I'm reading that table wrong, but it lists the cost of a Proton-M launch at $86m while for a Falcon-9 it's $56m, though Falcon-9 v1.1 is only slightly better on cost/kg to LEO. Still, the the numbers for Falcon heavy blow Proton away. Am I missing something?

Yes, Falcon 9 v1.1 and Falcon Heavy have not yer launched. We will know their costs when they are reliably working and have been operating at market price for some years, all first launches have already been booked at special prices for early adopters.

Fair enough, but SpaceX has already booking launches guaranteed at their quoted prices, so there's nothing hypothetical about them. Whether they can deliver reliably without going bust is perhaps more of an open question, which is fair enough, but they've certainly put their balance sheet and reputation where their mouth is.

You are correct that, slightly re-stated, there's nothing hypothetical about the amount of money you have to give SpaceX to put your payload on a Falcon that you reserve today. But you missed his point.

We don't know what the failure rate of the Falcon will be, whereas we do know what the failure rate of a Proton is (~10%). Satellites are expensive and delivery is not guaranteed, so every launch provider always gives a discount to early customers who put their payload on one of the first few launches of a new system.

Pvarangot's point was that the price for booking a launch today is almost certainly less than, say, booking a launch after Falcon has had ten successful launches on its first ten attempts. If Falcon has Delta's failure rate, then SpaceX can charge a premium. If Falcon's failure rate is closer to Proton, they will have to underbid the Russians to get customers. We won't know until Falcon has a few launches under its belt. Saying they are booking launches at guaranteed prices today is true, but only gives a hint to what it will cost customers five years from now.

If that's well known then I wonder if they've actually done an "expected value" of cargo lifted into space by these rockets. For example, 0.9valueofcargolifted - 0.1costofcargoandfallout

Yes, many large businesses do some kind of expected value calculation when deciding what course of action to take.

That's interesting, I thought SpaceX was cheaper than even the Russian launch vehicles. By the way, are insurance costs taken into consideration? (Although the proper insurance rate might be difficult to estimate for SpaceX since they don't have that many launches behind them).

The cost of a SpaceX launch reflects not only manufacturing costs but also the cost of development. The cost of a Proton launch (and similarly for other low cost ICBM based Russian launchers) doesn't reflect the developmment cost because it was designed a long time ago and borne by the russian government. The true cost of a Proton launch is much higher than what a user would pay to International Launch Services.

The true cost is adequate because there was a very large number of total launches (around 400). What is the reason for launching a rocket if it leads to a loss.

The cost of a Proton launch reflects the fact that development costs were amortized long ago.

Silly Internet person of irrelevant gender, insurance can be bought for anything. Actuaries will calculate the risk of not knowing as well.

Whether someone can afford the premiums and abide by the term and conditions presented is another matter.

Maybe thats a typo getting in somewhere. The Proton-M is reported at $85m per launch, vs a Falcon 9 v1.1 at $54m (75% payload of a Proton-M).

Soyuz is almost certainly more expensive per seat than a F9/Dragon Crewed version. 2 "passengers"(+ 1 pilot/commander) vs 5-7 passengers (+ "pilot"/commander).