Starliner future plans still in limbo

telcodad · 2025-06-09T00:14:22+00:00

A year after the launch of a flawed crewed test flight of Boeing’s Starliner, the future of the program remains uncertain as NASA announced late Friday that the next flight of the spacecraft was being delayed to early 2026 at the soonest: Starliner future plans still in limbo By Jeff Foust, Space News - June 8, 2025 https://spacenews.com/starliner-future-plans-still-in-limbo/ A year after the launch of a flawed crewed test flight of Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner, NASA has yet to determine the next mission for the spacecraft with mixed signals about the vehicle’s future. In a statement June 6, NASA said it was still studying options for the next flight of Starliner, expected no earlier than early 2026. That includes whether that next flight will be crewed or uncrewed. “NASA is assessing the earliest potential for a Starliner flight to the International Space Station in early 2026, pending system certification and resolution of Starliner’s technical issues,” the agency stated. “The agency is still evaluating whether Starliner’s next flight will be in a crew or cargo configuration.” ….

HooRU

What a bunch of hooey. I bet the engineers and scientists did fine but management were behind this. You blame the front line. You should read Dr. Deming. Are you a businessman?

HooRU

I worked in federal labs, these supposed incompetants you are talking about: I’ve never seen them. What is YOUR technical training? What business were you a CEO of?

HooRU

Big talk.

px_eliezer_

HooRU Big talk.

Perhaps look in mirror.

I don’t agree with Jeff on many philosophical issues but his long detailed posting history here (and at DSLR) points to his business and technical expertise.

As well, he only posts under one account.

I don’t how [anybody] can defend the performance of Boeing in recent years, for either general aviation or spaceflight.

Multiple aspects have gone bad, it may be hard to sort out management side from engineering side.

InternetJeff

HooRU I bet the engineers and scientists did fine but management were behind this.

Boeing engineers ostensibly designed the thrusters that failed, which resulted in a Class-A mishap stranding astronauts in space for months.

HooRU You should read Dr. Deming.

Deming’s principles are dated, do not account for variation well, are suited for non-critical repetitive processes, and have been largley supplanted by modern quality implementations like Six Sigma and ISO-9001, the latter of which I have direct experience with. Increasingly, government contracts are requiring that potential offerors be ISO-9001 certified.

InternetJeff

HooRU I worked in federal labs, these supposed incompetants you are talking about: I’ve never seen them.

You probably did not see Boeing engineering activities from 2024 in a federal lab decades ago. Apples and oranges.

HooRU What is YOUR technical training? What business were you a CEO of?

Not that it matters, but you asked. I spent 26 years in the Air Force, starting out as a radar technician, culminating in the management of multi-million dollar contracted programs. After my Air Force career I built and operate my own small-to-medium size businesses. I hold certificates from George Washington Uniiversty in program management, contract management, and risk management.

Now back to Starliner.

MacLeech

HooRU I bet the engineers and scientists did fine but management were behind this.

The multiple Starliner thrusters that failed were legacy flight proven models from L3Harris Rocketdyne used in a new Boeing pod design that wasn’t properly tested in its flight configuration. It
really looks like there is plenty of blame to go around at Boeing. Why did known good thrusters overheat? Why wasn’t the new thruster pod design tested in its flight configuration?

InternetJeff

MacLeech Starliner thrusters that failed were legacy flight proven models from L3Harris Rocketdyne

Wow, good catch. Something I had not read before. If these were previously reliable and flight proven, it would be interesting to see the Boeing engineering processes that integrated these into Starliner.

It is unfortunate that the service module that holds these thrusters is not available for study, as it is released and burns up returning from orbit

HooRU

px_eliezer_ I only post from one account too. It’s the rules. But there are imposters if you haven’t followed.

Management pressured engineers where it was their way or the highway. Read Deming.

InternetJeff

HooRU Management pressured engineers where it was their way or the highway.

Do you have evidence of this at Boeing with regard to Starliner?

HooRU

InternetJeff Fair enough. I just think you were casting aspersions somewhat.

Deming wasn’t only about quality, but infrastructure and that is not dated except to bad business school ethics today.

HooRU

InternetJeff You know the general culture was that, thinking it didn’t spread to NASA Work seems naive to me.

HooRU

With all due respect

MacLeech

HooRU You know the general culture was that, thinking it didn’t spread to NASA Work seems naive to me.

The NASA Administrator even said it was management and engineering issues on both sides during the press conference on the Starliner report in February.

https://www.npr.org/2026/02/19/nx-s1-5719870/nasa-starliner-boeing-mishap-isaacman

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman is blaming Boeing and his own agency for botching a test flight of the Starliner spacecraft, designed to take astronauts to and from the International Space Station.
…
“Starliner has design and engineering deficiencies that must be corrected,” said Isaacman. “But the most troubling failure revealed by this investigation is not hardware. It’s decision making and leadership that, if left unchecked, could create a culture incompatible with human spaceflight.”

MacLeech

InternetJeff Wow, good catch. Something I had not read before.

Yeah, L3Harris advertised they had built the engines for Starliner for years. They were VERY proud of it and they published LOTS of press releases. Here’s just 3:
https://www.l3harris.com/all-capabilities/cst-100-starliner
https://arsuppliernet.l3harris.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-ships-starliner-re-entry-thrusters
https://arsuppliernet.l3harris.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-successfully-completes-qualification-tests-reusable-engine-support-next-era-human

Similar to other reaction control system engines, the MR-104J includes additional features to increase redundancy that meet critical requirements and improved strength to withstand multiple shocks at operating temperatures. The engine upgrades also provide reusability for Boeing as it certifies Starliner crew modules for multiple missions.

HooRU

Ok, so I’m wrong. But who is inevitably responsible for quality? Management, and if they didn’t hire good talent or put requirements for things, or didn’t arrange company structure well enough, putting blame on the engineers doesn’t absolve them, right?

I HAVE worked with some dumb engineers and scientists, I will admit that.

MacLeech

HooRU Three general things indicate the overall failures in Starliner development. Management didn’t design the pods the engines were installed into, engineers did. Engineers didn’t cut out the flight configuration testing of the engine pods, management did. NASA approved the relatively untested engine pods to be used on flight hardware.

This is why the NASA Administrator spread the blame around. It wasn’t just one group or organization. There are checks and balances between them and that failed too.

px_eliezer_

MacLeech This is why the NASA Administrator spread the blame around. It wasn’t just one group or organization. There are checks and balances between them and that failed too.

Truly the whole system.

Likewise, modern hospitals try to do a systemic approach to Quality Assurance (QA) rather than blaming individuals. Failures usually are an organizational issue.

« Previous Page