A NASA safety panel has criticized space agency officials for how they handled the busted Starliner mission that left two astronauts stranded on board the International Space Station (ISS). A new report highlights a wave of uncertainty that lurked behind Boeing\u2019s unfortunate saga, casting doubt over whether NASA can properly address safety concerns with future missions like Artemis.<\/p>\n
For months, NASA and Boeing officials reassured the press<\/a> that astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams could depart the ISS on board the faulty Boeing spacecraft. Given the severity of the situation, however, NASA should have immediately declared the incident as a mishap to prompt an investigation with the agency\u2019s safety office, according to a new report by NASA\u2019s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP).<\/p>\n \u201cThe ASAP finding is the lack of a declared in-flight mishap or high visibility close call contributed to an extensive, excessive \u2026 period of time where risk ownership and the decision-making authority were unclear,\u201d Charlie Precourt, a former space shuttle commander and member of ASAP, told Ars Technica<\/a>.<\/p>\n Safety first <\/p>\n Boeing\u2019s\u00a0Starliner capsule launched<\/a> atop United Launch Alliance\u2019s Atlas V rocket on June 5 for its first crewed test flight.\u00a0The\u00a0spacecraft had a hard time docking<\/a>\u00a0at the space station after five of the spacecraft\u2019s thrusters failed during its approach. Starliner also developed\u00a0five helium leaks<\/a>, one of which had been identified prior to its launch.<\/p>\n The mission was originally scheduled for eight days, but the crew\u2019s return was delayed several times as ground teams conducted tests on the vehicle and collected data before giving the green light for the astronauts to return to Earth. NASA eventually deemed the spacecraft unfit to carry the astronauts back home<\/a> and returned the crew on board SpaceX\u2019s Dragon spacecraft<\/a>\u00a0instead.<\/p>\n Astronauts Wilmore and Williams ended up spending nearly nine months on the ISS while officials downplayed the thruster glitch and deliberated whether or not to return the astronauts on board Starliner. On September 6, 2024,\u00a0Boeing\u2019s Starliner undocked from the ISS and returned to Earth<\/a>\u00a0without a crew on board.<\/p>\n NASA\u2019s procedural requirements stipulated that the agency should declare a mishap in the event of a mission failure. The agency had made that official declaration following Starliner\u2019s first uncrewed mission to the ISS in 2019, when the spacecraft failed to reach the space station. Declaring a mishap initiates an internal process within NASA\u2019s safety office to launch an investigation and document lessons learned for future missions.<\/p>\n \u201cProcedurally, investigation reports are tied to anomaly declaration, so they gain an official status in NASA records,\u201d Precourt is quoted as saying. \u201cCertainly, this particular anomaly deserves to be right up front and center for quite some time.\u201d<\/p>\n Wave of confusion <\/p>\n In failing to officially declare the Starliner mission as a mishap, NASA created a wave of confusion within the agency, delaying the launch of an investigation. For months, NASA weighed whether to return the crew aboard Starliner or opt to have them board SpaceX\u2019s capsule instead. The agency was keen on sending a message to the press that the crew was not stranded in space and that Starliner is capable of returning the crew to Earth.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s a significant difference, philosophically, between we will work toward proving the Starliner is safe for crew return, versus a philosophy of Starliner is no-go for return..until we learn how to ensure the on-orbit failures won\u2019t recur on entry with the Starliner,\u201d Precourt told Ars Technica. \u201cThe latter would have been the more appropriate direction. However, there were many stakeholders that believed the direction was the former approach. This ambiguity continued throughout the summer month.\u201d<\/p>\n In its report, the safety panel recommended that NASA remove this ambiguity in the event of a mishap in the future that may jeopardize the safety of its crew.<\/p>\n