Starliner’s April Flight Plan Raises Eyebrows

When NASA made its announcement in early February, it sounded almost professional. The agency’s engineers were planning an unmanned Starliner flight for April, with the possibility of a crewed mission by the fall. Preparation took eight weeks. In essence, it was a small cargo run, a retest of a capsule that the agency would publicly declare a “Type A mishap” just days later. That expression is only used in situations where a crew was in danger or could have been in danger. In essence, Challenger and Columbia belong to the same category.

You are drawn in by the contrast. The schedule on a Tuesday. The postmortem took place on a Thursday. Jared Isaacman, the new administrator of NASA, took the podium and spoke in a way that NASA executives don’t typically use in front of cameras. He held Boeing accountable for its poor decision-making and leadership. He blamed the managers of his own agency for delaying the astronauts’ return. He blatantly pointed to internal pressure to keep Boeing in the program and said it was a mistake that the flight wasn’t initially considered a serious mishap. Hearing a NASA chief publicly state that “we failed them” regarding Wilmore and Williams is almost shocking.

The 312-page report, which was published that same week, doesn’t seem overly dire. It sounds cautious. In the summer of 2024, thrusters failed during the approach to the International Space Station. There was a helium leak. The crew’s return was postponed for over nine months until, somewhat awkwardly, SpaceX’s Dragon arrived to pick them up in March. In plain English, associate administrator Amit Kshatriya stated that the agency “almost did have a really terrible day.” That translates to “the loss of life was a real possibility” from the meticulous language of mission management.

This makes the April timeline seem odd at first glance. There are still unanswered thruster questions in the capsule. Boeing is still conducting analyses. To put it mildly, there is no agreement that every problem has been identified, much less resolved. Nevertheless, a flight is being prepared on what amounts to an extremely constrained schedule, even if it is unmanned. The engineers may actually think the spacecraft is prepared to transport cargo. The impending 2030 retirement of the space station, the expense of maintaining a Boeing program in stasis, and the political optics of a US program in which only SpaceX can move astronauts could all be factors pushing the schedule beyond the engineering review.

As this develops, the lengthy arc begins to seem familiar. For almost ten years, Starliner has been in some kind of trouble. In 2019, the first unmanned test failed to reach orbit. It took two and a half years for the 2022 do-over, OFT-2, to take off after a thorough rework of corroded valves. Despite a known helium leak, the 2024 crewed flight was launched despite Boeing’s assurances that the rate could increase a hundredfold without any repercussions. According to reports, ValveTech, a NASA contractor at the time, cautioned that another Starliner launch ought to be stopped before something disastrous occurred. No one paid attention. The astronauts took off. The thrusters didn’t work. You are able to sketch a fairly straight line.

The engineering reviews fall short of capturing this story’s cultural element. For the majority of its business history, Boeing was a name that was revered in the aerospace industry. The moon landers, the 707 and the 747. The 737 MAX crashes followed. Early in 2024, the door plug came off in midair. The senior executives, the grounded jets, and the whistleblowers all quietly departed. It is difficult to assess one without hearing the echoes of the other, and Starliner’s problems entered that larger unraveling. A company that once embodied careful engineering is now regularly defending its decisions in front of cameras.

According to Boeing, the program will go on. They contend that significant corrective action has been taken. cultural shifts as well. From their point of view, the April flight serves as proof that Starliner is capable of safely delivering cargo before any crew ever approaches it again. It’s unclear if that will be sufficient to restore confidence within NASA. Even less certain is whether it will be sufficient to restore public confidence outside of NASA.

Reading the latest remarks from agency representatives gives the impression that everyone is aware that the upcoming test is more important than any previous one. When private space stations go online, there will be a “endless demand” for orbital pathways, according to Isaacman. That might be the case. Perhaps Boeing finds its footing. For now, however, one of the most open mea culpas a NASA administrator has given in years is taking place on the runway as the April flight is being prepared. It’s an odd combination. A week of headlines that included self-assurance, regret, and a busy schedule.