Starliner will return unmanned; crew will return in February 2025 on Dragon
Starliner docked to ISS.
In a briefing today, NASA’s administrator Bill Nelson announced that Boeing’s Starliner capsule, launched in June on its first manned mission, will return unmanned and that the two astronauts it brought to ISS — Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams — will return in February 2025 as part of the crew of the next Dragon manned mission, scheduled to launch in late September.
Nelson made it a point to note that NASA’s past inactions to protect astronauts on two different shuttle missions, thus leading to their deaths, was a factor in this decision. The agency now decided safety must come first, and since Starliner’s return abilities still carry uncertainties that relate directly to safety, it decided to use a more reliable and tested Dragon capsule to return those astronauts back to Earth. During the entire briefing and Q&A session it became very clear that NASA is now paying very close attention to its engineers and their conclusions, rather than dismissing those conclusions because of other management concerns, as it did during those previous two shuttle failures.
Nelson also stated that NASA still wants to use Starliner as a second crew vehicle to ISS. He noted that he has spoken to Boeing’s new CEO, who apparently committed to getting Starliner fixed and operating. It remains undecided whether another test manned flight will be required of Boeing (at Boeing’s cost) before NASA certifies it as an operational vehicle. Whether any other customers will be willing to use the capsule remains unlikely until Boeing has flown a lot of Starliner NASA flights with no problems.
At this moment they are looking to bring Starliner back in early September, using a simplified undocking system to get the vehicle away from ISS quickly. The next Dragon mission will launch no earlier than September 24th carrying two astronauts and two empty flight suits that Wilmore and Williams use during their return.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the 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. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
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.
In a briefing today, NASA’s administrator Bill Nelson announced that Boeing’s Starliner capsule, launched in June on its first manned mission, will return unmanned and that the two astronauts it brought to ISS — Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams — will return in February 2025 as part of the crew of the next Dragon manned mission, scheduled to launch in late September.
Nelson made it a point to note that NASA’s past inactions to protect astronauts on two different shuttle missions, thus leading to their deaths, was a factor in this decision. The agency now decided safety must come first, and since Starliner’s return abilities still carry uncertainties that relate directly to safety, it decided to use a more reliable and tested Dragon capsule to return those astronauts back to Earth. During the entire briefing and Q&A session it became very clear that NASA is now paying very close attention to its engineers and their conclusions, rather than dismissing those conclusions because of other management concerns, as it did during those previous two shuttle failures.
Nelson also stated that NASA still wants to use Starliner as a second crew vehicle to ISS. He noted that he has spoken to Boeing’s new CEO, who apparently committed to getting Starliner fixed and operating. It remains undecided whether another test manned flight will be required of Boeing (at Boeing’s cost) before NASA certifies it as an operational vehicle. Whether any other customers will be willing to use the capsule remains unlikely until Boeing has flown a lot of Starliner NASA flights with no problems.
At this moment they are looking to bring Starliner back in early September, using a simplified undocking system to get the vehicle away from ISS quickly. The next Dragon mission will launch no earlier than September 24th carrying two astronauts and two empty flight suits that Wilmore and Williams use during their return.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the 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. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
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.
Ah well there goes 300 quatloos… Who would have thought that NASA might suddenly grow a pair?
When I first heard about the thruster problems I was reminded of how a faulty thruster nearly killed Neil Armstrong and Dave Scott on Gemini 8.
Paint me surprised (not)! This is a blow to Boeing and a boon for SpaceX. I am waiting with bated breath for next week’s Polaris
Dawn mission. If the EVA suits work out for tethered EVA that will be another boon. I wonder if the next step in the SpaceX EVA suit will be adding self contained life support and maneuvering units to the suit.
“At this moment they are looking to bring Starliner back in early September, using a simplified undocking system to get the vehicle away from ISS quickly.”
And the test plan for THAT software revision is… under development. Seriously though, shouldn’t the entire ISS crew have to “man the lifeboats” when the Starliner undocks?! But how is that supposed to happen, if the new Dragon for Crew 9 is unable to dock until Starliner frees up a docking port?
One wonders truly how likely it will be that NASA will fly a Starliner mission again. I see no upside in doing this again ?
Due to the high risk of thruster failure on the Boeing Starliner, NASA cannot risk putting astronauts in it for the return trip to earth.
