NASA today released its final investigation report on the causes behind the Starliner thruster issues during that capsule’s only manned mission in ISS, issues that almost prevented the spacecraft from docking successfully and could have left it manned and out-of-control while still in orbit.

You can read the report here [pdf]. NASA administrator Jared Isaacman made it clear in his own statement that the Starliner incident was far more serious than originally let on.

“To undertake missions that change the world, we must be transparent about both our successes and our shortcomings. We have to own our mistakes and ensure they never happen again. Beyond technical issues, it is clear that NASA permitted overarching programmatic objectives of having two providers capable of transporting astronauts to-and-from orbit, influence engineering and operational decisions, especially during and immediately after the mission. We are correcting those mistakes. Today, we are formally declaring a Type A mishap and ensuring leadership accountability so situations like this never reoccur. We look forward to working with Boeing as both organizations implement corrective actions and return Starliner to flight only when ready.”

A Type A mishap is one in which a spacecraft could become entirely uncontrollable, leading to its loss and the death of all on board. Though Starliner was NOT lost, for a short while as it hung close to ISS that result was definitely possible. Its thrusters were not working. It couldn’t maneuver to dock, nor could it maneuver to do a proper and safe de-orbit. Fortunately, engineers were able to figure out a way to get the thursters operational again so a docking could occur, but until then, it was certainly a Type A situation.

The report outlines in great detail the background behind Starliner’s thruster issues, the management confusion between NASA and Boeing, and the overall confused management at Boeing itself, including its generally lax testing standards.

The report’s recommends that NASA impose greater control over future commercial contracts, noting that under the capitalism model that NASA has been following:

NASA’s hands-off approach during contract initialization resulted in insufficient systems knowledge and available data to the government for accepting a development vehicle as a service.

NASA’s adoption of a commercial services procurement strategy through the CCP prioritized provider-led development and minimized traditional NASA insight and oversight. This contributed to the creation of the previous intermediate causes and organizational factors that produced insufficient data for NASA to fully understand system qualification of the Starliner spacecraft. This approach led to gaps in end-to-end verification, validation, and interface management, ultimately contributing to crew and mission risk. In accordance with the SAA and guiding documentation, NASA teams were prohibited from providing feedback during key design phases or requiring closure on feedback submitted.

One meatball to rule them all!

The solution: Establish a whole range of new management processes to closely supervise the development of any new spacecraft.

In other words, go back to the old system where NASA controlled all and micro-managed everything. This is a failed idea, something that NASA has tried time after time with little success. It punishes everyone, without punishing the bad apples. And if implemented could end up destroying entirely the present renaissance in space.

Ironically, the report’s recommendations completely miss the fundamentals revealed within the report itself.

What the report makes clear is that Boeing is not a company NASA can ever rely on. It failed to fix these problems in a timely manner, before the launch. It made numerous bad engineering decisions during construction. And once launched it took a generally bad approach to dealing with the problems, as they happened.

In the capitalism model, NASA must let private enterprise do the work. It is NASA’s job to buy the best products, from companies it can rely on utterly. The last thing NASA should be doing is micro-managing what those companies do.

Let freedom rule!

The solution is for NASA to stop buying products from the bad apples. Isaacman says in his statement that he “looks forward to working with Boeing” in the future. Bah. While for now it might make sense to fly Starliner on an unmanned cargo mission to ISS to once again test its systems, it should be very clear that using it for future manned missions is a very very low priority. The company has not built a good product worth buying.

If Isaacman and NASA had any faith in freedom and capitalism, both would instantly see the entire Starliner incident as an example of “Let the buyer beware.” We thought Boeing was a better company than it was. We won’t make that mistake again. Let’s find other American companies we can buy better products from!

That’s what freedom and competition is all about. The good rise to the top. The bad fall to the wayside. But you must try them all for awhile to distinguish them from each other. This report — and what it tells us about Boeing and Starliner itself — is part of that process. Competition and freedom will give NASA many alternatives, good and bad. As it learns the difference it should simply buy products from those who do good work.

Sadly, it is very unclear from this report’s conclusions whether this is the lesson NASA and Isaacman are taking from the Boeing-Starliner debacle. Instead, it looks once again like Isaacman wants to return to the old days where NASA ran everything, and private enterprise was squelched under a government space program run from DC with little freedom or innovation.

If so, NASA’s future in space will be dim indeed. The better companies, such as SpaceX, will want to work less and less with the agency, leaving it stuck with the weak sisters like Boeing.

According to one story late today, the modifications NASA announced today on its Starliner contract with Boeing will trim $768 million from the total contract, assuming the two later optional manned missions never fly.

Originally valued at $4.5 billion, Boeing’s contract under the Commercial Crew Program envisioned six operational astronaut flights. NASA’s latest modification cuts that number to four, including up to three crewed missions and an uncrewed cargo flight set for April 2026. Two additional flights remain optional. With the changes, the contract’s value has dropped by $768 million to $3.732 billion; NASA has already paid $2.2 billion to date.

Boeing can still earn that additional money if if somehow manages to convince NASA to do all six flights. It will have great difficult achieving this, however, since there probably won’t be enough time to get all six flights up before ISS is retired. That fact is partly why NASA has made this change.

This report however suggests that NASA is not paying Boeing extra money for the unmanned cargo mission in April 2026. Instead, it is treating it as if it were the first operational manned Starliner flight, paying Boeing its purchase price as if it had achieved all its milestones during the manned demo flight last year.

It really pays in today’s America to be a big giant corporation that does lots of business with our bloated and very corrupt federal government. That government is then quite willing to bend over backwards to help you, even if you are like Boeing and incompetent (Starliner), corrupt (737-MAX), or routinely go over-budget and fail to deliver on time (Air Force One). That certainly appears to be the case here with Boeing.

