No Starliner mission to ISS this year
Though in February 2026 NASA officials suggested there might be a Starliner cargo mission to ISS sometime in April 2026, the new schedule released today for ISS manned and cargo missions for the rest of this year shows no Starliner missions at all.
The press release hinted an extra Starliner mission could be added, but don’t but too much faith in this:
Launch opportunities for NASA’s uncrewed Boeing Starliner-1 cargo mission remain under review as teams continue working through technical issues discovered during the Crew Flight Test in 2024, as well as final actions from the Program Investigation Team report. The agency is assessing operational readiness and space station traffic to determine the earliest feasible launch window.
What I think is happening in NASA is that the agency under Isaacman wants a better assurance from Boeing that the problems with Starliner have been fixed, and Boeing is having trouble satisfying them. If so, it seems he is doing what I suggested in February, demand from Boeing the highest quality work or don’t buy anything from it at all. If so kudos to Isaacman.
It is also possible Isaacman doesn’t want to spend extra money paying Boeing for this extra cargo mission to prove out Starliner’s systems. Boeing’s contract for Starliner is fixed price, and the capsule’s multiple problems has now cost the company more than a billion dollars. It is unlikely it will have make a profit on it, which is why it wants NASA to pay for that cargo flight.
Either way, the first operational manned mission using Starliner continues to recede into the future, to the point where ISS might be gone before the capsule is finally okayed for manned flights.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon or from any other book seller. If you want an autographed copy the price is $60 for the hardback and $45 for the paperback, plus $8 shipping for each. Go here for purchasing details. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
Though in February 2026 NASA officials suggested there might be a Starliner cargo mission to ISS sometime in April 2026, the new schedule released today for ISS manned and cargo missions for the rest of this year shows no Starliner missions at all.
The press release hinted an extra Starliner mission could be added, but don’t but too much faith in this:
Launch opportunities for NASA’s uncrewed Boeing Starliner-1 cargo mission remain under review as teams continue working through technical issues discovered during the Crew Flight Test in 2024, as well as final actions from the Program Investigation Team report. The agency is assessing operational readiness and space station traffic to determine the earliest feasible launch window.
What I think is happening in NASA is that the agency under Isaacman wants a better assurance from Boeing that the problems with Starliner have been fixed, and Boeing is having trouble satisfying them. If so, it seems he is doing what I suggested in February, demand from Boeing the highest quality work or don’t buy anything from it at all. If so kudos to Isaacman.
It is also possible Isaacman doesn’t want to spend extra money paying Boeing for this extra cargo mission to prove out Starliner’s systems. Boeing’s contract for Starliner is fixed price, and the capsule’s multiple problems has now cost the company more than a billion dollars. It is unlikely it will have make a profit on it, which is why it wants NASA to pay for that cargo flight.
Either way, the first operational manned mission using Starliner continues to recede into the future, to the point where ISS might be gone before the capsule is finally okayed for manned flights.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon or from any other book seller. If you want an autographed copy the price is $60 for the hardback and $45 for the paperback, plus $8 shipping for each. Go here for purchasing details. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
If the thing never flies again it will be fine with me. Put it in the Busted Flush wing of the National Air and Space Museum, maybe alongside Dream Chaser Tenacity, the X-34 and the Dyna Soar mockup if it still exists.
What happened to X-34
https://www.twz.com/26546/the-tragic-tale-of-how-nasas-x-34-space-planes-ended-up-rotting-in-someones-backyard
Errr…
Jeff Wright,
Yeah, I know. NASA has always been so careful with its stuff.
“It is also possible Isaacman doesn’t want to spend extra money paying Boeing for this extra cargo mission to prove out Starliner’s systems. Boeing’s contract for Starliner is fixed price, and the capsule’s multiple problems has now cost the company more than a billion dollars. It is unlikely it will have make a profit on it, which is why it wants NASA to pay for that cargo flight.”
Ah, the dilemma. Should we advocate for NASA to spend extra taxpayer money in hopes that Boeing will put Starliner on the market as a competitor to Dragon, or should we advocate for Boeing to uphold its fixed-price contract and risk Boeing abandoning Starliner, leaving SpaceX as the only commercial supplier of manned spaceflight?
Basic ROI also taking into consideration the risk that Starliner will freek out again on approach to the ISS and crash into it. Does the contract have an exit clause for Boeing to pay for lack of delivery? The commercial aircraft order book is huge, just get on with business.
Edward,
Given that no cargo flights were contemplated or specified in Boeing’s Starliner contract there would seem to be room for negotiation along the line that connects the two points representing Boeing paying the whole tab for a cargo/test flight and NASA doing the same.
Here’s my notion of a reasonable compromise: I don’t know how much cargo Starliner could carry to ISS but I think NASA should pay for cargo delivery by Starliner at a rate per kilo that matches what it pays SpaceX to haul cargo with a Cargo Dragon. Boeing would be responsible for any mission costs beyond that.