Boeing was paid $4.2 billion and has failed on two different test flights to achieve mission objectives.
SpaceX was paid $2.6 billion for Dragon Crew and reached space in 2020 and has delivered numerous missions with cargo and 49 astronauts to the Space Station. (from @wallstreetsilv on X)
I did not watch the NASA conference. What could go wrong with Starliner if they returned with the crew? With a pilot on board can problems be corrected as the occur? Is it wrong to say that Apollo astronauts would have found a way to return Starliner to Earth safely?
Noticed they didn’t thank Spacex
Doesn’t this show it is too costly and distracting to send people into space? The planned lunar missions are difficult because the rockets have to be so large. And that size is necessary to carry people and their life support? Plus all the testing and nail biting necessary to bring people back safely.
The Mars Perserverance rover mission cost $2+ billion. Stariner is $4 billion? We could have more rovers, possibly diggers on Mars for the price NASA is paying to get Starliner to work. I do not see the value add of people in space considering all the drama and expense of keeping them 100% safe.
Steve, the point Musk has made is that it doesn’t have to cost that much.
Musk is getting results for about half the cost as the traditional space contractors.
Mr. Z. I’d sure like your take on this. Isn’t there also a Soyuz capsule that has been acting as “lifeboat” since before Starliner arrived? My memory is that there’s always a capsule that can be used to evacuate the entire ISS crew and bring all back to earth safely in the event of some emergency up there. Thank you for BtB!!
Steve Holmberg: Every capsule that brings a crew to ISS acts as that crew’s lifeboat. That includes Soyuz, Dragon, and Starliner capsules. There is no one capsule on board to carry everyone. Such a thing makes no engineering sense, as by keeping on ISS continually you run the risk it will not work when necessary. Also such a thing would be too big to launch.
Somewhere I read they have to remove starliner before Dragon can bring new suits for Sunny and Butch. Between those two events, there are two souls that won’t have an ideal way off station in an emergency.
It’s impossible to do anything worthwhile without assuming some risk, and everything’s a trade-off.
That said Butch and Sunny should never have been part of this calculation.
I’m surprised Boeing didn’t propose bringing the astronauts back via a very, very long rope.
Most likely outcome has Starliner landing ok unmanned. Then Boeing can play humble and get back to work.
Steve Richter,
I’m going to go way out on a limb here and assume you come here mainly for all the astronomy and planetary science stuff Mr. Z dishes up. I like that stuff too, but I’m more inclined to fill my plate with other stuff as I traverse Mr. Z’s celestial smorgasbord.
Not everyone is content to experience strange new places vicariously via telescopes and robots. Some want to go to such places themselves. When younger, I was one of those, but lacked any capability to actualize such dreams. Old and creaky now, I still avidly follow the doings of those who do such things and the many more who contribute actively to creating the means by which the travelers can travel. I’ve done so since childhood.
Wanting to go see completely wild and exotic places in person is, admittedly very much a minority enthusiasm. Most sea creatures a few hundred million years ago, for example, were content to stick to the water and did so. But one can imagine some crusty old trilobites disdainfully questioning the sanity of those crazy young horseshoe crabs who were known to crawl clear out of the water and go cavorting around on dry land of all places!
The distant hominid ancestors of most humans numbered such adventurers among them too. It turned out to be a good thing that at least a few such folks surrendered to their wanderlust and moved out into strange country as humanity in its East African cradle came perilously close to extinction a number of times. Like cockroaches and rats before us, we survived, and eventually thrived, in no small measure by incrementally increasing our range.
Space, and all the highly various places in it, are, in the words of the philosopher Roddenberry, “The Final Frontier.” If we don’t kill ourselves off or suffer some planet-wrecking natural catastrophe, some of our descendants seem quite likely to spread in all directions as fast as their technology will take them and continue our immemorial habit of surviving and thriving by expanding our range.
Doing so will not be cheap in any ordinary sense of the word – especially early on. And we are in very early times now. But that is not to say that considerable economies are not now possible compared to what used to be required. Traveling long distances on Earth has been far more expensive than just staying put too.
Sending robots, while cheaper than sending humans – pound for pound – is, even so, not something to be attempted with whatever loose change one can find in one’s couch cushions. The rockets used to dispatch them on their journeys are pretty sizable too – a consequence of living on a planet with a gravity gradient that makes escape via chemical rockets just barely possible.
