How it started:

1. OFT (2019 – uncrewed)
2. CFT (early 2021 – 2 crew)
3. Starliner-1 (4 crew)
4. Starliner-2 (4 crew)
5. Starliner-3 (4 crew)

• Contract options for Starliner-4/5/6

How it’s going:

1. Dec 2019: OFT-1 (uncrewed)
2. May 2022: OFT-2 (uncrewed)
3. June 2024: CFT (2 crew)
4. Starliner-1 (2025)
5. Starliner-2 (2026)
6. Starliner-3 (2027)

• Contract options for Starliner-4/5/6

Finally, after rollout to the launch pad in May of 2024, flight controllers powered up Starliner to find a helium leak in the spacecraft. Determining that this single leak and its rate were small enough to handle in-flight (even in a worst-case scenario), NASA proceeded with the launch.

Eventually, on June 5, 2024, Crew Flight Test, after being delayed nine times over the course of multiple years, some spacecraft-related and some not, lifted off with Butch and Suni aboard, headed for the ISS.

Finally, NASA and Boeing could put the setbacks behind them and begin anew… right?

Unfortunately not.

8 days turns to 8 months—

Hours after launch, controllers would come to discover two more leaks (one of which was relatively large, at 395 psi per minute), then a fourth and shortly after docking, a fifth was referenced by NASA’s Steve Stich.

The key notion with these leaks was that Boeing could stop them from happening altogether if they disabled the propulsion system. Helium is used as a pressurant to move fuels through the system. After extending the initial 45-day period Starliner was certified for at ISS, and disabling the helium manifolds, this gave NASA several summer months to conduct in-depth analysis into the situation and the spacecraft’s health.

Before CFT took off, NASA and Boeing both mentioned, many times, how CFT would last eight days. They were also keen to mention this was a test flight, but repeatedly characterized the brief nature of the mission.

These discussions went on for most of June, July, and August. Their return was continually delayed. Starting in mid-June, the return was moved into July, late July, August, and mid-August. It was supremely clear Boeing and NASA were having quite a difficult time reaching congruence on flight rationale to safely return two astronauts to Earth or “reasons why a particular space mission is considered acceptably safe to carry out” as Wayne Hale, a Space Shuttle Program Manager and Flight Director for 40 missions, puts it.

NASA, in July, without initially keeping Boeing in step with their plans, worked with SpaceX behind the scenes to prepare contingency options for Butch and Suni to fly home on the next Crew-9 Dragon, SpaceX’s already-planned operational flight of four crew members launching in the fall of 2024 and returning to Earth in early 2025.

On August 7th, in a news briefing conducted by Ken Bowersox (current associate admin. for NASA’s Space Operations Mission Directorate, former NASA Astronaut and Naval aviator), the fruits of these labors with SpaceX became known. A contingency possibility was shared where two (instead of four) crew would fly to ISS on Crew-9 Dragon, an operational ~6-month mission would be carried out, and Butch and Suni would join them in a tried-and-true Crew Dragon, returning to Earth in February of 2025. This would, however, not be without additional risk in some ways.

“We don’t just have to bring a crew back on Starliner, for example. We could bring them back on another vehicle,” Bowersox said on August 7th. NASA continually mentioned how their primary focus was to return crew on Starliner, but they repeatedly put forward that if SpaceX were needed, the initial task order work was complete should that path be necessary.

NASA’s Dana Weigel (NASA ISS Program Manager) described that this work with SpaceX initially began as a contingency to bring home NASA astronaut Tracy Dyson, in the event of a Soyuz coolant leak similar to previous incidents.

Key quotes—

In both cases: whether via Starliner return, or Crew-9 Dragon cargo, risk to Butch and Suni would go up. “You have to really dig-in to understand what the baseline risk change is.” Bowersox noted on August 24th, comparing the two options. “That’s what the team has been working so hard this last couple of months [on].” This begins to explain a lot of what initially felt, from all sides in working with NASA, like poor communication and lack of ongoing teleconferences. Teams were just incredibly busy navigating uncharted waters.

Having begun down this path over a decade ago to build up the commercial capability to get American astronauts to space on their own accord, NASA is in an unprecedented place with two commercial, crew-capable vehicles. They have now and are in a “problem” (blessing in disguise) of their own creation.

NASA has incredible flexibility on the table in Starliner and Crew Dragon that they’ve simply never truly had before. The Commercial Crew Program exists so that we don’t need to rely on other international partners to get our astronauts to space. And now we’re here, or nearly there.

