the 312-page report<\/a>, \u201credacted only where legally required or as directed by our commercial partner,\u201d Isaacman said.\n<\/p>\n\nThere are still significant redactions in the report, particularly in sections about the technical causes of the helium leaks and thruster failures on the Starliner CFT mission. Many details are blacked out, along with most illustrations or images of spacecraft systems.\n<\/p>\n
\nNonetheless, the report makes clear the severity of the issues on the flight. On approach to the station, five of Starliner\u2019s thrusters failed, causing a loss of 6DOF, or movement in six degrees of freedom. Starliner could not move forward on the +X axis, towards the ISS, and had degraded control of pitch and yaw.\n<\/p>\n
\n\u201cThe loss of X-axis translation resulted in a loss of movement in the forward direction and the Starliner vehicle was no longer capable of docking to the ISS, until a subset of thrusters could be recovered,\u201d the report stated. Four of those thrusters were recovered, allowing the docking to proceed.\n<\/p>\n
\nThe report praised that decision, noting that backing off any making another attempt, or deciding to return to Earth immediately, could have made the thruster problems worse. That would have created a \u201chigher risk to loss of life\u201d for Wilmore and Willams.\n<\/p>\n
\nBut the report noted that there had been thruster failures on the two uncrewed test flights, OFT and OFT-2. Even before OFT in 2019, testing showed there was a risk of the thrusters were subject to thermal environments that \u201ccould exceed qualification limits.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
\nNonetheless, NASA agreed to accept the risk of thruster problems on CFT. \u201cThis decision was made without resolving the core thermal qualification issues, effectively mischaracterizing the severity and operational impact of the thermal risks,\u201d the report stated [emphasis in original].\n<\/p>\n
\nIn addition to the thruster failures in the Starliner service module on approach to the ISS, there was a separate failure of a thruster in the crew module during its uncrewed return to Earth. Notably, that failure brought the module to zero fault tolerance. \u201cLoss of the single remaining redundant thruster, for this control axis, would have resulted in a loss of crew,\u201d the report stated.\n<\/p>\n
\nThere are fewer redactions in the section on organizational issues. For that section, the independent review team relied on 66 interviews with people from senior management to line engineers, examining decision-making processes, communication, team dynamics, and more.\n<\/p>\n
\nThe report paints a picture of a rather dysfunctional management process during CFT, as engineers and managers evaluated the severity of the technical problems with Starliner and whether it was safe for Williams and Wilmore to return home on it.\n<\/p>\n
\u201cIt was probably the ugliest environment that I\u2019ve been in,\u201d one interviewee said of the Starliner mission management meetings.<\/p>\n
\nWhile crew safety was \u201cthe primary focus of discussion\u201d throughout the mission, the report showed how those discussions were carried out was problematic. Technical teams said they did not have enough time to evaluate data and develop potential explanations of the problems with the spacecraft, which made meetings unproductive. With no published agenda for the meetings of the Starliner mission management team, people felt compelled to attend every one out of the belief it \u201ccould be \u2018the one\u2019 that was going to make the big crew return decision.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
\nOther issues ranged from differences between NASA and Boeing in how they evaluate risk and the perception of some that they felt NASA had to show the spacecraft was unsafe, rather than Boeing prove it was safe.\n<\/p>\n
\n\u201cStrong personalities within CCP [commercial crew program] and Boeing were seen as overly optimistic in presenting data, which some interviewees interpreted as lobbying rather than objective analysis,\u201d the report stated. \u201cThis dynamic discouraged dissenting views and contributed to a growing sense of distrust. As one interviewee described, opposing positions felt like \u2018pushing a rock uphill.\u2019\u201d\n<\/p>\n
\nThen there was what Isaacman called in his letter the \u201cunprofessional conduct\u201d during debates about Starliner\u2019s return. The report said that several interviewees brought up what it called \u201cfrustrating and\/or unprofessional communication styles\u201d during those meetings without being prompted. The report included several quotes from people recalling those meetings:\n<\/p>\n
\t\u201cThere was yelling in meetings. It was emotionally charged and unproductive.\u201d
\n\t\u201cThere are some people that just don\u2019t like each other very much, and that really manifested itself during CFT.\u201d
\n\t\u201cIt was probably the ugliest environment that I\u2019ve been in.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n(That is only a subset of the quotes included in the report on the topic.)\n<\/p>\n
\nThe report identified three root causes for the Starliner CFT incident, none of which were technical in nature. One was a \u201chands-off approach\u201d used by NASA during the start of the commercial crew program that kept the agency form gaining enough data and knowledge about the spacecraft to accept it as a service. The second was inadequate systems engineering and integration at Boeing during the design phase, resulting in Starliner thrusters operating outside of qualification ranges. The third was a culture in the commercial crew program that seeks two successful providers, which led to accepting greater risk.\n<\/p>\n
![\"Starliner\"\/](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/5166b.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
NASA administrator Jared Isaacman at the microphone, with associate administrator Amit Kshatriya behind him, at Thursday\u2019s briefing about the Starliner report. (credit: NASA\/Joel Kowsky)<\/p>\n
Whither Starliner?<\/p>\n
\nOne recommendation made by the independent review was that the Starliner CFT mission should be classified as a \u201cType A mishap\u201d in agency parlance, one that requires an independent review. Isaacman said he accepted that recommendation and considered the report that independent review.\n<\/p>\n
\nThat classification attracted headlines because it is NASA\u2019s most serious classification for a mishap, one that includes the losses of the shuttles Challenger and Columbia. But is also includes any accident that results in more than $2 million in damage or \u201cunexpected aircraft or spacecraft departure from controlled flight.\u201d Isaacman noted at the briefing that a recent gear-up landing by a NASA WB-57 aircraft at Ellington Airport in Houston, which damaged the plane but did not injure the two people on board, was also a Type A mishap.\n<\/p>\n
\nOne reason that the independent review recommended the Type A mishap classification was so that the incident could be formally captured in NASA databases, like the NASA Mishap Information System, and warned without doing so \u201ctransparency, trust, and institutional learning are compromised.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
