> This is totally a valid selling point
Respectfully, a selling point is only valid if your customer base care.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...
Ironically, I can't drive my car without insurance but I can fly a plane without it.
The reason they had to drop out is because they're a space launch company without any goddamned engines. The chatter about the bid process is just the typical jawing members of the defense cartel engage in when they deign to speak of competitors. Sometimes they're even successful in reopening the bid process. [1]
All rocket, no engines.
After Russia annexed Crimea, Congress banned the Pentagon from using Russian rocket engines. Russia responded by counter-banning the Pentagon from using its engines [3]. This made things complicated for ULA.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180
[2] http://www.ulalaunch.com/faqs-rd-180.aspx
[3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-05-13/russia-ban...
So if you're a rocket company and don't make your own engines you're not really a rocket company, you're just talk.
I have't been paying close attention, but maybe you know this. Didn't Russia actually ban export of engines for military launches over Crimea before congress?
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/may/15/us-space-mili... http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-russian-rocket-ban-201...