NASA Says Boeing Starliner Astronauts May Fly Home on SpaceX in 2025

I listened to the whole conference and here's my impression:

1. NASA manager Steve Stich said there's a relatively wide "band of uncertainty" in how risky a Starliner return is. Some (many?) NASA engineers are at the high end of the band and are advocating a return on Dragon instead. Boeing is obviously at the low end of the band and thinks it is a low risk.

The problem is, the data doesn't rule out either side of the band. So they are trying to get more data to narrow the uncertainty (in either or both directions). [Interestingly enough, the data from the White Sands testing made them more worried because it revealed the Teflon seal deformation.]

But my sense is that if they don't narrow the uncertainty (i.e., convince the NASA engineers) then they will very likely choose a Dragon return. That is, it sounds like if nothing changes, the astronauts are coming down on Dragon.

2. Stich said they need to decide by mid-August, in order to have time to prepare the Crew-9 launch for Sept 24th. So we'll know by then.

3. They emphasized that (a) the thruster problems are all fixable (given time), and (b) that even if Starliner returns without a crew, they will have learned enough from the test to potentially certify the capsule for regular service. This is probably the only way they'll be able to keep Boeing as a provider. A redo of this mission would cost Boeing half a billion dollars, easy. And since the contract is fixed-price, this would just add to Boeing's losses. So I expect they will certify Starliner even if it comes down without a crew.

4. In some ways, Starliner is being held to a higher standard than Dragon Crew-2. If Starliner were the only vehicle available, NASA and the astronauts would absolutely take the small risk and come down with a crew. But since Dragon is available, I think NASA is thinking, "why take the risk?"

5. There's a huge difference between how NASA engineers and lay people look at this issue. Many people (particularly on Twitter) have a binary safe/not-safe view of the situation. Either Starliner is safe or it is not. Either the astronauts are stranded or they are not. But the engineering perspective is all about dealing with uncertainty. What is the probability of a bad result? Is the risk worth the reward? Even worse, everything is a trade-off. Sometimes trying to mitigate a risk causes an unintended effect that increases risk (e.g., a bug fix that causes a bug).

I don't envy the engineers, either at NASA or at Boeing.

Listen to the actual conference: https://www.youtube.com/live/DYPL6bx87yM?si=W5UzfyiYzPX3KgGr

IMHO summarising it like the title is a little unfair; yes they're making provision for use of Dragon; but they haven't made any decision yet. The thing that seems to have confused them is that all the Starliner thrusters are working in their tests - given their idea of some teflon deformation somewhere, I think they thought they'd still be problematic, which is making them wonder if the teflon thing is the full story?

This is not NASAs first time dealing with this type of scenario. The crew of Skylab 3 had thruster issues in their Apollo command module. NASA actually redesigned an Apollo capsule to seat 5 in a return to earth. It went so far as the rescue crew starting to seriously train for a launch. In the end they found workarounds for the issue and brought them home normally.

http://www.astronautix.com/s/skylabrescue.html

Responsive FOIA emails and related artifacts are going to be a treat when this is wrapped up.

There was an AI picture someone made of a typical person from Huntsville, Alabama. It showed an ~60 yo guy with glasses and a NASA shirt. Someone on the local subReddit said, “You’re looking at the world expert on the maximum bend radii of avionics wiring harnesses and conduits and he’d be happy to talk to you about it.” Funny, but it made me think that the engineering shops around here are full of people like that with similar, hard earned, expertise in aerospace engineering and design and they’re all retiring or retired. What percentage of this expertise did they pass along to the younger engineers? I’m sure they tried, but maybe 50-60%?

We know that everything doesn’t get written down (hence the reverse engineering of the Apollo systems). And the stuff that does get written down doesn’t have the experience that created the document. Remembering a failed vacuum experiment with some adhesive which led to “You must use <some different adhesive>” isn’t going to prevent some bean counter in the future saying, “Why don’t you use <failed adhesive>? It’s cheaper and seems to have the same specs.” Or, for avionics harnesses, “There’s enough room. Just make it fit!”

All of that to say, Boeing ain’t what it used to be. And I know people who have worked there in recent years and they say the same.

I still find it hard to believe that the current Starliner doesn't have the ability to undock automatically without humans on board. The first test flight was able to do that.

What's fascinating to me is how they're going to call this a success when the mission is over.

I get that there are things that you can only test in space, and so they are testing. But if these astronauts get back, does Boeing then get certified to carry astronauts into space regularly from a successful test?

I should listen to the conference but how would they define the whole mission successful?

Imagine going to space for what you think is 8 days and Boeing messes up so bad you get stuck there for like 8 months instead. Maybe really cool, but maybe a nightmare?

Is this possibly the end for the Starliner project? I can't imagine Boeing saving face after that.

I wonder if the astronauts are upset at being stuck or excited by the extra time in space they otherwise may have never got.

There has to be a lot of egos tied up in this thing for them to still be stuck there. NASA delayed SpaceX’s next mission to give them more time to try to fix Starliner - and then use SpaceX as a backup to bring the astronauts home.

After the first month they should’ve had SpaceX go and get them. Elon would’ve probably done it for free to publicly humiliate Boeing for fun.

SpaceX’s craft is far cheaper and does the same thing except it actually works and has worked fine and time again.

And they're still trying to play this down like it's not a total disaster. Who even buys corporate speak anymore?