Hat tip BtB’s stringer Jay.

NASA today announced a major revision to its contract for Boeing’s manned Starliner capsule, changes that will require it to fly one more unmanned cargo mission to ISS before putting people on it again, while also reducing the total number of later purchased manned flights.

As part of the modification, the definitive order has been adjusted to four missions, with the remaining two available as options. The next Starliner flight, known as Starliner-1, will be used by NASA to deliver necessary cargo to the orbital laboratory and allow in-flight validation of the system upgrades implemented following the Crew Flight Test mission last year.

NASA and Boeing are targeting no earlier than April 2026 to fly the uncrewed Starliner-1 pending completion of rigorous test, certification, and mission readiness activities. Following Starliner certification, and a successful Starliner-1 mission, Starliner will fly up to three crew rotations to the International Space Station.

It has been rumored for months that NASA would require Boeing to fly another unmanned mission before certifying Starliner for manned flights. The question that this press release does not answer is whether NASA is paying for this unmanned flight. The original contract was fixed price, and required Boeing to meet certain milestones before further payments. Another cargo flight to ISS was not in that original deal.

I therefore suspect this is NASA’s way to get Starliner certified. Boeing has likely refused to pay for another demo flight, threatening instead in negotiations to cancel the project entirely. NASA however needs to get cargo to ISS. By buying a cargo mission from Boeing (possibly instead of Northrop Grumman’s Cygnus capsule, which is presently hindered because it lacks its Antares launch vehicle), NASA gets that cargo while also saving Starliner.

The bottom line remains fundamental: Will Boeing finally be able to do a successful problem-free Starliner flight in April 2026? We shall have to see. The fact that NASA appears to be reducing the total number of eventual Starliner missions to ISS indicates its own lack of confidence.

The first stage completed its fifth flight, landing back at Kennedy. The capsule is on its fifth flight, and is carrying significantly more cargo than previous SpaceX cargo missions because it has had to replace much of the cargo that would have been launched on a Cygnus capsule whose launch was cancelled because it had been damaged during transport.

Furthermore, as part of their updates on this mission NASA officials revealed that Sierra Space’s cargo mini-shuttle, Tenacity, is facing more delays, and is now not expected to launch until late this year. This Dream Chaser spacecraft had begun ground testing early in 2024, with a first launch planned for shortly thereafter. For reasons that have not been explained, that ground testing has now been going on for more than a year, and will apparently continue for most of 2025. My guess is that the spacecraft has experienced engineering problems during that testing, and has required fixes that neither Sierra Space nor NASA wishes to reveal.

The result has been that NASA has had a shortage of cargo vehicles to keep ISS supplied. A significant number of science experiments had to be removed from today’s Dragon to make room for consumerables. NASA officials also stated publicly during this update that it is now definitely considering using Starliner as a cargo vehicle on its next flight, a plan that previously had only been hinted at.

The leaders in the 2025 launch race:

45 SpaceX (with another launch scheduled for later today)
20 China
5 Rocket Lab
5 Russia

SpaceX now leads the rest of the world in successful launches, 45 to 35.

According to a long interview given to Eric Berger of Ars Technica, the astronauts flying Boeing’s Starliner capsule on its first manned mission in June 2024 were much more vulnerable than NASA made it appear at the time.

First, the thruster problem when they tried to dock to ISS was more serious than revealed. At several points Butch Wilmore, who was piloting the spacecraft, was unsure if he had enough thrusters to safely dock the capsule to ISS. Worse, if he couldn’t dock he also did not know if had enough thrusters to de-orbit Starliner properly.

In other words, he and his fellow astronaut Sunni Williams might only have a few hours to live.

The situation was saved by mission control engineers, who figured out a way to reset the thrusters and get enough back on line so that the spacecraft could dock autonomously.

Second, once docked it was very clear to the astronauts and NASA management that Starliner was a very unreliable lifeboat.

Wilmore added that he felt pretty confident, in the aftermath of docking to the space station, that Starliner probably would not be their ride home.

Wilmore: “I was thinking, we might not come home in the spacecraft. We might not. And one of the first phone calls I made was to Vincent LaCourt, the ISS flight director, who was one of the ones that made the call about waiving the flight rule. I said, ‘OK, what about this spacecraft, is it our safe haven?'”

It was unlikely to happen, but if some catastrophic space station emergency occurred while Wilmore and Williams were in orbit, what were they supposed to do? Should they retreat to Starliner for an emergency departure, or cram into one of the other vehicles on station, for which they did not have seats or spacesuits? LaCourt said they should use Starliner as a safe haven for the time being. Therein followed a long series of meetings and discussions about Starliner’s suitability for flying crew back to Earth. Publicly, NASA and Boeing expressed confidence in Starliner’s safe return with crew. But Williams and Wilmore, who had just made that harrowing ride, felt differently.

Wilmore: “I was very skeptical, just because of what we’d experienced. I just didn’t see that we could make it. [emphasis mine]

It wasn’t until SpaceX’s Freedom capsule arrived in September 2024, with two seats for Wilmore and Williams to use for return, that the Starliner astronauts finally had a truly reliable lifeboat attached to ISS.

All in all, the story here is that NASA last year took a very nonchalant attitude towards the lives of these two astronauts. Once Starliner docked to ISS, they really had no lifeboat in case a catastrophe occurred on ISS. The proper action at that point would have been to get a new manned Dragon docked to ISS as quickly as possible. Doing that however would have disturbed the complex planned schedule of dockings at ISS.

