Should Starliner be given another chance?

[Chris Bergin]

Word to the wise to people who have been here years and should know better. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. We're not editing people's posts to clean them up, the entire post goes, so don't waste your time doing that.

[DanClemmensen]

This is separate from the cargo only Starliner config Stich mentioned during the press conference that is offered as a political off ramp to SpaceX so SpaceX does not cancel Starliner, ie you can have a monopoly on crewed access but NASA needs to keep a backup crewed option they can activate if something happens to Dragon. Stich is playing chess to keep the program impartial as much as possible and people here are getting mad they are being "cheated out". Why? Boeing doesn't even have a say in this, discussion on Starliner next step is purely between NASA and SpaceX stakeholders.

Starliner is owned by Boeing, not SpaceX. SpaceX can't cancel Starliner.

What's more: even NASA can't cancel Starliner. Only the owner (Boeing) can cancel Starliner.

NASA could probably cancel the remainder of the Starliner CCP contract on the grounds of nonperformance, since Boeing was supposed to deliver the first operational mission in 2017. It appears that Boeing will not proceed with Starliner unless NASA makes concessions that are not in the contract, namely a dubious "certification" and payment for an uncrewed mission. Thus, if NASA wants Starliner to go away, all NASA needs to do is do nothing.

[TJL]

Re-assigning Starliner pilot Michael Fincke to Dragons Crew-11 crew may be a subtle hint as to Boeing's future.

[jongoff]

This is separate from the cargo only Starliner config Stich mentioned during the press conference that is offered as a political off ramp to SpaceX so SpaceX does not cancel Starliner, ie you can have a monopoly on crewed access but NASA needs to keep a backup crewed option they can activate if something happens to Dragon. Stich is playing chess to keep the program impartial as much as possible and people here are getting mad they are being "cheated out". Why? Boeing doesn't even have a say in this, discussion on Starliner next step is purely between NASA and SpaceX stakeholders.

Starliner is owned by Boeing, not SpaceX. SpaceX can't cancel Starliner.

What's more: even NASA can't cancel Starliner. Only the owner (Boeing) can cancel Starliner.

NASA could cancel the contract with Boeing for Starliner though, and there's almost no chance Boeing wouldn't cancel Starliner at that point, so isn't the difference there somewhat academic?

~Jon

[Todd Martin]

Yes, I believe Starliner has value and should continue to be part of the Commercial Crew program.  Back in the Shuttle era, there were more frequent crew rotations and these shorter stints onboard improved astronaut health, increased the diversity of skill sets and training opportunities.  Having more astronauts visit the station allows for more science.  Post ISS, the program of record is still to anchor a commercial LEO station which will likely have more crew rotations than recent ISS funding allowed.  Starliner's principal advantage over Dragon is that the nominal crew return is on land.  For commercial applications, this is much preferred as tourists will likely prefer shorter stays and return on land.

[Newton_V]

Yes, I believe Starliner has value and should continue to be part of the Commercial Crew program.  Back in the Shuttle era, there were more frequent crew rotations and these shorter stints onboard improved astronaut health, increased the diversity of skill sets and training opportunities.  Having more astronauts visit the station allows for more science.  Post ISS, the program of record is still to anchor a commercial LEO station which will likely have more crew rotations than recent ISS funding allowed.  Starliner's principal advantage over Dragon is that the nominal crew return is on land.  For commercial applications, this is much preferred as tourists will likely prefer shorter stays and return on land.

Noticed your name on this post.   Did you ever happen to work for GD Space Systems in Huntsville back in the early 90s?

[JSz]

https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/commercialcrew/2025/03/27/nasa-boeing-prepare-for-starliner-testing/:

(...) Steve Stich, manager, NASA’s Commercial Crew Program at the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida: “We’ll continue to work through certification toward the end of this year and then go figure out where Starliner fits best in the schedule for the International Space Station and its crew and cargo missions. It is likely to be in the timeframe of late this calendar year or early next year for the next Starliner flight.”

Mission managers are planning for the next Starliner flight to be a crew capable post-certification mission, and NASA also has the capability of flying only cargo depending on the needs of the agency.

[Robotbeat]

I personally think Starliner should be given another chance IF NASA can swing it without significant extra resources. If Boeing offers Starliner for cargo at a price similar to Cygnus and Dragon cargo, that would be a way to validate it enough for Starliner to be safe to proceed for the rest of its already-contracted crew missions.

And I say all this as someone who really doesn’t trust Boeing and who really thinks SpaceX is largely the future of the program. It’s still in NASA & the nation’s interests to try to have redundancy in crew and cargo providers AND, if possible, sort of force Boeing to make good on the contract for crew before dipping out.

NASA should be playing hard ball with Boeing. Boeing must make good on their commercial crew contract. NASA should to be just flexible enough so that Boeing can’t just throw in the towel but without rewarding Boeing for not succeeding.

[DanClemmensen]

I personally think Starliner should be given another chance IF NASA can swing it without significant extra resources. If Boeing offers Starliner for cargo at a price similar to Cygnus and Dragon cargo, that would be a way to validate it enough for Starliner to be safe to proceed for the rest of its already-contracted crew missions.

