Posted on 02/20/2026 7:40:25 AM PST by MtnClimber
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.
Starliner docked to ISS in 2024.
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.
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.
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.
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
I have worked with Boeing in the past. At least 20 years ago they were super woke and had de facto DEI before these had the current names.
All Diversity = No Starliner
Boeing is incompetent, from top to bottom. Commercial, Defense, weapons, services, all of it. One gigantic DEI woke mess.
Just wait until you see what a huge disaster the F-47 will be. FedGov/USAF made a huge mistake when they put all their eggs into that basket.
Capitalism model!? What kind of BS communistic newspeak is this?
ALL of NASA has always worked under the “capitalism model” like anything anyone else in this country has had built to contract.
What’s really different here is that NASA shirked its oversight duties and responsibilities to put the blame square on Boeing while taking credit for any successes that would’ve happened. It failed, NASA leadership was caught lacking and now they want to pan it off on “evil capitalism”
Sack these idiots.
One thing that struck me upon reading about Starliner. NASA has a wonderful Oral History Project where they interviewed key players in the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. Mission Control guys, Astronauts, Administrators, pretty much everyone involved.
One of them was an engineer who worked for Marquardt, the subcontractor who made the thrusters in the early 1960s. He said they had a lot of problems with them, making them work right. Overheating, swelling of teflon seals, causing an obstruction in the thrusters.
Testing involves using a vacuum chamber, because testing on Earth are much different conditions - an expensive, unwieldy process because they have to be huge, and as soon as a thruster is fired, well there goes the vacuum. Gotta clean up and re-boot, test again. But they got it figured out.
Fast forward sixty (60) years. You’ll never guess what the problems are with the Starliner thrusters. “Overheating, swelling of teflon seals, causing an obstruction.” It was verbatim. Couldn’t believe it.
This shows the sort of institutional knowledge that was wasted, thrown away, by congress after the massive programs initiated by President Kennedy. They are trying to re-solve problems from the Kennedy era, without much success, apparently.
One might conclude that the thruster issues aren’t the only problems that will resurface. Very sad.
We could have had affordable tourist flights to lunar orbit long ago, and millions of good paying jobs and careers. Instead we get this BS. All that money and sacrifice all those guys made. 400,000 directly employed, millions more indirectly employed. And it looks like from out here in the cheap seats they just threw it away, and hitching a ride into orbit from the Russians, the flying exploding brick, etc.
Since the 60s it was called affirmative action hiring.
The most important thing Von Braun brought to NASA was an uncanny ability to manage projects. That included proof of exhaustive testing.
“NASA on Starliner: Too much freedom caused the failure!”
are they sure that the fact that Boeing built it is the reason that it failed?
The whole thing is a crock.
The solution is...more government management? By NASA consultants who have less experience then the contractor themselves?
It’s to laugh.
Boeing owns this. Let them pony up to fix it.
Doesn’t require new layers of bureaucrats.
You know the saying: “If it’s Boeing, we ain’t going.”
That’s what happens when you let the bean-counters run the company.
NASA itself is socialist, just as the USPS and TVA are socialist.
Words have a meaning. It is Orwellian to say socialism is capitalism.
I think it is what happens when you let the HR Department run the company. Diversity scores trump merit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.