Last I heard, Boeing had explicitly said they won't be putting any of their own funding into CCtCap. I really wish NASA's blackout period would end and they'd get on with it.
The Full Committee hearing is on June 5th at 10AM: http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/event/full-committee-markup-cjs-and-thud
Disgusting. Shelby is able to ram through anti-commercial crew stuff without any opposition.
Here is a good summary of the June 3rd hearing:http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40784senate-spending-bill-includes-179-billion-for-nasa
NASA is getting decent increasesHere is a quick breakdown of NASA funding in the subcommittee’s appropriations bill:◾NASA is funded at $17.9 billion, which is $254 million (1.4%) above its current funding level.◾Space exploration is funded at $4.4 billion, a $254 million (6.2%) increase above the current level, including $1.7 billion for the SLS Rocket, $1.2 billion for the Orion Capsule, and $805 million for commercial crew.◾The bill includes language requiring NASA to ensure that companies participating in the competition for the development of Commercial Crew launch vehicles be required to submit certified cost and pricing data.◾The bill includes language requiring NASA to demand certified cost and pricing data for the new round of contracts for future cargo resupply missions.But while these men and their companies are worthy of much of the praise being heaped upon them, it’s important to keep in mind that over 90% of the money being spent on the Commercial Crew program is coming out of the pockets of the taxpayers, not from the private companies themselves.if true its skewed the wrong direction.
What ticks off a lot of people inside the beltway is how SpaceX is using its CRS money. It isn't "profit" but being recycled into the Commercial Crew Effort. This is how SpaceX is advancing so rapidly. And on a side note - Boeing does not have a lot of its own skin the Commercial Crew game.
AFAIK both Spacex and SNC are roughly 50/50 on in terms of NASA/company funding. Boeing is the odd one out. I'm not sure how much they have put in but I got the impression it's not much.
NASA "complained" in a report (I think it was CCDEV2 selection) that Boeings skin-in-the-game was significantly less in an earlier phase, without releasing the numbers. I think that is true for CCiCap as well. It will be interesting to see if they are willing to step up and invest more in CCtCap now that the risks and rewards are better defined, or if they still will be as financially risk-averse as before.
Then again, Boeing's annual revenue($87B in 2013) is about 5x NASA's annual budget.They could afford a bit more skin.
Boeing was burned by the EELV program. They know first hand how "skin the game" translates to no profits when it comes to government programs. If anything, Boeing has the better case for markets beyond NASA.
Boeing is building CST-100 the way NASA likes spacecraft to be built these days: lots and lots of paperwork and computer models, very little testing and iteration. They'll make claims like "99.999% safe" before the vehicle has even flown, and that'll force the competition to do the same - even though, sensibly, no such claim can be made about a vehicle that hasn't even flown.
Based on their reputation or something else?
Which would appear to be an exceptionally silly strategy when they have no flown hardware.