Being naturally lazy as all bureaucrats are, NASA management decided to instead take for them the easiest route, bringing Freedom to ISS in September as scheduled, even though it left these two humans without a lifeboat for a period of about four months.

Flying a quickly put together rescue mission also risked a lot of bad press, both for Boeing and for the Biden administration during the election campaign. (Biden’s fear was really unfounded. The press would have correctly lauded NASA and Biden for acting diligently and with speed.)

That both Wilmore and Williams are being so open and honest about these facts now suggests they either fear no retribution from the Trump administration, or do not ever expect to get another flight from NASA.

One lesson we all should take from this is to never trust any government officials from either party. In this case, I foolishly took NASA at its word last summer when it claimed Starliner was a safe lifeboat. They were lying however. And as much as I am always skeptical of government officials, I allowed myself in this case to be fooled.

And as they say, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. If I can at all help it, I won’t let this happen again.

According to a press release from NASA late yesterday, both the agency and Boeing will spend most of the rest of this year doing additional Starliner static fire engine tests of thruster redesigns before considering another flight of the capsule to ISS.

NASA and Boeing are working to finalize the scope and timelines for various propulsion system test campaigns and analysis that is targeted throughout the spring and summer. Testing at White Sands Test Facility in New Mexico will include integrated firing of key Starliner thrusters within a single service module doghouse to validate detailed thermal models and inform potential propulsion and spacecraft thermal protection system upgrades, as well as operational solutions for future flights. These solutions include adding thermal barriers within the doghouse to better regulate temperatures and changing the thruster pulse profiles in flight to prevent overheating. Meanwhile, teams are continuing testing of new helium system seal options to mitigate the risk of future leaks.

“Once we get through these planned test campaigns, we will have a better idea of when we can go fly the next Boeing flight,” said Steve Stich, manager, NASA’s Commercial Crew Program at the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. “We’ll continue to work through certification toward the end of this year and then go figure out where Starliner fits best in the schedule for the International Space Station and its crew and cargo missions. It is likely to be in the timeframe of late this calendar year or early next year for the next Starliner flight.”

The release indicated that the goal is to get the capsule certified prior to the next flight so that it can carry a crew on a fully operational mission. The release however left open the option that this next ISS flight might instead be an unmanned cargo mission. The announcement said nothing about who will pay for this flight. Under Boeing’s fixed-priced contract, it should foot the bill, but no one should be surprised if NASA works a deal to funnel money Boeing’s way.

Meanwhile, the agency has changed some of the crew assignments for that first and long-delayed operational Starliner flight, switching astronaut Mike Fincke from that mission to the next Dragon mission to launch later this year. (I suspect Fincke wanted to fly again, and was tired of sitting on his hands waiting for Boeing to get Starliner working.)

On Wednesday, after a query from Ars Technica, the space agency acknowledged that the Cygnus spacecraft designated for NG-22 is too damaged to fly, at least in the nearterm. “Following initial evaluation, there also is damage to the cargo module,” the agency said in a statement. “The International Space Station Program will continue working with Northrop Grumman to assess whether the Cygnus cargo module is able to safely fly to the space station on a future flight.” That future flight, NG-23, will launch no earlier than this fall.

As a result, NASA is modifying the cargo on its next cargo flight to the space station, the 32nd SpaceX Cargo Dragon mission, due to launch in April. The agency says it will “add more consumable supplies and food to help ensure sufficient reserves of supplies aboard the station” to the Dragon vehicle.

It will be at least half a year before the next Cygnus will be ready for launch.

As the article notes (and immediately occurred to me also), this incident creates an opportunity to help Boeing and Starliner. Last year there were rumors that NASA might pay Boeing to fly Starliner as an unmanned cargo flight to ISS. This would allow the company to test its fixes to the capsule without having to pay for another test flight. These rumors however have faded since Trump took power, suggesting the new administration did not want to pay that extra money.

The loss however of this Cygnus cargo mission not only frees up NASA cash that could be transferred to a Starliner cargo mission, it frees up a slot in the cargo schedule. It actually makes a lot of sense to give Boeing the job.

Unfortunately, unless someone higher up in the Trump administration (possibly Trump himself) makes the decision, we should not expect any action on this idea until NASA’s new administrator is confirmed by the Senate and takes office. And that event remains in limbo at this point.

In the meantime, NASA has no redundancy for getting cargo to ISS, and must rely entirely on SpaceX and its Dragon cargo capsules. A third option, Sierra Nevada’s Tenacity Dream Chaser reusable cargo mini-shuttle, is still not ready to launch. It was supposed to do its first test flight to ISS a year ago, but could not because ground testing had to be done first, and for reasons that are very unclear, it appears that testing has not yet been completed.

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.

At 1:05 a.m. EDT Tuesday, NASA astronauts Nick Hague, Suni Williams, and Butch Wilmore, along with Roscosmos cosmonaut Aleksandr Gorbunov undocked from the space-facing port of International Space Station’s Harmony module aboard the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft.

Splashdown is scheduled for 5:57 pm (Eastern) March 18, 2025 off the coast of Florida. I have embedded the NASA live stream below.

Normally the transfer of control of the station from the old crew to the new one takes about a week. In this case NASA cut that transfer time to only three days because of the political desire to get the Starliner astronauts home more quickly. The irony is that NASA decided to leave them up there for almost seven months more than planned in order to disturb its normal ISS launch and crew schedule as little as possible. This effort now to shorten their spaceflight by a few measly days seems quite trivial in comparison.

After a scrub two days ago due to a ground equipment issue, SpaceX tonight successfully launched a new crew of four to ISS, its Falcon 9 rocket lifting off from Kennedy in Florida.