I don’t see any reasonable basis for NASA paying more than this. If this arrangement is not acceptable to Boeing, then NASA should invoke whatever contract clauses cover non-performance, put a formal stake through the Starliner program and move on. ISS hasn’t got that much longer to live in any case so the practical difference between writing off Starliner right now and having it do maybe three, maybe two crew rotation runs to ISS really late in the game isn’t large and Crew Dragon can easily continue subbing in right up to the last.
This would also free up a half-dozen Atlas Vs that I’m sure Amazon would snap up in a New York minute even if it had to fly them, as-is, with only a pair of SRBs apiece and accept a modestly lower payload of LEO-sats per mission. The twin-engined Centaurs would probably make this diminution of payload quite a bit less than would be the case with a single-engine model and the same pair of SRBs. ULA, I’m sure, would be more than happy to clear out its legacy inventory sooner rather than later.
If Boeing wanted to continue Starliner entirely on its own dime, pay ULA for the Atlases and try peddling crew rotation missions to the likes of Axiom, Vast and Starlab I can’t see any reasonable objection to this being pursued. I do think, to quote Elon from a dozen years back on another matter, that we would be more likely to see unicorns dancing in the flame trench at LC-39A than to see this scenario come to pass, but hey, you never know.
It is hard for me to comprehend why this contract hasn’t been terminated years ago for non-performance. Boeing certainly has the internal capability of getting it right, though I don’t know the exact methods of bringing out the best in a massive workforce. I suspect the ones trying to pull the wagon are also trying to drag the ones digging in their heels.
I see three votes in favor of risking that Boeing abandons Starliner and leaves the entire commercial manned spacecraft business to SpaceX’s Dragon.
We already have a capsule that works. Winged spaceflight needs a champion.
Edward,
I don’t think the word “risk” really applies to the possibility of Boeing abandoning Starliner. The bigger risk would, pretty obviously, be to continue the program and actually fly people on the thing. There is about as close to zero risk as possible to just letting SpaceX’s Crew Dragon finish out the crew transport duties needed before ISS takes its final swan dive into Point Nemo – certainly a lower overall risk than letting Starliner come in so late in the game.
Dick Eagleson: What worries me if Starliner is abandoned by Boeing (which I also think are the same worries as Isaacman and all the commercial space stations) is the lack of any other transport capability to space. We can’t just depend on SpaceX and its Dragons. And Starship is not ideal as a ferry to these stations.
I am not saying Boeing is a solution, as right now Starliner is the Yugo of manned capsules. I doubt many would be willing to fly on it as it presently stands. But we need others, and sadly I don’t see anyone else in the U.S. coming forward to compete with SpaceX in this area.
And that’s the problem with “the market will fix” religion. We see airlines wanting another bail-out…something the Very Light Jet/Air Taxi model was supposed to help address. But the same businessmen who fussed about airline bailouts didn’t want to invest in aerospace due to up-front costs.
SpaceX has done so well that they are putting a damper on things. Pre-Elon, VCs said they didn’t want to go up against Boeing, or whatever.
I will give Hegseth credit for standing in front of Dream Chaser in one of his addresses…but that didn’t look to make folks jump towards it.
If only they had bought swamp land before the Cajun spaceport rumor….hey….
The reason Dream Chaser isn’t flying is that it doesn’t have NGAD level backing from Uncle Sam.
We spare no expense when it comes to fighters and carriers, but leave space up to Rutans and Bransons?
Again, this is why USSF should grow—and USAF gutted.
In other news, I see Bernie wants to schmooze with China AI outfits—after trying to stymie ours.
X-37 works. USSF needs those guys in house for their own programs, with Hot Eagle/SUSTAIN funded internally such that engineers no longer need to sully their hands with VCs who don’t have this nation’s interest in mind any more than Bernie does. A pox be upon them ALL.
Jeff Wright,
A few notes:
One, the market is a tool. Not a religion. You appear to want instant correction of any issue; this will never happen. It always takes some time for systems to shift. That said, I expect both Rocket Lab and Blue Origin to introduce their own manned spacecraft at some point, both companies have either said they’re looking into it, or have actively designed spacecraft for human use.
Two, venture capitalists have poured billions into space for years now. Tens of billions by this point, really. I don’t know why you insist that SpaceX is sucking the air out of the room, but it’s just not true.
Three, the reasons for Dream Chaser not flying are far more complex than just money. Sierra has made multiple questionable decisions during its development, so throwing more money at it may have helped matters, but it also may have simply gone down the drain. All programs have a point where extra money, personnel, etc. do not help, which years ago lead to the phrase, “Nine women can’t have a baby in one month.”
You’ve made a bunch of other egregious claims, but I’ll let someone else response to those.
Nate P: You keep using italics tags incorrectly, inserting the first without the closing tag. Email me and I will show you the correct use. I can’t do it here because the tags will become hidden and functionable.