I know it is a privilege and a rare opportunity to go into space, but it strikes me as something that should be compensated for at higher than the going rate of astronaut salaries of $100-$150K/year. They overpay for every bolt but count the pennies when it comes to the salaries.

Glad that we finally got confirmation of the speculation that I saw on Ars last week that they are exploring using SpaceX.

I honestly can't imagine the conversations happening privately with the Astronauts. You know the problems this thing is happening but apparently you may still fly on it.

Like I get that space travel is still risky, even if SpaceX seems to make it look trivial at times, but it seems like an unecessary risk.

Assuming the Starliner can be on autopilot and bring itself home, let it do that to confirm if things are indeed working. Worst case you loose a vehical, but 2 people were not killed in the process.

The only thing that really surprised me is the 2025 timeline. I figured they would prefer to move some things around than wait that long?

After all of their technical failures, and known cultural problems leading to them, I am astonished Boeing has the nerve to insist it is safe. Seems like they are betting the whole space business farm on astronauts not dying on the way down.

Who is the alternative vendor for travel to low earth orbit after SpaceX? It is not going to be Boeing from the look of things.

Unless the Boeing CEO and their children fly back down in the Starliner along with the astronauts, I don’t think anyone else should risk their lives on it.

This is the same scenario people on here said wouldn’t happen. Shocking.

What is the crew up to on the station? Have they been assigned work to do since they are up there already and are rated astronauts, or are they just hanging around idle as supernumeraries?

I would hate to be in the latter camp and I imagine the kinds of people who take that kind of job would be like that too.

Building functioning thrusters should be a routine task, these are used on many spacecraft all the time. But rockets are hard. SpaceX blew up a capsule on the test stand, due to an issue with the propulsion system (thrusters).

The only way they will risk astronaut lives and various reputations allowing them to return on the Boeing capsule is if they are 100% certain of a positive outcome. There are no rescue vessels in space right now, so even a minor problem can be deadly.

It seems unlikely at this point 100% certainty will be reached. And I'm sure NASA is very annoyed that the capsule isn't configured to do an unmanned return. Boeing needs to upload and test software for unmanned return, otherwise it is stuck there until they have those issues worked out (1 of only 2 docking ports perhaps?).

Why can't they deorbit Starliner and let it land in the ocean without the astronauts ???.

If nothing happens then great rather than killing off the entire program with fatalities.

I know the flight control software is not designed for this but surely somebody must have thought of this scenario ???.

Starliner needs to autonomously perform a few missions before risking human lives.

What happens to the Boeing stuff that isn't making its way back? Space junk?

Will their existing suits work on SpaceX or will SpaceX-compatible suits need to be flown up? If the latter, I wonder what the odds are of a suit-related problem (e.g. doesn't fit, won't seal, etc).

Looks like the problems at Boeing Aerospace run a bit deeper than 'disagreements' with NASA Engineers, as some here are wont to project in discussions today. [1]

[1] https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/08/a-new-report-finds-boe...

International Space Station so why not charter a Soyuz?

Better see that it’s not a Boeing, even if you’re going to space now!?

But they're totally not "stuck" right, Boeing PR?

I get the sense that Boeing is in true panic mode. They are spinning the media very hard to try and give off a "everything is fine" vibe.

Archive / paywall: <https://archive.is/4lmfu>

Too bad they can't just parachute down...

With that much experience under their belt, they may just get a job to work there at the new station buildup

They have enough food to stay that long?

Binliner

That's going to be detrimental to their health long term.

Remember this was called a conspiracy theory when people immediately said that, now it's just true. They tried to drip-feed this information to soften the blow I guess.

In fact, the first people to say that the extension in space was indicative of a serious problem and that Boeing's PR was BS were right, yet they were attacked.

If your company hires more scrum masters and project managers than engineers, this is where you’re heading.

What a complete f-up boeing has been

Much safer to stay away from Starliner. I’d even avoid a Boeing airplane on their commercial flights home.

I have a ton of issues with Elon, and growing, on his social and political views, BUT...

...when you look at the zero-to-one of standing up Tesla and SpaceX from nothing, he's achieved something quite amazing - twice. Boeing has over a century of engineering experience and it has experienced more problems and more delays getting Starliner into operation than SpaceX did with Dragon.

Both Tesla and SpaceX have demonstrated fresh thinking, new ideas and new approaches to tired and incumbent thinking in both the automotive and aeronautical industries. While also getting the basics right. People bitch about panel gaps in Model 3's but Model 3s and Ys are actually the safest cars the EPA has ever tested in their class.

I think Boring Company is a bit silly and I'm not sure Elon can apply his thinking to X, but I wonder if we'll see similar performance to Tesla and SapceX from Neuralink.

I hold $TSLA and I would hold SpaceX if I could obtain some, I don't have any interest in holding $BA

Boeing's basically a defunct company at this point, no?

(Yes, there are still outstanding contracts, carriers don't like mixed fleets, etc, but... in terms of quality I can't see anybody saying "Yeah, Boeing, we're going there, that's the best you can buy")

Too late to shorten Boeing?

Airbus, SpaceX, Lockheed... Is there anyone not eating Boeing lunch at this point?

The article is paywalled ... Does it say why such a long delay?

"If it's Boeing, you're not going (home)" ?

There are a surprisingly large number of people who believe that space doesn't exist and that all such expeditions are faked.

I sometimes wonder what goes through their heads when they read stories such as this one. What exactly is in it for Boeing, NASA and Space-X to fake all of this?