“We just don’t know how much we can use the thrusters on the way back home [on Starliner], before we encounter a problem, because of the heating effects that happened on the way uphill.” Bowersox continued in the August 24, 2024 telecon.

Steve carried on: “For some reason, the heating is higher in that starboard doghouse that we do not understand. When an OMAC thruster fires, the other thrusters [in that cluster of five] get heated at a much higher rate than expected.”

He explained in-depth that NASA is well-aware of damaged Teflon seals in the thrusters that are made worse or further damaged through continued operation. They found this out through parallel testing at White Sands in July. He posed the question “how close [are] we to a cliff?”The questions at stake: Will the Teflon damage present faster than it did during docking, where they had multiple thrusters fail? What corners could Boeing, NASA, Starliner, and its two-astronaut crew be backed into if these failures happened faster than they expected? Undocking and de-orbit burn is a relatively less demanding environment overall, but it is still a rapid succession of thruster firings.

These were all things NASA expertly sought answers to and was not getting concrete feedback on. Nor were they going to. The service module cannot be serviced in orbit, and it would burn up in the atmosphere upon reentry.

The gaps in knowledge and understanding were simply too great. NASA could not wisely put its astronauts aboard Starliner and ensure they were taking the best option for a safe return. During this same briefing on August 24, NASA announced its decision: Boeing Starliner would come home uncrewed with Butch and Suni flying home on Crew-9 Dragon in February 2025.

It’s so encouraging to have seen NASA, second-hand, work through the process the way they have. These developments are indicative of an incredibly healthy communication process and culture present within the organization. It is indeed difficult at times to be on the slow drip of information, but I think it’s important to keep both of these front of mind.

Putting it into perspective, though, here is how NASA ultimately viewed the risk of crew returning in Starliner on this mission. Starliner was Butch and Suni’s lifeboat. There are two places crew spacecraft can dock to on the ISS. Crew-8 Dragon and CFT Starliner were both docked. Starliner had to leave, and Butch and Suni were staying put, before the next Crew-9 Dragon could launch and dock.

So, there would be a window of time where Butch and Suni would need a temporary lifeboat.

It was a very small chance of actually being used, but NASA put into place a six-crew return contingency capability on the Crew-8 Dragon spacecraft (launched in March, before Starliner) wherein, Butch and Suni would be strapped in below the four operational seats, without spacesuits, in the mid-deck, to the cargo pallet inside Crew-8 Dragon. In the event they needed to immediately depart the orbital outpost, strapped into a cargo pallet of Dragon would be their lifeboat.

NASA thought it more risky to return Butch and Suni in Starliner, with pressurized suits and in seats tailor-made for them, than unsuited inside Dragon. I say this not to dramatize the decision or to counter NASA’s thoughtful review, but to characterize and provide powerful perspective of how NASA themselves understood and classified the level of risk of returning to Earth inside Starliner.

With SpaceX’s heavy involvement now in returning Butch and Suni home, and NASA and Boeing’s clear lack of congruence on the best path to take, these are noteworthy omissions. But again, these teams are busy conducting brand-new orchestras.

After Starliner had successfully returned without its crew, NASA held the most recent teleconference at 1:30 a.m. ET, ninety minutes after successful touchdown at White Sands. Boeing was still not present on the call. Joel Montalbano was asked why, and responded saying “We did talk to Boeing before this. They deferred to NASA to represent the mission.”

Mark Nappi, Vice President and Program Manager of Boeing’s Commercial Crew Program, in an update after the landing, said “We will review the data and determine the next steps for the program.”

Steve Stich continued on the telecon: “You know, from a human perspective, all of us feel happy about the successful landing, but then there’s a piece of us, all of us, that we wish it would have been the way we had planned it. I think there is, depending on who you are on the team, different emotions associated with that.”

A difficult situation to navigate, for sure.

NASA has been clear: Starliner will fly again, it’s just going to take a bit of time to get there. Starliner just does not have a lot on time on its hands, and fulfilling this duty to NASA are where these complex, passionate feelings and emotions come into focus.

I recently read “Getting to Yes” at the recommendation of a great friend. If you haven’t read it, please do. It has many methodologies and perspectives which can be utilized to more effectively navigate every facet of your life on this Earth working with other people.

In the book, it reads “Give positive support to the humans on the other side, in equal strength, to the vigor with which you emphasize the problem.”