But rockets will display the same scale tropism as has every other form of transport preceding them. Ships evolved from tiny cockleshells to giant steel liners and freighters in the space of a few centuries. Rockets are in the process of doing the same. Larger scale has always enabled lower costs to travelers. That has applied to ships, trains and aircraft – and, now, rockets.
As for distraction and nail-biting, that, as we see in the case of Starliner, is less an intrinsic aspect of the quickly-approaching age of routine space travel than it is the occasional consequence of sub-par efforts toward same. Every new mode of travel and every new technology goes through what I call An Era of Wonderful Nonsense when all manner of sometimes entirely crack-brained and ill-considered things are tried, found wanting and are cast aside. Starliner seems an utterly typical specimen of this sort. Don’t pay it any unwarranted amount of attention.
Just as a matter of potential interest, speculation about how many more rovers and diggers one could, in theory, deploy to Mars or elsewhere for the sums now being spent on various manned spaceflight efforts is not a useful exercise. When the money in question has a governmental source, it will, perforce, come with governmental strings. Were such money not spent on manned space efforts, the alternative uses to which it might be put would almost certainly not feature more extraterrestrial robots and probes to any significant degree.
But more and more of the money devoted to space exploration/settlement efforts will be coming from private sources. As things stand, those willing to spend the most on such pursuits are doing so to support human expansion off of planet Earth – not that these folks are entirely indifferent to the charms of robots and probes.
As the costs of space activities of all kinds decline due to their efforts, more and more pure science projects will come within reach of smaller and smaller entities to pursue. Many high schools and colleges, for example, have already built and flown cubesats and such in Earth orbit. That was flatly impossible as little as two decades ago.
Deep space projects of comparable cost scale will soon be possible. Elon Musk intends for there to be a considerable volume of traffic to and from both the Moon and Mars in a matter of a few more years. Peter Beck of Rocket Lab has a soft spot for Venus. The next few decades of planetary science and space-based astronomy bids fair to put even the very considerable accomplishments of the large, institutional projects of the past few decades in the shade.
Dick Eagleson:
Your comparison of human space exploration with the evolution of species, including humans, is seriously flawed. The “advance” of man into new territories (perhaps with the exception of the colonization of some Pacific islands) was extremely slow, on the order of a few kilometers per generation, and took place over tens of thousands of years. Moreover, people only moved away from their known inhabited areas when favorable survival conditions were present in the new area (neither of which is the case on the Moon or Mars). You attribute a conscious decision and a kind of courage to the marine creatures that “ventured” onto land. Additionally, there was an extremely slow evolutionary process that allowed these animals to exploit natural genetic changes to gain new habitats. I assume this extremely slow process succeeded through a multitude of small steps and by utilizing habitats that represented a transition between sea and land (e.g., swamps, tidal areas, etc.).
Apparently Butch and Suni can find refuge in the Crew 8 Dragon, should an emergency occur during the time after the Starliner departs, and before the Crew 9 Dragon arrives. They could shelter in the cargo space behind the four seats, but their experience if a reentry was required could be uncomfortable, and in fact should an emergency occur, since their suits would not be supplied with breathing and heating/cooling air!
This still leaves the open question: should the departure of Starliner, under the control of modified software, constitute an emergency situation requiring “manning the lifeboats?! Given the performance of Boeing software to date, I would say “yes”!
Gilligan’s Island in Space?
Just sit right back and you’ll hear a tale
a tale of a fateful trip,
that started from a tropic port,
aboard their Boeing ship.
The mate was a mighty sailin’ girl,
the Skipper brave and sure,
The two of them set sail that day,
for an eight-day tour,
an eight-day tour.
Aside from their unintentional adventure on the ISS — truly the experience of a lifetime — one wonders what kind of pay they will receive for this. Some kind of an “overtime” bonus, perhaps, and surely a book / movie deal will come out of this.
It goes without saying, but I will say it. Here’s to Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams and grace under pressure. God bless, and many thanks.
Questioner: In this comment I am assuming you are not a native English speaker, and am thus also assuming you do not realize the subtly of language here and how other native English speakers perceive what you write.
It is improper and considered somewhat rude to say someone else’s opinion is “seriously flawed.” You are merely expressing your own opinion on this issue. You do not have a lock on truth. More proper and polite to say “I disagree” or “Your comparison might not be correct.”