The Dragon capsule is Endurance, on its fourth flight. The first stage completed its third flight, landing back in Florida.

This launch will allow the two-person crews launched by Boeing’s Starliner capsule in June and SpaceX’s Freedom capsule in September to come back home on Freedom.

When it was decided not to allow the Starliner astronauts to come home on Starliner because of thruster issues on the capsule, NASA decided to keep its ISS launch schedule as normal as possible, thus forcing that crew to complete a mission of about eight months, with a planned return in February 2025. Initially their Starliner mission was expected to last anywhere from two weeks to two months-plus, depending on how well Starliner functioned while docked to ISS.

Thus, when the press says their mission was turned unexpectedly from a two-week flight to many months, this is not quite true. They launched knowing their mission could be extended to two months. However, NASA decision forced them to do an abnormally long mission, nine months long. This was then extended one more month because the new Dragon capsule that NASA and/or SpaceX had decided to use was taking longer than expected to get built. When it then became clear it would not be ready by March, NASA finally agreed to let SpaceX use Endurance instead. The new capsule will now replace it on the Axiom commercial manned flight, scheduled for later this year.

The astronauts were never really “stranded”, as their return flight was always planned. NASA simply decided to take for it the easiest path — requiring the least shuffling — without considering their needs. There is also the possibility that the Biden administration encouraged that decision, because flying an extra “rescue” flight in the fall using a Falcon 9 and Dragon capsule — as Elon Musk’s claims he offered to do — would have given Musk a major PR victory. And since Musk has now joined the “Trump Nazi Party”, as constantly spewed by the slanderers on the left, that could not be allowed, no matter how reasonable and common sense his proposal.

Endurance is scheduled to dock with ISS tomorrow evening.

The leaders in the 2025 launch race:

29 SpaceX
11 China
3 Russia
2 Rocket Lab

SpaceX now leads the rest of the world, including American companies, in successfull launches, 29 to 20.

Food fight! Yesterday Elon Musk did a Donald Trump, issuing a bunch of tweets that are likely causing some heads to explode inside NASA, Congress, and Europe.

First — and far less significant — Musk got into a war of insults with European Space Agency astronaut Andreas Mogensen over his comments in recent days accusing the Biden administration of delaying the return of the two Starliner astronauts “for political reasons.” Mogensen accused Musk lying about this, and Musk responded by calling Mogenson “fully retarded” and an “idiot,” adding that “SpaceX could have brought them back several months ago. I OFFERED THIS DIRECTLY to the Biden administration and they refused. Return WAS pushed back for political reasons.”

Since Musk was there and Mogensen was not, it seems Musk won that battle. NASA meanwhile issued a mild statement saying everything it has done has been to maximize safety, a statement that matches the facts quite accurately.

Then Musk — on a far more important topic — stirred the pot more by tweeting his belief that ISS should be retired now.

It is time to begin preparations for deorbiting the Space_Station. It has served its purpose. There is very little incremental utility. Let’s go to Mars.

In a second tweet he recommended the de-orbit should occur “two years from now.”

Left unstated by Musk was what might be his most important reason for retiring ISS so quickly: the fragile condition of the Russian-built Zvezda module. It has stress fracture cracks that are the cause of the airleak in the station, as noted in detail in the graphic above. More important, there are real concerns those cracks could cause the module to break apart during any docking operation. As it is a central module in the station, connecting the Russian section with the American, such an event would be catastrophic for the station and the lives of the astronauts on board.

Though it appears to me the reaction to Musk’s ISS proposal has mostly been mild so far, expect significant opposition if Trump attempts to carry it out — despite the real dangers posed by Zvezda’s cracks. First of all, an early retirement would do great damage to the plans of the commercial space station Axiom, which plans to initially attach its station modules to ISS. Though the company has accelerated that schedule, an ISS de-orbit in 2027 would give it almost no margin.

Second, early retirement would break NASA’s many agreements with its international ISS partners. They would have to agree to this plan, and it is very uncertain if they would.

Third, SpaceX first has to complete construction of the de-orbit spacecraft that would dock with ISS and use its thrusters to plunge the station into the Pacific. NASA gave the company a $843 million contract in 2024, but revealed no target date, other than stating it should happen “after the end of its operational life in 2030.” Musk’s tweet suggests he knows that SpaceX will have that spacecraft ready far sooner, but once again, no one has released any concrete time schedule.

Fourth, it is very unlikely any of the private space stations presently under development would be ready for launch in two years. An early de-orbit would thus cause a break in manned space activity by the United States and its partners, and leave such operations solely in the hands of China. I suspect this will be unacceptable to politicians in the U.S., Europe, and Japan. Even Russia might balk.

Fifth, an early de-orbit of ISS would actually impact SpaceX negatively, as its contracts with NASA to ferry crew and cargo there would end prematurely. Does Musk really think those other private stations will be able to replace this revenue stream that quickly?

The Zvezda module, with aft section indicated
where the cracks have been found.

All these objections however could become moot, if the cracks in the Zvezda module worsen. At that time the decision would no longer be political or economical, but solely based on the reality of engineering, a reality that at this moment is probably the most important reason to take Musk’s recommendations seriously.

In fact, it is somewhat shameful that Congress, NASA, Russia, and its international partners have all taken Zvezda’s fragile condition so lightly. Reminds me of NASA’s attitude in connection with the Challenger and Columbia shuttle failures. Then politics ruled instead of engineering, and because of that people died.

It seems to me Musk has recognized the engineering reality of ISS, and is trying to shift the politics in the right direction. All of the political, financial, and technical issues I list above against early de-orbit vanish in importance when one realizes that letting things drift as they are might very well be the worst decision of all.

