Astronauts would have been fine on Boeing's Starliner during landing, NASA says

Boeing's Starliner Crew Flight Test capsule landing
Boeing's Starliner spacecraft returning for a parachute landing in White Sands, New Mexico on Sept. 7, 2024. (Image credit: NASA TV)

After more than three months in space, Starliner's 10-day Crew Flight Test (CFT) has finally concluded.

The Boeing spacecraft made a successful landing over the weekend, parachuting to a soft touchdown in the dark desert night of White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, at 12:01 a.m. EDT (0401 GMT) Saturday (Sep. 7). The return marked an end to a long-delayed and issue-ridden mission, which launched with two NASA astronauts, but returned with none. It turns out they would have been totally fine.

Despite the issues it experienced on its flight up to the International Space Station (ISS), Starliner's uncrewed landing performed as expected, with the spacecraft touching down precisely as NASA and Boeing had designed for its delayed return. "If we'd have had a crew on board the spacecraft, we would have followed the same back away sequence from the space station, the same deorbit burn and executed the same entry. And so it would have been a safe, successful landing with the crew on board," said Steve Stich, manager of NASA's Commercial Crew Program, during a post-landing press conference. But, hindsight is always twenty-twenty.

Boeing and NASA spent the past three months performing tests in White Sands, trying to recreate and understand the thruster issues Starliner experienced in space. "It's always hard to have that retrospective look," Stich said after Starliner's return, adding, "if we'd had a model that would have predicted what we saw tonight perfectly, yeah, it looks like an easy decision to go say we could have had a crewed fight, but we didn't have that."

Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams launched to the International Space Station (ISS) aboard Starliner on June 4, expecting to spend a little more than a week on orbit. The CFT mission was to be Starliner's final qualifying flight before entering into operational rotation as a crew transport to the ISS. However, thruster issues as the spacecraft approached the ISS led to a three-month delay in Starliner's return, which it ultimately did without astronauts onboard. 

NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams' signatures are seen inside NASA's Boeing Crew Flight Test Starliner spacecraft after it landed uncrewed at White Sands Missile Range's Space Harbor, Friday, Sept. 6, 2024 Mountain Time (Sept. 7 Eastern Time), in New Mexico. (Image credit: NASA/Aubrey Gemignani)
Build Boeing's Starliner!

Boeing Starliner model from Metal Earth

(Image credit: Amazon)

You can build your own Boeing Starliner space capsule with this Metal Earth Boeing CST-100 Starliner 3D Metal Model Kit, available for $10.95 at Amazon.

NASA announced its decision for Starliner to return uncrewed at the end of August, reassigning Wilmore and Williams as part of ISS Expedition 71. That required the agency to designate two empty seats aboard a Crew Dragon spacecraft launching SpaceX's Crew-9 astronaut mission for NASA later this month so that Wilmore and Williams can ride home in them at the end of the Crew-9 rotation in February.

That means by the time they come home, instead of ten days in space, the duo will have spent ten months aboard the station. 

Related: Boeing's Starliner capsule just landed with no crew aboard. What's next for this astronaut taxi?

A path forward for Starliner is currently unclear. The spacecraft was slated to begin six-month crew ration missions to the ISS starting in February next year, but that has already been pushed back to August 2025, at the earliest.

"I want to recognize the work the Starliner teams did to ensure a successful and safe undocking, deorbit, re-entry and landing," Mark Nappi, vice president and program manager of Boeing's Commercial Crew Program said in a statement. "We will review the data and determine the next steps for the program."

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Josh Dinner
Writer, Content Manager

Josh Dinner is Space.com's Content Manager. He is a writer and photographer with a passion for science and space exploration, and has been working the space beat since 2016. Josh has covered the evolution of NASA's commercial spaceflight partnerships, from early Dragon and Cygnus cargo missions to the ongoing development and launches of crewed missions from the Space Coast, as well as NASA science missions and more. He also enjoys building 1:144 scale models of rockets and human-flown spacecraft. Find some of Josh's launch photography on Instagram and his website, and follow him on Twitter, where he mostly posts in haiku.

  • IronY
    "Astronauts would have been fine"Hindsight is always better than Foresight. You made the right decision NASA.
    Reply
  • Delirious35
    Profits above safety. What a nice company. May they lose a lot of contracts in the future.
    Reply
  • danR
    Better stranded than dead.
    Decisions are made on what you know, not what you find out.
    Reply
  • skynr13
    I really think these astronauts are a couple of chickens for not trying to make it back on this Starliner. After all the previous two launches had troubles too and made it back just fine. Articles say they are highly trained in aeronautics, so where is the proof of their pudding?
    Reply
  • SciFi Sam
    I understand Starliner experienced a loss of a thuster during its return after detaching from the trunk. A backup redundant thruster took the place of the failed primary, permitting normal descent and landing thereafter. Also, I understand there was communication failure during descent following RF blackout/reacquisition of signal. If true, "Starliner's uncrewed landing perform as expected". This isn't a "normal" reentry operation, further underscoring a pattern of substandard performance.
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    Space travel has not been very safe. Using rough data from a variety of imprecise sources, it seems that there have been about 700 human trips into space (or toward space if you count disasters during the ascent phase) and about 30 fatalities from all countries combined, 14 of which were U.S. space shuttle accidents. So, the fatality rate per person-trip is something like 4%. It should be somewhat similar per flight, even with the high number of fatalities for those 2 shuttle disasters because of the fact that there are usually more than on crew per flight, often 3 or 4.

    So, if you were already embarking on a mission that has a chance of about 1 in 25 of killing you, and you learned that several things were wrong with the vehicle, which was made by a company that was just convicted of negligence in designing and manufacturing aircraft, I think it would be only a sign of intelligence if you demanded that the problems be fixed before you risk you life to test the thing.

    That said, there has been no indication that either of the astronauts were unwilling to fly the Boeing capsule back to Earth. The hesitancy seemed to be getting expressed by the engineers on the ground who were concerned for their safety.
    Reply
  • Kehk in a MiG
    danR said:
    Better stranded than dead.
    I assure you they are fine. When they heard they would be there till February, they were probably elated. Astronauts love being in space!
    Reply
  • Patrick Ford
    Delirious35 said:
    Profits above safety. What a nice company. May they lose a lot of contracts in the future.
    At least this time, Boeing's failures are on their dime and not on US taxpayers.
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    Patrick Ford said:
    At least this time, Boeing's failures are on their dime and not on US taxpayers.
    While Boeing is not (so far as I know) getting additional compensation for their continuing program to get their capsule certified, it still must be costing NASA money. Not only is a lot of review and testing effort being expended by NASA, it also lost 2 crew slots on a SpaceX flight to the International Space Station. How much of that is compensated by their 2 astronauts being "stuck" there for an additional 9 months isn't clear. But, there have been delays in other launches, cargo swapouts, etc. due to Boeing turning an 8 day test into a 9 month tour.

    And, then there is the basic question of Boeing already getting far more money than SpaceX for essentially the same job, but not yet succeeding, compared to SpaceX succeeding and continuing to get the job done at lower cost per launch.

    So, if the whole project results in failure to get their capsule crew-certified in time to actually ferry astronauts to the ISS, it will have cost the "taxpayers" a lot that was ultimately wasted.
    Reply