Just sayin’, in my vain effort to promote civilized behavior in our slowly declining society
Star Trek (2009)
“Prepare for Space Drop”
https://youtu.be/-DZZoXfL2-0
(2:03)
Marooned (1969)
https://youtu.be/yD1hbplN4DE?t=224
I’m enjoying the idea of them getting overtime pay… If I work a late day I get 1.75% for everything over 8 hours, a Saturday pays 2x, and a Sunday 3x…. I have absolutely no idea what an astronaut pay check looks like… But with a year of overtime it must look pretty bloody attractive! ( And I can’t imagine an astronaut complaining about spending too much time in space! )
This entire situation is pertinent to the previous conversation on here when I commented that Boeing were not fit for purpose in many aspects. Surprising enough, I am actually all in on private enterprise, however… If it was my government throwing billions into a private company contract, I would expect a little more oversite, and perhaps a firmer set of parameters regarding hardware… Obviously the docking mechanisms must be compatible, but why the heck are the Boeing and SpaceX flight suits not compatible ? Square filters Vs Round filters anyone? I just hope that the next flight up includes an extra few rolls of duckt tape… Just in case!
Steve Richter, I tend to agree with you, especially if the robotic exploration can really be pushed to the edge, such as what Avi Loeb of Harvard proposed years ago, to use powerful laser beams to accelerate light sails with sub-gram mass integrated circuit payloads to 30% of C velocity to get to nearby star systems and transmit back information within human lifetime. But the problem is that both human and robotic explorations tend to be run by risk adverse people. Big space, Big Science. Government funding, people working towards a pension, scientific elites.
Even craft within our solar system tend to be run long enough so that the original developers can retire with a pension within the Product LifeCycle of a project.
Everything needs a shake up, and that shake up is going on right now.
Agreed, Mr. Zimmerman, I will scold the culprit, ChatGPT 4.0, which I use as an advanced translation program! :-)
I am more upset that NASA can not find the time to add a “cargo”launch inside the Space X launch schedule all ready running.
They could have either purchased another total launch or switched one out long before they need to be in space for so long.
Plus they will need an extra supply mission anyways to replace what they are using now.
They could send up a three seat passenger with just one pilot on board and fill the rest of the weight with cargo including the adapters for life support or two new suits.
i wonder what it would take/cost to make a Dragon cargo into a Dragon Crew?
NASA would like to know that also I am sure.
They could be down as soon a week after the Boeing ship can disconnect.
Dick Eagleson
August 25, 2024 at 5:58 am
Thank you for that. Our experiences are similar ever since I watched the booster stage of Sputnik One track across the evening sky at age 9 although I was already interested in aviation and had started on astronomy.
According to Federal Pay, astronauts would rank at GS 12-13, translating to $84,365 to $115,079 according to 2024 GS rates. However, NASA’s website lists its 2024 astronaut pay as $152,258 a year; its 2020 call for astronaut candidates listed a range of $104,898 to $161,141 at GS levels 13-14.
4 days ago
*******
About $50 a hour
From Google Turd AI Enhanced Query…….
The CRV X-38 Program was to produce a Crew Return Vehicle for ISS. Cancelled in the Early 2000$.
It was based on the Lofting Body small Space Plane concept from the HL-2 and X-24 Dynasoar.
Opening of the Six Million Dollar 💰 TV Series. X-24 was to build for the Air Force their own fleet of spacecraft. Lifted on the Titan 2 rocket 🚀.
Sierra Space’$ new small space plane is based off of the X-38 design. It may now become the replacement for Boeing’s failed effort, it lost the NASA contract for Astronaut Hauling…. But did win one for ISS resupply.
Crewed version is under development.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_X-38
I bet the Astronauts are salaried.
If you could come in on Saturday, that’d be great.
At least they *should* be back in time to file their 2024 taxes.
(unlike Jack Swigert)
John-
The relevant clip…
https://youtu.be/JFRa7Ovym8s
To be fair…. I’m sure I’m not alone in this group that would fly to space for minimum wage…. Just not on a Starliner!
Wayne.
Perfect.
Questioner,
I didn’t intend to suggest that any strict reliance on purely natural selection would impel us toward the stars and see to it that at least some who set out on that long road actually arrive. In truth, humankind ceased to rely entirely on Darwinian selection for its advancement ever since at least the time – now perhaps more than an eon in our rear-view mirrors – when we learned to tame and use fire.