And I say all this as someone who really doesn’t trust Boeing and who really thinks SpaceX is largely the future of the program. It’s still in NASA & the nation’s interests to try to have redundancy in crew and cargo providers AND, if possible, sort of force Boeing to make good on the contract for crew before dipping out.

NASA should be playing hard ball with Boeing. Boeing must make good on their commercial crew contract. NASA should to be just flexible enough so that Boeing can’t just throw in the towel but without rewarding Boeing for not succeeding.

I disagree.

1)Stich proposes to "certify" Starliner even though it has not successfully completed the contractually-required CFT. This certification will result in NASA paying Boeing the final payments for the development portion of the contract, for nothing.

2)There are only six Atlas Vs for Starliner. A cargo flight reduces the number of crewed flights to five and requires NASA to buy an additional Crew Dragon flight to compensate.

3)Replacing a Cygnus or Cargo Dragon flight with cargo Starliner penalizes the good supplier for bad performance by the bad supplier.

4)In particular, Starliner must use an IDSS port, so it is effectively replacing a Cargo Dragon with a less capable Starliner. Starliner has no unpressurized cargo capacity and reduced pressurized cargo capacity while blocking the scarce IDSS resource.

5)Assuming they charge the same price as was negotiated for a crewed Starliner mission, It will cost more than a Cargo Dragon even though it has less capability.

6)Continuing Starliner consumes significant resources within NASA.

7)Pretending that Starliner is viable prevents NASA from providing SpaceX with realistic forecasts for Crew Dragon, which adds costs and increases risk of delays, as happened with Crew-10.

8 ) Money saved on Starliner termination could be used to pay SpaceX to maintain a standby Crew Dragon capability, which would provide actual redundancy instead of the current non-redundancy.

[gtae07]

On the one hand, the entirely self-interested part of me says keep it going, because if they cancel the program there will be more newly-unemployed engineers competing with me as I'm looking for a new job.

On the other hand, if Boeing thinks they can finally get it right the fourth time, let them fly it again on their dime and re-evaluate after (if?) it lands.

On the gripping hand, we're far enough down the road that it just doesn't make sense to keep this poor thing on life support.  For the good of NASA and Boeing and the taxpayers, it's probably better to cancel the contract and pay the penalty.  Boeing has enough on its plate with the NGAD win (yes, I know, separate divisions and the people don't just transfer over) that they don't need more distractions.  Hopefully the public humiliations of the last several years have applied sufficient clue-by-fours to Management that they can move on properly.

[DanClemmensen]

For the good of NASA and Boeing and the taxpayers, it's probably better to cancel the contract and pay the penalty.

What penalty? I do not know of any penalty in the contract for this situation. NASA would simply decline to certify Starliner on the grounds that Boeing did not complete an acceptable CFT. If this did not cause Boeing to immediately announce Starliner termination, then NASA can terminate the contract for nonperformance.

[RedLineTrain]

And I say all this as someone who really doesn’t trust Boeing and who really thinks SpaceX is largely the future of the program. It’s still in NASA & the nation’s interests to try to have redundancy in crew and cargo providers AND, if possible, sort of force Boeing to make good on the contract for crew before dipping out.

Starliner doesn't and isn't planned to provide meaningful redundancy in the sense that it can't replace Dragon capacity.  It's only an option in some limited scenarios.  That's fine because the time where such redundancy was most needed has long passed.

[DanClemmensen]

And I say all this as someone who really doesn’t trust Boeing and who really thinks SpaceX is largely the future of the program. It’s still in NASA & the nation’s interests to try to have redundancy in crew and cargo providers AND, if possible, sort of force Boeing to make good on the contract for crew before dipping out.

Starliner doesn't and isn't planned to provide meaningful redundancy in the sense that it can't replace Dragon capacity.  It's only an option in some limited scenarios.  That's fine because the time where such redundancy was most needed has long passed.

It's fine with you, and it's fine with me, but apparently it's not fine with NASA. They seem to claim the overwhelming importance of dissimilar redundancy in every single press release about Starliner, with no legitimate reasoning or analysis. In retrospect, program-level redundancy was essential to the success of CCP, but IMO ceased to be important by about 2022, and is now actively detrimental.

[RedLineTrain]

It's fine with you, and it's fine with me, but apparently it's not fine with NASA. They seem to claim the overwhelming importance of dissimilar redundancy in every single press release about Starliner, with no legitimate reasoning or analysis. In retrospect, program-level redundancy was essential to the success of CCP, but IMO ceased to be important by about 2022, and is now actively detrimental.

Yes, in my view, "dissimilar redundancy" is a brain-dead slogan at this point.  Even in the entirely possible event of a Dragon mishap (this is dangerous stuff), you would want to add a Dragon flight rather than a Starliner flight on the margins.

[Robotbeat]

And I say all this as someone who really doesn’t trust Boeing and who really thinks SpaceX is largely the future of the program. It’s still in NASA & the nation’s interests to try to have redundancy in crew and cargo providers AND, if possible, sort of force Boeing to make good on the contract for crew before dipping out.

