NASA’s still undecided as to Starliner’s next flight
Starliner docked to ISS.
Though it now appears that the management at both NASA and Boeing are still committed to getting Boeing’s manned Starliner capsule certified for commercial flights, NASA remains undecided as to the scope and nature of the capsule’s next test flight.
[T]esting will be a big part of the next Starliner flight, whenever it lifts off. “We need to make sure we can eliminate the helium leaks; eliminate the service module thruster issues that we had on docking,” [said Steve Stich, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program].
NASA has not yet decided whether the coming Starliner flight will carry astronauts or not, he added. But even if the mission is uncrewed, the agency wants it to be crew-capable — “to have all the systems in place that we could fly a crew with,” Stich said. “As I think about it, it might be there for a contingency situation, as we prepare for whatever events could happen,” he added. “One of the things that I’ve learned in my time at NASA is, always be prepared for the unexpected.”
NASA plans to certify Starliner for operational, long-duration astronaut missions shortly after this next flight, if all goes well.
Stich’s comments took place during a press conference following the return of the Starliner crew on SpaceX’s Freedom capsule.
There had been rumors last year that NASA would pay Boeing to use Starliner on a cargo mission to ISS, thus saving the company the cost of flying another demo mission on its own dime. I suspect those plans have now been squashed by the Trump administration, which is likely to insist that Boeing honor the deal in its fixed price contract. If so, the next flight will once again be a demo mission to prove the capsule’s systems, paid for by Boeing. Whether astronauts fly on it will be a political decision made by Trump, with advice from NASA management. And that decision cannot occur until NASA’s new administrator is confirmed and has had time to review the situation.
Readers!
My annual February birthday fund-raising drive for Behind the Black is now over. Thank you to everyone who donated or subscribed. While not a record-setter, the donations were more than sufficient and slightly above average.
As I have said many times before, I can’t express what it means to me to get such support, especially as no one is required to pay anything to read my work. Thank you all again!
For those readers who like my work here at Behind the Black and haven't contributed so far, please consider donating or subscribing. My analysis of space, politics, and culture, taken from the perspective of an historian, is almost always on the money and ahead of the game. For example, in 2020 I correctly predicted that the COVID panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Every one of those 2020 conclusions has turned out right.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
Starliner docked to ISS.
Though it now appears that the management at both NASA and Boeing are still committed to getting Boeing’s manned Starliner capsule certified for commercial flights, NASA remains undecided as to the scope and nature of the capsule’s next test flight.
[T]esting will be a big part of the next Starliner flight, whenever it lifts off. “We need to make sure we can eliminate the helium leaks; eliminate the service module thruster issues that we had on docking,” [said Steve Stich, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program].
NASA has not yet decided whether the coming Starliner flight will carry astronauts or not, he added. But even if the mission is uncrewed, the agency wants it to be crew-capable — “to have all the systems in place that we could fly a crew with,” Stich said. “As I think about it, it might be there for a contingency situation, as we prepare for whatever events could happen,” he added. “One of the things that I’ve learned in my time at NASA is, always be prepared for the unexpected.”
NASA plans to certify Starliner for operational, long-duration astronaut missions shortly after this next flight, if all goes well.
Stich’s comments took place during a press conference following the return of the Starliner crew on SpaceX’s Freedom capsule.
There had been rumors last year that NASA would pay Boeing to use Starliner on a cargo mission to ISS, thus saving the company the cost of flying another demo mission on its own dime. I suspect those plans have now been squashed by the Trump administration, which is likely to insist that Boeing honor the deal in its fixed price contract. If so, the next flight will once again be a demo mission to prove the capsule’s systems, paid for by Boeing. Whether astronauts fly on it will be a political decision made by Trump, with advice from NASA management. And that decision cannot occur until NASA’s new administrator is confirmed and has had time to review the situation.
Readers!
My annual February birthday fund-raising drive for Behind the Black is now over. Thank you to everyone who donated or subscribed. While not a record-setter, the donations were more than sufficient and slightly above average.
As I have said many times before, I can’t express what it means to me to get such support, especially as no one is required to pay anything to read my work. Thank you all again!