The billionaire SpaceX CEO said his company was “accelerating the return of the astronauts” as per Trump’s instructions. Musk then appeared to take a shot at the Biden administration, saying the move was “postponed kind of to a ridiculous degree,” before the president chimed in saying “they got left in space.”

When Hannity pointed out the astronauts have been on the ISS for almost 300 days instead of the planned 8 days, Trump simply said “Biden,” before Musk claimed they were “left up there for political reasons, which is not good.”

While the decision to return Starliner unmanned certainly had a political component (a desire to avoid a disaster in the final year of Biden’s term), Musk’s claim is greatly exaggerated. Worse, Musk is papering over his own company’s contribution to the delays. Had SpaceX and NASA chosen in December to use an already existing Dragon capsule instead of a brand new capsule to launch the next crew to ISS, the astronauts would be home already. Instead, they decided to get that new capsule ready, requiring an almost two month delay in their return.

When it became obvious last month that even this extra time was insufficient to get the new capsule ready, only then did SpaceX and NASA choose to switch capsules. That switch allowed them to move up the return date by about a week.

In reporting Musk’s words here, our ignorant press has generally left these details out, allowing both Musk and Trump to make it appear as they are saviors for these poor astronauts. This is simply not true. SpaceX is certainly making it possible to bring them home (something Boeing was unable to do), but it also contributed to the delay in doing so.

The earlier launch opportunity is available following a decision by mission management to adjust the agency’s original plan to fly a new Dragon spacecraft for the Crew-10 mission that requires additional processing time. The flight now will use a previously flown Dragon, called Endurance, and joint teams are working to complete assessments of the spacecraft’s previously flown hardware to ensure it meets the agency’s Commercial Crew Program safety and certification requirements. Teams will work to complete Dragon’s refurbishment and ready the spacecraft for flight, which includes trunk stack, propellant load, and transportation to SpaceX’s hangar at 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida to be mated with the mission’s Falcon 9 rocket. This will be the fourth mission to the station for this Dragon, which previously supported the agency’s Crew-3, Crew-5, and Crew-7 flights.

Both NASA and SpaceX are touting this as a great decision because it will allow the present ISS crew (which includes the two astronauts initially launched on Starliner last year) to get home quicker.

The truth is that this decision really hides the fact that both the agency and company made a wrong decision to use a new capsule for this mission. SpaceX needed more time than expected to prepare it, and those delays pushed back both the launch of a new crew and the return of the old. So, while everyone is spinning this as SpaceX and NASA brilliantly improvising to get those Starliner astronauts home sooner, the real story is that their return had been significantly delayed by almost two months by SpaceX’s inability to get the capsule ready as promised.

NASA now believes the vehicle will not be ready for its debut launch until late April. Therefore, according to sources at the agency, NASA has decided to swap vehicles for Crew-10. The space agency has asked SpaceX to bring forward the C210 vehicle, which returned to Earth last March after completing the Crew-7 mission.

Known as Endurance, the spacecraft was next due to fly the private Axiom-4 mission to the space station later this spring. Sources said SpaceX is now working toward a no-earlier-than March 12 launch date for Crew-10 on Endurance. If this flight occurs on time—and the date is not certain, as it depends on other missions on SpaceX’s Falcon 9 manifest—the Crew-9 astronauts, including Wilmore and Williams, could fly home on March 19. They would have spent 286 days in space. Although not a record for a NASA human spaceflight, this would be far longer than their original mission, which was expected to last eight to 30 days.

The new capsule will then be used for Axiom’s fourth commercial flight to ISS, AX-4, presently scheduled for later in the spring.

In the company’s 10-K annual filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Feb. 3, Boeing said it took $523 million in charges on Starliner in 2024. The company blamed the losses on “schedule delays and higher testing and certification costs as well as higher costs for post certification missions.”

Both Boeing and NASA remain utterly silent on the future of Starliner. It remains uncertified for operational manned flights, which means Boeing continues to earn nothing from it. Will it have to fly another manned mission on its own dime to get that certification? Or will NASA instead pay it to fly a cargo mission to ISS, as rumors have suggested, to prove the capsule is ready for manned flights?

No one knows. Nor do we know if Boeing will either sell off its space division or cancel Starliner entirely and thus free itself of the problem.

Paul Hill, a member of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP), said at a Jan. 30 public meeting that the committee was briefed on the status of the investigation into Starliner’s Crew Flight Test (CFT) mission recently. That mission launched in June with NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams on board, but the spacecraft returned to Earth three months later uncrewed because of agency concerns about the performance of spacecraft thrusters.

“NASA reported that significant progress is being made regarding Starliner CFT’s post-flight activities,” he said. “Integrated NASA-Boeing teams have begun closing out flight observations and in-flight anomalies.” He didn’t elaborate on the specific issues that the teams had closed out but stated that it did not include the thrusters, several of which shut down during the spacecraft’s approach to the station. The propulsion system also suffered several helium leaks. [emphasis mine]

In other words, this announcement was meaningless, because it included no information about the main problem. Hill’s comments were mostly empty blather, which is generally what this panel says in all its announcements. We still do not know when or if Starliner will fly again with astronauts on board.

Over the years the panel has bent over backwards to say positive things about Boeing, so that it missed all of Boeing’s design and construction failures from day one. At the same time it repeatedly slammed SpaceX, even though that company clearly had its act together and ended up fulfilling all of its contract obligations to NASA, even as Boeing has failed to do so.

If I was a member of Trump’s DOGE project, eliminating this safety panel would be very high on my list of things to do to make NASA’s more efficient. All it does is slow things down, often for exactly the wrong reasons.

