A report on the Boeing Starliner mission that left two astronauts behind on the International Space Station in 2024 has pushed NASA to reclassify the incident in the same category as the Space Shuttle Columbia and Challenger disasters.<\/p>\n
NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said the agency now considers the mission a \u201cType A mishap,\u201d which means it was an event that resulted in at least $2 million in damage, but it could have been much worse.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is about getting the record straight, and I do think that failure to acknowledge this \u2026 and ensure that we are transparent and correct, management leadership missteps that could lead to an unhealthy culture is absolutely warranted,\u201d he said during a press conference Thursday. \u201cFailing to do so invites repeats of previous catastrophic events, which is never, never an acceptable outcome here at NASA.\u201d<\/p>\n
His statements came in the wake of findings from the Program Investigation Team that examined the Boeing CST-100 Starliner Crewed Flight Test that launched from Cape Canaveral on June 5, 2024 with NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams<\/a> for what was supposed to be an eight-day stay on board the station.<\/p>\n The spacecraft, though, suffered thruster failures ahead of docking on top of helium leaks that led to a temporary loss of complete control.<\/p>\n \u201cControl was recovered and docking was achieved. It is worth restating what should be obvious.\u201d Isaacman said. \u201cAt that moment, had different decisions been made, had thrusters not been recovered or had docking been unsuccessful, the outcome of this mission could have been very, very different.\u201d<\/p>\n NASA elected to keep the duo on board the station and send Starliner home<\/a> without them. They ended up flying home<\/a> on a SpaceX Crew Dragon instead, nearly 10 months later<\/a>.<\/p>\n Boeing and SpaceX were originally awarded contracts in 2014 to construct spacecraft that would end the U.S. reliance on Russia for trips to the space station after the end of the Space Shuttle Program in 2011. SpaceX was first to its crewed launch in 2020 while Starliner suffered a series of delays.<\/p>\n \u201cThe spaceship was not healthy,\u201d he said. \u201cWe got to the right place. How we got there was not correct, and that\u2019s why we are trying to set the record straight and classify the situation accordingly, so lessons are learned and not repeated.\u201d<\/p>\n He said he\u2019s thankful Williams and Wilmore\u2019s safety ultimately became the driving force behind decision making.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re grateful we have two astronauts here, and that we did properly investigate this, and that lessons will be appropriately learned across the agency and there will be accountability,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n The report has yet to be released publicly, but Isaacman said it would do so soon.<\/p>\n The administrator called out the agency\u2019s handling of the event, alongside Boeing\u2019s management of the spacecraft\u2019s development.<\/p>\n \u201cStarliner has design and engineering deficiencies that must be corrected but the most troubling failure revealed by this investigation is not hardware, it\u2019s decision making and leadership that if left unchecked could create a culture that is incompatible with human spaceflight,\u201d he said reading from a letter he sent to Congress about the report.<\/p>\n Had the incident been declared a Type A mishap as it has now been classified, it would have triggered an independent review. This report is the result of that now completed review, but was only begun in February nearly five months after Starliner\u2019s return.<\/p>\n \u201cConcern for the Starliner program\u2019s reputation influenced that decision,\u201d he said, adding later, \u201cThat was a mistake. It should have been declared from the get-go. That\u2019s why we\u2019re righting the wrong here and trying to course correct.\u201d<\/p>\n He said the root cause for the domino effect that threatened its astronauts\u2019 lives began with how NASA and Boeing interacted during development.<\/p>\n \u201cStarliner, with its qualification deficiencies, is less reliable for crew survival than other crewed vehicles, and that was, as noted by the report,\u201d he said. \u201cBut at NASA, we manage the contract. We accepted the vehicle, we launched the crew to space. We made decisions from docking through post-mission actions. A considerable portion of the responsibility and accountability rests here.\u201d<\/p>\n He specifically took to task teams at both Boeing and NASA that prioritized the company needing to match or exceed its fellow commercial crew firm SpaceX.<\/p>\n \u201cWitness statements routinely reflected a belief that management within the Commercial Crew Program could only succeed if Starliner launched,\u201d Isaacman said.<\/p>\n He noted that while Williams and Wilmore remained on orbit, discussions about how the crew should return deteriorated into \u201cunprofessional conduct.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWitness statements describe an environment where advocacy tied to the Starliner program viability persisted alongside insufficient senior NASA leadership engagement to refocus teams on safety and mission outcomes,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n He said that leadership failed all the way up to then NASA Administrator Bill Nelson, noting the idea there needed to be two working commercial companies ferrying astronauts to space kept entering into the conversation when \u201cmission and crew safety should have come first.\u201d<\/p>\n That resulted in \u201ca breakdown in culture, created trust issues. And where leadership failed was to recognize that this was taking place and to intervene and course correct.\u201d<\/p>\n The option to have SpaceX come to the rescue and keep the astronauts safe should always have been in the discussion, he said.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat levels of the organization inside NASA did that exist at? Multiple levels, including, I would say, right up to the administrator of NASA,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n He also noted that there will be consequences on NASA\u2019s side, but did not elaborate on who among its leadership might be affected.<\/p>\n NASA Commercial Crew Program Manager Steve Stich remained on task, at least as of last week with the launch of SpaceX\u2019s Crew-12, and has been working with Boeing to try and get Starliner\u2019s issue remedied for its next flight.<\/p>\n That won\u2019t be with humans on board though, with Starliner-1 still on NASA\u2019s launch schedule to fly no earlier than this April as a cargo mission.<\/p>\n Isaacman reiterated that despite the problems with the program so far, NASA has not given up on Starliner.<\/p>\n \u201cNASA will continue to work with Boeing, as we do all of our partners that are undertaking test flights,\u201d he said. \u201cBut to 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<\/p>\n