For those readers who like my work here at Behind the Black and haven't contributed so far, please consider donating or subscribing. My analysis of space, politics, and culture, taken from the perspective of an historian, is almost always on the money and ahead of the game. For example, in 2020 I correctly predicted that the COVID panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Every one of those 2020 conclusions has turned out right.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
Notice the black perforated ring around the service section below the main capsule. My understanding is that aerodynamic sims showed that dangerous shock waves could occur below the spacecraft on launch, due to the relatively small diameter of the Atlas 5 compared to the Starliner itself.
The solution was to attach this turbulence-generating ring. Somehow I can’t see SpaceX encountering the problem so late in the design process, or solving it with such a suboptimal addition!
Ps. In addition to the turbulence-generating ring, the StarLiner design also included a sleeve extending below and outboard of the capsule and service structure. This sleeve further constrained the development of shockwaves below the capsule that could damage the booster second stage. The sleeve segments are jettisoned late in the launch process.
More late-design add-on fixes that add weight and reduce performance!
Would you risk it riding on a Boeing craft for 66,000 to 94,000 per year?(private astronauts make twice that much)
Wonder if those afterthought add-ons were stuck on with duct tape?
Let’s face it the whole thing is a kludge. Just ditch it. Boeing failed.
I’d fly on a F9/Dragon, no way on the Boeing Deathliner.
The perforated ring looks like an adaptation of the dive brakes seen on some WW2 dive bombers. It must cause a lot of drag and hence aero losses. The US government should demand its money back for contract failure.
Yeah, flying this on Atlas V offered the advantage of a well proven launcher adequate to the task, but it did come with some costs: they needed to having ULA go back to the vault to build and update those two engine Centaurs, and they needed that aeroskirt and lattice structure because of the “skinny” diameter of the Centaur.
If by some miracle they kept this thing going on Vulcans, they could dispense with that.
It’s more rehashing of the same heating and teflon bulging; let’s test and change the ‘way we fire, the way we heat’ the doghouse. I recall you ground tested that extensively already, with inconclusive results. No robust thruster design that can get hot in orbit? No Starliner.
Musk derangement syndrome might keep Starliner alive. It’s difficult for non-feds to appreciate how ‘unappreciated’ Musk and DOGE are. But they need to give a contract modifications to kill Starliner, let Boeing figure out how to make civilian and military aircraft again.
Richard M – “If by some miracle they kept this thing going on Vulcans, they could dispense with that (ring and skirt).”
Oooh, a Change Order! Now we’re talkin’ contracting that Boeing understands!!
Ray Van Dune: Actually, in this case removing the ring and skirt would not involve the standard “change order” in a cost-plus contract, something “Boeing understands.” Starliner is a fixed price contract. If Boeing wishes to change Starliner to make it more efficient, it is free to do so. Whether it has the culture to do so is another question entirely.
I guess I forget to add “/s” – I wasn’t being serious except in a wry sense.
NASA should buy 2 Falcon 9s from SpaceX. Then, takeover the Boeing program. Pay the Boeing engineers as independent contractors. Have NASA managers in charge of an accelerated program to complete the testing and deployment of Starliner by launching frequently on the Falcon 9s until it is working perfectly.
Speaking just a bit cynically, NASA would have no problem getting funding from Congress given the desire of so many democrat voters to have federal employees seen in a positive and heroic light. Government NASA would run its own rocket program and accomplish something the private sector (Boeing) is failing at.
Steve Richter: What is this fetish in our society today to keep asking the federal government to do things, as if it is our savior and god? It drives me mad.
The federal government at all levels is presently made up of many incompetent and corrupt individuals. It cannot do anything well, while wasting gigantic gobs of money not accomplishing anything. Asking NASA employees to take two Falcon 9s and Starliner and retrofit them to work well together is like asking a drug dealer to manufacture the next great vaccine (which by the way is essentially what we did during COVID — look where that got us!).
This is not the job of the government! How strongly and how often do I have to say it? The goal is to get the government out of this business, as quickly as possible, while eliminating as much of it as possible because every piece of it that exists actually hinders achievement while sucking money from the American private citizenry, who are the ones who really get things done.