Since a Dragon capsule for bringing these astronaut back to Earth is already docked to ISS and is scheduled to return in April, there is nothing really new about Musk’s tweet. Moreover, that April return was delayed an extra two months because of SpaceX, not Boeing or Biden. The company had requested that extra time to prepare the next crew capsule for launch, because it is a new capsule never used before.

It is of course possible that Trump requested SpaceX and NASA to reconsider this extra two month delay, and move the crew return back to February, but that change would either require SpaceX to find a different older capsule for the next crew, fly the new capsule sooner than planned, or have the total number of NASA astronauts on ISS reduced to just one until the new capsule launches with the new crew in March. None of these options seems wise.

I suspect nothing will change, and Musk was merely trolling the press. And the press mostly fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.

• Florida Today: Elon Musk says Trump told SpaceX to bring Starliner astronauts home as soon as possible
• Orlando Sentinal: Elon Musk says Trump calls on SpaceX to bring Starliner astronauts home ASAP
• Reuters: Trump, Musk suggest sped-up return of NASA astronauts, but details scarce
• CBS: Trump asks SpaceX to bring “abandoned” Starliner crew home, blames Biden administration for inaction
• New York Times: Elon Musk Suggests SpaceX Will Accelerate Return of NASA Astronauts
• Fox News: Trump, Musk join forces to bring stranded NASA astronauts back via SpaceX after Biden admin ‘abandoned’ them
• NY Post: Trump tasks Elon Musk, SpaceX to bring stranded NASA astronauts back after ‘Biden administration left them there so long”
• The Hill: Trump asks Musk to ‘go get’ NASA astronauts stuck in space

Most of these stories fail to outline the reasons for the most recent delays, having nothing to do with Biden. The last four especially make it sound as if SpaceX has suddenly been enlisted for a rescue mission, a claim that is utterly false.

None have been able to get any confirmation of any change of schedule from NASA or SpaceX, suggesting that Musk’s tweet was entirely blarney that a smart press would have ignored without that confirmation. Our stupid mainstream press however could not do that. It went whole hog based on nothing.

Until NASA announces a change in schedule there simply is no story here, and that’s what I am reporting.

According to Space Capital’s latest investment trends report released Jan. 23, these aerospace giants are struggling to maintain pace with the rapidly evolving space sector. “These divestitures by entrenched government contractors marks a pivotal moment in the space economy, as it changes the competitive landscape, establishes a new power broker system, and creates new opportunities and risks in the government’s extended capabilities in space,” the report states.

This prediction for Boeing is not a surprise, especially as the company has also recently announced it expects to take a $1.7 billion loss in the fourth quarter of 2024 from five different program in its Defense, Space and Security business unit.

Most of those charges will go towards two programs: $800 million for the KC-46A tanker and $500 million for the T-7A trainer aircraft. That leaves $400 million in charges for Starliner as well as the VC-25B presidential aircraft and MQ-25 drone.

Airbus’s space division is likely in trouble because of the failure of its Ariane-6 to compete successfully in the modern launch market. It has obtained some launch contracts, but not as many as expected because, as an expendable rocket, it costs too much to launch.

Previous updates had noted what capsule would launch the astronauts, with the plan to have Dragon launch the February 2025 crew and Starliner the July 2025 crew. It was assumed in those earlier updates that Starliner would be certified for operational use after the completion of its first manned demo this past summer. This new update does not provide this capsule information, instead saying the following:

The timing and configuration of Starliner’s next flight will be determined once a better understanding of Boeing’s path to system certification is established. This determination will include considerations for incorporating Crew Flight Test lessons learned, approvals of final certification products, and operational readiness.

Meanwhile, NASA is keeping options on the table for how best to achieve system certification, including windows of opportunity for a potential Starliner flight in 2025.

It appears NASA is pulling back from that certification, based on the various technical issues experienced by Starliner during that demo mission, issues that eventually forced NASA to return the capsule unmanned. As such, this announcement yesterday suggests that there is serious negotiations going on between Boeing and NASA as to what will happen next. It appears the agency wants Boeing to fly another demo mission — on Boeing’s dime — before putting astronauts on board and paying for a mission. The Starliner contract was fixed price, and until Boeing successfully completes that manned demo mission NASA is not obligated to pay it any additional funds.

I suspect Boeing is telling NASA it can’t afford to do this, and if NASA doesn’t pony up some bucks for that demo flight it will simply not do it, and NASA will be stuck with just SpaceX as its manned ferry to ISS.

Unconfirmed reports had suggested NASA was considering issuing Boeing a separate contract to do a cargo mission to ISS using Starliner, thus allowing it to pay the company to fly a test mission outside of the fixed price contract. This NASA update yesterday suggests these negotiations are on going, but likely cannot be completed until after the election. A new administration might balk at such a deal.

Boeing today announced that the head of its defense/space/security division, Ted Colbert, has been removed, effective immediately.

New Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg in his first significant move since taking over in August, said Ted Colbert would be leaving and Steve Parker, the unit’s chief operating officer, would assume Colbert’s responsibilities until a replacement is named at a later date.

One project that Colbert was in charge of was Starliner, a program that has cost the company at least $1.6 billion in overruns because of numerous faulty engineering problems.

Colbert might not be to blame for the endless problems at Starliner, but the fish stinks from the head. He also might be very qualified, but sadly, as his picture shows, he is a minority, and since Boeing went all in on DEI racist hiring quotas a few years ago, which makes the skin color and gender of an applicant a major qualification in hiring, one can’t help wondering if he was a DEI (Didn’t Earn It) hire. At Boeing that policy created a goal to increase black staffing by 20%. Its full report [pdf] makes it very clear it no longer made talent, experience, or skill the primary qualification for getting hired, but skin color and sex took precedence.