Human expansion of its range has, ever since, relied to an increasing extent on the use of our cleverness to develop technologies that allow expansion of our range into what were formerly no-go zones. Clothing, for example – both animal furs and, later, textiles – was the invention/technology that is second only to control of fire in allowing humans to live outside the fairly narrow latitude band where universal nakedness is a passable match to the prevailing climate.
And now we build spaceships.
The cockroaches and rats rival us for the expanse of their range only because they have contrived to hitch rides with us wherever new we find ourselves able to go using whatever means of transport we’ve come up with.
Mike Borgelt,
I was a newly 6-year-old freshly-minted 1st-grader when Sputnik 1 launched. As I grew up in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and the early few Sputniks were launched during the autumn and winter of 1957 – 58, local weather precluded my experiencing any such views as yours at that time. I do recall lying on my back in the backyard of the new house my family had just repotted itself into during the late summer of 1960, not long before my own 9th birthday, and watching Echo 1 pass by overhead.
By the time Echo 2 was also easily visible in 1964, I was nearing entry to junior high, had discovered girls and was busily cultivating an air of cynical sophistication as was commonly the case at such a point in one’s life – at least when any “cool” kids were around. I saw Echo 2 more than I had Echo 1, but it wasn’t quite so magical anymore. I was still, as Heinlein put, “space happy,” but I had moved on to building and launching Estes rockets with some friends.
Steve Richter asked: “Doesn’t this show it is too costly and distracting to send people into space? The planned lunar missions are difficult because the rockets have to be so large. And that size is necessary to carry people and their life support? Plus all the testing and nail biting necessary to bring people back safely.
The Mars Perserverance rover mission cost $2+ billion. Stariner is $4 billion? We could have more rovers, possibly diggers on Mars for the price NASA is paying to get Starliner to work. I do not see the value add of people in space considering all the drama and expense of keeping them 100% safe.”
I disagree with Dick Eagleson‘s focus on evolution, too. Exploration may be part of our evolutionary path, but sending man to do far more than a robot’s job is human nature. We are curious, and we go to places — in person — that no one has explored before. Sometimes this has been dangerous, such as the Shackleton expedition (so notable that a lunar crater is named after him) and even other expeditions that were lost. Exploration always has its dangers, but we do it anyway.
Our robotic probes, satellites, and rovers can collect data for us, and we can analyze it to create information and knowledge, but our lunar and Martian landers are expensive, slow, and limited in their capabilities. We send humans into the field in order to collect a lot of information quickly. They are able to determine in real time what to look at and what to look for, especially when something unexpected is seen. Humans are adaptable, and we need not wait a day to choose the next spot to explore. We are able to fix problems right away.
Not all our robotic probes have been successes, either, but that does not make us think that it is too costly and distracting to send robotic probes into space. Mars has been especially difficult to successfully reach. We should not consider a minor setback in our manned space exploration to be a reason to revert to robots or to stop entirely. We have suffered worse and kept going. We will suffer worse in the future, and we will still keep going.
SpaceX thinks that they can launch a Starship to orbit for $2 million in 2019 dollars (after inflation it may now be closer to $3 million). One Starship and retanking launches may cost around $30 million for a flight to Mars, taking 100 tonnes to the red planet. How much did it cost to launch the one-tonne Perseverance (not including building the rover)?
Speaking of costs, $2 billion for Perseverance gives only one mission, but for twice as much, Starliner gives six mission, plus the current certification flight (which brought two astronauts to the station to work for eight months) and the unmanned test flight (well, two, but at fixed price, the overruns are on Boeing, not the taxpayer, whereas overruns on Perseverance were on the taxpayer).
Commercial space companies are finding less expensive methods of exploring space, including the Moon and Mars. It may be too costly the way various governments want to explore space, but commercial companies are making it more affordable. Affordable enough for private citizens to go into space to do their own science, tests, and development. Dragon taught us that. So far, all its private crews have performed their own experiments, not ones that had to pass through governmental gatekeepers.
Apollos 15 through 17 showed how much farther we humans can explore in a short time, having taken our own manned rover for wider exploration. Apollo 11 gained us more information than all the lunar probes before then. It is one thing to send robots to do preliminary exploration, but man can explore more places and do it faster. It may cost more per mission, but it can be more efficient and more effective.