Boeing’s Calamity Capsule has returned to Earth, bringing to an end a test mission that did not go entirely according to plan. Not least because the Starliner’s crew had to stay behind aboard the International Space Station.
That Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner’s return to Earth was relatively uneventful and, according to NASA’s commercial crew manager Steve Stich, ended with a “bullseye landing” in New Mexico, will be scant comfort to the engineers dealing with the fact that this commercial crew-carrying spacecraft was deemed unfit to carry a crew.
That’s not to say the Starliner’s re-entry was without incident. During a post-landing news conference, Stich noted that one of the 12 thrusters on the Boeing podule didn’t perform as expected, and a redundant thruster was able to take over. The navigation system also temporarily had difficulty acquiring a GPS signal as the spacecraft came out of the plasma generated by reentry.
Boeing’s Starliner returning to Earth at about 2200 MDT, September 6, at the White Sands Space Harbor in New Mexico, USA … Source: NASA.
The Starliner returned to Earth without a crew after engineers felt the risk to its astronauts was too high. Helium leaks and, in particular, odd behavior from the spacecraft’s thrusters left the ground team rattled. (A strange pulsating noise turned out to be nothing untoward.)
After an extended stay attached to the orbiting space station while testing was carried out, the decision was taken that Starliner’s crew – Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams – would be returned to Earth in a SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule early next year.
Wilmore and Williams took off from Earth in June in the Starliner for a test mission expected to last about a week, in which the capsule would rendezvous with the space station. Due to the aforementioned gas and thruster issues, the capsule was not allowed to return on time and as planned with its astronauts, leaving the Boeing pilots stranded on the station. Now the pod is back on Earth without its humans, and the duo are left in orbit.
The elephant in the post-landing briefing was… what happens now? Boeing chose not to attend the briefing, and the aerospace giant’s veep and program manager for the commercial crew program Mark Nappi made a terse statement on Boeing’s Starliner page: “I want to recognize the work the Starliner teams did to ensure a successful and safe undocking, deorbit, re-entry, and landing.
“We will review the data and determine the next steps for the program.”
It was noted that Boeing was not present at the briefing. Still, Joel Montalbano, deputy associate administrator for NASA’s space operations mission directorate, insisted “Boeing is committed to continue their work with us.”
Heaven forbid the airplane maker is scrutinizing its contract in the hope of finding a face-saving exit before NASA decides if another Starliner test flight is required or desired.
As well they might. During the briefing, Stich estimated that 85 to 90 percent of the crewed mission objectives were achieved. Just not that pesky one about bringing a crew safely back to Earth, presumably.
NASA has yet to decide on the next steps. The issues seen during the mission will need to be addressed, and the first operational flight of Starliner has already slipped into the second half of 2025. A repeat of the test flight would ensure a further slip, likely into 2026.
Montalbano said, “The fact the vehicle is home – we’re very happy to have the vehicle home – is, to me, a success.
“Clearly, we’ve got some work to do.” ®
Bootednote
NASA on Friday pushed its EscaPADE Mars mission, which is to use Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin New Glenn rocket, from next month into spring 2025.
“The agency’s decision to stand down was based on a review of launch preparations and discussions with Blue Origin, the Federal Aviation Administration, and Space Launch Delta 45 Range Safety Organization, as well as NASA’s Launch Services Program and Science Mission Directorate,” the American agency said.
“The decision was made to avoid significant cost, schedule, and technical challenges associated with potentially removing fuel from the spacecraft in the event of a launch delay, which could be caused by a number of factors.”