As I said, one cannot help wondering if Colbert was hired not because of his great management and engineering knowledge, but because he happened to born with a dark skin color. If so, that might help explain the failures in this paricular division.

The mission however was not a full success. Intended as the first manned demo flight of the capsule, it did not complete that demonstration. It took astronauts up to ISS, but did not bring them home. NASA made the decision that the technical problems during launch and docking to ISS were sufficient enough to preclude putting the astronauts back on board for the return flight.

NASA says it “will review all mission-related data” before deciding whether to certify the capsule for operational manned flights. The agency has essentially two choices. First, it could decide that the successful return with no hitches of this manned flight, even with no one on board, fulfilled Boeing’s obligations. It will certify the capsule, allowing Starliner’s next manned mission to fly with NASA paying the bill. Doing so however would likely expose NASA to a lot of bad publicity, since the press right now sees Boeing as the root of all technical evil, and will pile on to the agency for putting safety last.

Second, NASA could avoid that bad press and play hard-nosed and demand another manned demo flight, on Boeing’s dime, as required by contract. If so, however, expect Boeing to refuse to do it, citing the cost and the company’s fiscal responsibility to its shareholders. Even if successful Boeing is unlikely to ever recover those costs through passenger sales.

Based on this negotiating situation, I predict NASA will choose the former. The successful landing suggests this is probably the right decision. It however will not do so immediately, but will release a series of announcements touting the positive results from its review of that “mission-related data”. By dribbling out each positive result bit-by-bit, the goal will be to soften the press so that when the agency finally certifies Boeing for that next manned mission and thus agrees to pay for it, the press will not pile on so hard.

At least, that will be the agency’s hope. The mainstream propaganda press however doesn’t usually read NASA press releases, and even when it does it knows so little about the subject that it almost always comes to the wrong conclusion. Moreover, its present desire to attack Boeing in all conditions will likely help it report these stories badly.

NASA hasn’t decided if it will require Boeing to launch another test flight before formally certifying Starliner for operational missions. If Starliner performs flawlessly after undocking and successfully lands this weekend, perhaps NASA engineers can convince themselves Starliner is good to go for crew rotation flights once Boeing resolves the thruster problems and helium leaks.

In any event, the schedule for launching an operational Starliner crew flight in less than a year seems improbable. Aside from the decision on another test flight, the agency also must decide whether it will order any more operational Starliner missions from Boeing. These “post-certification missions” will transport crews of four astronauts between Earth and the ISS, orbiting roughly 260 miles (420 kilometers) above the planet.

NASA has only given Boeing the “Authority To Proceed” for three of its six potential operational Starliner missions.

Apparently NASA has not decided whether to commit to any more Starliner operational manned flights behind those first three.

There are obvious good reasons for NASA’s hesitancy, most of which center on Boeing and its inability to get Starliner flying without technical problems. One that isn’t as obvious however is ISS itself. Boeing has taken so long in getting Starliner flying that the end of ISS in 2030 is now looming. There are only so many manned flights that NASA needs to buy before the station is decommissioned. Afterward the agency will still need to hire ferrying services to the new privately owned stations, but it is too far in the future to consider either SpaceX or Boeing for those decisions.

The space station audio system is complex, allowing multiple spacecraft and modules to be interconnected, and it is common to experience noise and feedback. The crew is asked to contact mission control when they hear sounds originating in the comm system. The speaker feedback Wilmore reported has no technical impact to the crew, Starliner, or station operations

In other words, this is not a rare event, and from the beginning was not considered by the astronauts, ground engineers, or NASA management to be a matter of concern. The fix was apparently simple and straightforward, and is part of the work done whenever any new vehicle gets docked and tied into ISS’s systems.

It appears however to have caused many in the news media and in the space world to go nuts simply because it was linked to Starliner and Boeing. This is similar to the recent pattern of assigning all blame to Boeing whenever any Boeing-built plane has technical problems, even if that plane had been purchased by the airline decades earlier and its maintenance was solely the responsibility of the airline for that long.

Boeing is definitely a company in trouble, on many levels. We shouldn’t however look for problems there in the company when they clearly don’t exist.

NASA astronaut Nick Hague and Roscosmos cosmonaut Aleksandr Gorbunov will launch no earlier than Tuesday, Sept. 24, on the agency’s SpaceX Crew-9 mission to the International Space Station. NASA astronauts Zena Cardman and Stephanie Wilson, previously announced as crewmates, are eligible for reassignment on a future mission. Hague and Gorbunov will fly to the space station as commander and mission specialist, respectively, as part of a two-crew member flight aboard a SpaceX Dragon.

The updated crew complement follows NASA’s decision to return the agency’s Boeing Crew Flight Test uncrewed and launch Crew-9 with two unoccupied seats. NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams, who launched aboard the Starliner spacecraft in June, will fly home with Hague and Gorbunov in February 2025.

With Starliner now scheduled to return on September 6th and Freedom not arriving until around September 24th, there will be an eighteen day period when Wilmore and Williams will have a limited and more risky lifeboat option on ISS. If an incident should occur that requires station evacuation there is room to squeeze them inside SpaceX’s Endeavour Dragon capsule presently docked there, but they will return without flight suits. Their Dragon flight suits will not arrive until September 24th, on the next Dragon. The suits they used on Starliner will not work on Dragon.

The announcement touts Starliner’s ability to fly autonomously, but based on what we know this is really not something to brag about. All Dragons do this routinely whether they are manned or not. Starliner required an upload of software to reconfirgure it for this, since it had originally been configured for a manned return and apparently that original software was not designed for an unmanned return.