Starliner doesn't and isn't planned to provide meaningful redundancy in the sense that it can't replace Dragon capacity.  It's only an option in some limited scenarios.  That's fine because the time where such redundancy was most needed has long passed.

1) it’s useful for bargaining power to have more than one provider. ISS isn’t the only thing in question, either.
2) it’s important to not let Boeing off the hook so easily after winning a contract that they later ended up regretting.

[RedLineTrain]

And I say all this as someone who really doesn’t trust Boeing and who really thinks SpaceX is largely the future of the program. It’s still in NASA & the nation’s interests to try to have redundancy in crew and cargo providers AND, if possible, sort of force Boeing to make good on the contract for crew before dipping out.

Starliner doesn't and isn't planned to provide meaningful redundancy in the sense that it can't replace Dragon capacity.  It's only an option in some limited scenarios.  That's fine because the time where such redundancy was most needed has long passed.

1) it’s useful for bargaining power to have more than one provider. ISS isn’t the only thing in question, either.
2) it’s important to not let Boeing off the hook so easily after winning a contract that they later ended up regretting.

It doesn't make much sense to me to pay Starliner more now so that NASA could be in a better bargaining position with SpaceX sometime in the future.  Sounds suspiciously like something a Boeing lobbyist would say.  Besides, SpaceX has the whip hand anyway because it knows that Starliner cannot replace Dragon while Dragon can readily replace Starliner.

[MattMason]

While the whole Commercial Crew intentions as far as Starliner goes are rather late to the party, though not kicked out, there is more to Starliner than just the ISS.

Consider: Getting people into space since 1961 is a technical, logistical, financial and sometimes geopolitical nightmare.

Technical: Human spacecraft require testing and resources to keep a human functional and alive from launch to recovery, far more so than any robotic spacecraft, almost all of which are never seen or touched by humans again.

Logistical: There aren't many of them. From 1981 through 1999, there was only the Space Shuttle and Soyuz. The Challenger and Columbia disasters proved more should be available, thus the Commercial Crew decision. (China entered the game here, but see below)

Financial: You can't just slap a human spacecraft on most vehicles. They're heavier, require extra care for both launcher and spacecraft, and only a few select rockets have the power to send them, and (for now) only to Earth orbit or a weak lunar flyby. Extra cash is needed to build and maintain human spacecraft and their launchers (and all staff involved).

Geopolitical: As of 2025, CNSA offers rides to their Tiangong station. However, ESA won't participate out of courtesy to NASA and Wolf Amendment stuff. ESA has failed for decades in developing their own human spacecraft and have to bum rides with either Russia (which is very problematic due to the Ukrainian invasion) or the US (which enjoins the use Crew Dragon by SpaceX).

Yes, Starliner is more expensive to fly, even with my anecdotal reckoning. But outside of SpaceX, it is a generally operational human spacecraft that can be used for ISS but, most importantly, beyond, for Commercial LEO. That Service Module needs a lot of work, though.

Starliner does need a less expensive launcher, and Vulcan won't likely cut it, but a partially re-usable New Glenn could work. It's not from Russia or China or SpaceX, avoiding the various craziness entailed with them (in fact, it comes with enough of its own).

Until a new operational second human spacecraft is available, Starliner is a blessing, not a curse (except to Boeing's stockholders at times). We (the space community) need to avoid all-eggs-in-SpaceX's-basket, if just to avoid issues where its launch vehicles or the company itself do things that feel like a monopoly is in place (and I'm entirely avoiding the whole current presidential administration stuff, but yeah).

[sdsds]

Pushing back a bit on the idea that NASA could cancel the Starliner contract 'for cause' with no termination penalty, CFT-1 returned without a crew at the request of NASA. Those would be good contract terms if NASA had gotten them: 'We can tell you not to fulfill your obligation so then we can cancel with no obligation to pay you.'

[jongoff]

Pushing back a bit on the idea that NASA could cancel the Starliner contract 'for cause' with no termination penalty, CFT-1 returned without a crew at the request of NASA. Those would be good contract terms if NASA had gotten them: 'We can tell you not to fulfill your obligation so then we can cancel with no obligation to pay you.'

While I'm in on the "cancel the contract" side of the argument, I agree with your logic here re: termination for cause over CFT-1 return without a crew. I think you could argue that being as late as they are could potentially be cause. But even if not, I think it might be worth terminating even if they terminate only for convenience. But only if they reinvest any savings into starting one or more other groups on developing commercial crew capabilities. Redundancy is nice, but economically viable competition for post-ISS CLD operations is so much more important. IMO, YMMV, etc.

~Jon

[Robotbeat]

Yeah. The ideal situation would be NASA getting some of the money back and rebidding it. Boeing free to bid again (but with stricter requirements on delivery as a penalty for being late), but open to folks like Blue Origin Sierra Nevada, RocketLab, Stoke… or even Lockheed Martin with Orion (hey, stop laughing! Technically they own the commercial rights to it).