\nAt its most recent public meeting in December, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel had also raised the issue. Not classifying the mission as a mishap or \u201chigh-visibility close call\u201d while in flight confused decision-making processes, the panel argued.\n<\/p>\n
\n\u201cHad this been done in a timely fashion, after the docking of Starliner, the communication of these decision-making authorities and the primary path to resolution of the crew return question would have dramatically improved,\u201d said former astronaut Charlie Precourt, a member of the panel.\n<\/p>\n
\nIsaacman offered few other specifics about agency responses to the report. Asked what \u201cleadership accountability\u201d meant in terms of potential changes in the commercial crew program or the Space Operations Mission Directorate, Isaacman instead focused on the failures of accountability during the CFT mission, which he said went all the way to the top of NASA.\n<\/p>\n
\u201cTo be clear, NASA will not fly another crew on Starliner until technical causes are understood and corrected, the propulsion system is fully qualified, and appropriate investigation recommendations are implemented,\u201d Isaacman said.<\/p>\n
\nLeadership failures, he argued, existed at multiple levels of NASA \u201cright up to the administrator of NASA,\u201d who at the time of the mission was Bill Nelson. \u201cI can’t imagine a situation like that, why there would not have been some direct involvement to bring people back to the mission and the crew and figure out the correct pathway forward.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
\nIn the briefing, some asked why NASA should continue to support Starliner given its problems and the impending end of life of the ISS. \u201cWe see near-endless demand for crew and cargo access to low Earth orbit, well beyond the life of the International Space Station,\u201d Isaacman argued. \u201cAmerica benefits by having multiple pathways to take our crew and cargo to orbit.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
\nThat is, interestingly, similar to the concern raised by the report that the commercial crew program was too focused on supporting two providers, resulting in increased risk. And while there are obvious benefits of having two crew providers, it\u2019s not clear if that \u201cnear-endless demand\u201d projected by Isaacman will materialize in time to save Starliner\u2019s business case. In fact, the report stated that limited hardware spares and plans to retire the Atlas 5 \u201craise concerns about the program\u2019s long-term viability.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
\nIsaacman made clear, though, that he would not rush to bring Starliner back. Asked about the schedule presented in recent weeks about the uncrewed Starliner-1 flying as soon as April, with a crewed mission as soon as late this year, he did not explicitly rule out that schedule, but suggested it was not feasible.\n<\/p>\n
\n\u201cOur focus here at NASA is working alongside Boeing again to understand the technical challenges that have caused these service module and crew module thruster issues, to remediate them, make sure we have a full understanding of the risk associated with this vehicle, implement the report, the recommendations from the report, and get back to flight,\u201d he said.\n<\/p>\n
\nHe added that \u201cwhat we don’t want to do is perpetuate past problems by establishing endless target launch dates that we were unable to meet.\u201d One finding of the report was that, over a five-year period leading up to CFT, the program was within six months of a scheduled launch date for 41 months during that time: schedules repeatedly slipped as worked dragged on. The reported noted \u201crepeatedly moving launch dates a little at a time will have a negative impact on team dynamics.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
\n\u201cTo be clear, NASA will not fly another crew on Starliner until technical causes are understood and corrected, the propulsion system is fully qualified, and appropriate investigation recommendations are implemented,\u201d he said.\n<\/p>\n
\nBoeing was not a part of the briefing, but did issue a brief statement confirming it would continue to work on Starliner.\n<\/p>\n
\n\u201cIn the 18 months since our test flight, Boeing has made substantial progress on corrective actions for technical challenges we encountered and driven significant cultural changes across the team that directly align with the findings in the report,\u201d the company stated. \u201cWe\u2019re working closely with NASA to ensure readiness for future Starliner missions and remain committed to NASA\u2019s vision for two commercial crew providers.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
\nAlso at the briefing was Amit Kshatriya, NASA associate administrator. He filled in some of the technical details but also providing closing remarks.\n<\/p>\n
\n\u201cFor the workforce of NASA\u2014and I\u2019ve been here in the agency almost 20 years now\u2014it is hard to hear sometimes, when we were talking about our culture and we’re talking about how we do things,\u201d he said. \u201cI think it’s important to recognize that this form of leadership allows our culture to get better.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
\nKshatriya, a former flight director in Mission Control, noted he worked with both Williams and Wilmore throughout his career. \u201cButch and Suni are honestly like family to me,\u201d he said.\n<\/p>\n
\n\u201cThey have so much grace, and they\u2019re so competent, the two of them, and we failed them. The agency failed them,\u201d he said. \u201cWe have to say that. We have to recognize that our responsibility is to them and to all the crews that are coming and to the crews that about to go fly. And our responsibilities to each other, too. We’re a family.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
Jeff Foust (jeff@thespacereview.com<\/a>) is the editor and publisher of The Space Review, and a senior staff writer with SpaceNews<\/a>. He also operates the Spacetoday.net<\/a> web site. Views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone.<\/p>\nNote: we are now moderating comments. There will be a delay in posting comments and no guarantee that all submitted comments will be posted.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Boeing\u2019s CST-100 Starliner docked to the International Space Station during the CFT mission in 2024. (credit: NASA) by…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":308846,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[85,46,141,145],"class_list":["post-308845","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-space","tag-il","tag-israel","tag-science","tag-space"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/308845","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=308845"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/308845\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/308846"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=308845"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=308845"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=308845"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"Starliner\"\/](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/5166a.jpg\")
<\/p>\n