In other words, the spacecraft as presently designed doesn’t have the ability to switch from autonomous to manned in a simple manner.

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.

What makes this review and press conference different from all previous Starliner reviews and conferences is that NASA administrator Bill Nelson will attend.

NASA Administrator Bill Nelson and leadership will hold an internal Agency Test Flight Readiness Review on Saturday, Aug. 24, for NASA’s Boeing Crew Flight Test. About an hour later, NASA will host a live news conference at 1 p.m. EDT from the agency’s Johnson Space Center in Houston.

The only reason a politico like Nelson would participate in such proceedings is because he has taken control of the decision-making process, and will make the decision himself. The review is likely to educate him as best as can be done in this short time, and he will then decide whether the two astronauts who launched on Starliner, Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams, will return on it in the next week or so, or will stay on board ISS until February 2025 and return on the next Dragon crew capsule scheduled to launch to ISS in late September.

Nelson might have decided to get involved on his own, but I am certain that if so it was strongly “encouraged” by officials above him in the White House. There is an election coming up, and the risks involved in using Starliner to return the astronauts must be weighed in connection not just with its engineering concerns but with its political ramifications also.

Nelson’s decision will also provide us a strong indication of a future Harris administration’s attitude toward space.

NASA now plans to conduct two reviews – a Program Control Board and an Agency Flight Readiness Review – before deciding how it will safely return Wilmore and Williams from the station. NASA expects to decide on the path forward by the end of August.

It appears the agency has decided to bring more people into the decision-making process. In the briefing last week, it was then planning only one review, expected to be completed before the end of this week. It now sounds like a second review will occur after the first, pushing the decision back one more week.

All of NASA’s actions in the past three weeks have suggested an increasing involvement by upper management, possibly including White House officials. With an election coming up, the politicans who are supposed to be in charge have apparently inserted themselves into this process and are demanding greater review. I expect in the end the decision will fall to them, and might even be announced by NASA administrator Bill Nelson himself.

These actions have also suggested that upper management does not like the risks involved in returning the crew on Starliner. Politicians do not like to have bad things happen on their watch. We should therefore not be surprised if the decision is made to send Starliner home unmanned.

My conclusion is based on several subtle things. First, no Boeing official participated, the second time in row that they were excluded. Second, this briefing included some new individuals who rank higher in the chain of command, and whose opening statements were clearly written carefully in advance and were read aloud.

Third, and most important, the wording of those statements repeatedly indicated they are looking at Dragon return more seriously. For example, NASA’s chief astronaut Joe Acaba suggested strongly that the two astronauts were now well prepared for an eight month mission, rather than coming home in August 2024. Other statements by officials suggested they themselves are less confident about returning on Starliner. Though the data suggests they can return safely, there remains enough uncertainty to make some people uncomfortable.

One factor not stated but is certainly controlling the situation now is the upcoming election in November. The Democrats who control Washington and the White House will allow nothing to happen that could hurt their election chances. We must therefore assume people in the White House are now in control and are the ones who now intend to make the decision about Starliner’s return.

Based on these factors, we should expect NASA to announce next week that the crew will return in a Dragon capsule. In order for the return to happen on Starliner NASA and Boeing engineers must somehow convince those politicos that the return would be entirely safe. Since these politicos are always risk adverse, it would shock me if they can be convinced. It could happen, but understanding the politically framework is important.

The officials stated that they have scheduled the final review next week, and it appears the decision will be announced then.

It appears that upper management at NASA has decided to force the agency to consider bringing Starliner down unmanned and extending the ISS mission of the two Starliner astronauts to a nine month mission.

The situation is definitely complicated, and no change as yet as been made. The schedule of dockings to ISS has been reconfigured to make this option possible. It appears this is the present plan:

First, they need to upgrade the software on Starliner for an unmanned mission. Apparently the present software on board is not satisfactory for an unmanned docking, even though a different Starliner has already done an unmanned docking last year. For this mission, the software relied on the astronauts to take over manually should there be an issue during undocking. In the previous unmanned demo, the software would react and prevent a problem. For reasons that make no sense, the software on the manned mission did not have this capability. Reinstalling this software will give them the option to send the two astronauts down on Dragon and returning Starliner unmanned.

Second, the next Dragon manned mission has been delayed until late September to allow time for these software upgrades, as well as give NASA and Boeing more time to analyze the situation and decide if a manned return on Starliner is possible. If they decide to not use Starliner, the Dragon capsule would come up to ISS with only two astronauts, and the two Starliner astronauts would then join them on their six month mission, coming home in the spring. For the Starliner astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams this would mean their mission will now be 8-9 months long, far longer than the original one-two week mission.

As to why these options are now being considered, it appears to me that both Boeing and NASA engineers were willing to return the astronauts on Starliner, but have been ordered to consider these options by higher ups. It appears that the last hot-fire thruster tests on ISS left everyone with some uncertainties about the situation. Engineers are fairly certain that the reasons some thrusters did not fire as planned during docking was because teflon seals expanded because of heat to block fuel flow. The problem is that these seals showed no problem at all in the most recent test on ISS. That difference creates some uncertainty as to whether they have really identified the cause of the problem. Imagine having an intermittent problem your car mechanic cannot constently make happen.

Because the thrusters did work as intended, Boeing and NASA seemed ready to return Starliner manned. In the agency review last week it appears others at the top were less sanguine (including Bill Nelson, NASA’s administrator), and demanded these new options be considered. Based on this speculation, it is almost certain Starliner will come home empty.

Whether this will have significant consequences remains uncertain. During the press briefing today, NASA officials said the agency might still certify Starliner for operational manned missions even if the capsule comes home unmanned.