NASA points fingers at Boeing and chaotic culture for Starliner debacle
- Reference: 1771534919
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2026/02/19/nasa_starliner_blame/
- Source link:
NASA administrator Jared Isaacman copped to leadership failures across the org during a [1]press conference on Thursday, explaining that while there were definitely technical issues with Starliner during the manned flight that left astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams [2]stranded on the International Space Station for months, those technical issues only arose because of leadership and oversight failures.
"We returned the crew safely, but the path we took did not reflect NASA at our best," Isaacman said. The NASA chief added that it was down to flight controllers and crew making the right decisions that resulted in the astronauts arriving safely on the ISS.
[3]
"Had different decisions been made ... the outcome of this mission could have been very different," Isaacman said.
[4]
[5]
NASA's 311-page [6]report [PDF] on the issue references known technical issues with Starliner, but puts the mission failure, which NASA has declared a [7]type-A mishap , [PDF] down to organizational issues.
Problems with the craft itself included inadequate testing of Starliner's propulsion system, low telemetry rates, and a lack of onboard data storage during two prior orbital flight tests resulting in insufficient flight data to properly diagnose anomalies, which in turn led to unexplained anomaly acceptance without root cause resolution.
[8]
As for cultural issues at NASA, the space org admitted it had limited insight into subcontractor-level data, leaving it unable to verify the readiness of Starliner's systems. In addition, schedule pressure "dictated a restrictive risk reduction initiative," and the Commercial Crew Program's (CCP) shared accountability model "was poorly understood and inconsistently applied," leading to a lack or ownership of critical issues.
"You can see in the report that inadequately-applied insight and lack of oversight ... is because we had very high confidence in the manufacturer based on their past performance on other programs," Isaacman said. [9]Oops .
NASA further said in the report that the CCP's emphasis on provider (i.e., Boeing) autonomy clashed with "NASA's traditional culture of technical rigor," and that CCP and Boeing's leadership was perceived by NASA as "overly risk-tolerant and dismissive of dissenting views."
[10]
Organizationally, NASA concluded, it was too hands-off on Starliner's development, Boeing was too reliant on subcontractors and had inadequate systems engineering, and the CCP was more focused on Starliner's success than ensuring that the craft was safe.
NASA didn't push back on those cultural clashes enough, as Isaacman explained, leaving two astronauts lucky to be alive.
"NASA permitted overarching programmatic objectives of having two providers capable of transporting astronauts to-and-from orbit, influence engineering and operational decisions, especially during and immediately after the mission," Isaacman said. "We are correcting those mistakes."
Neither Isaacman nor associate NASA administrator Amit Kshatriya answered questions about whether there would be actual penalties or leadership shakeups at NASA or Boeing as a result of the clash of cultures and systemic failures at both organizations. The pair did make clear that NASA intends to continue with Starliner, and Boeing's statement to The Register echoed the same.
"In the 18 months since our test flight, Boeing has made substantial progress on corrective actions for technical challenges we encountered and driven significant cultural changes across the team that directly align with the findings in the report," Boeing told us. "We're working closely with NASA to ensure readiness for future Starliner missions and remain committed to NASA's vision for two commercial crew providers."
The report, and criticisms of CCP as prioritizing "provider success over technical rigor" raise another question: Is the CCP the safest and most effective approach to the future of the US space program when there's a perfectly good, NASA-managed rocket in the form of the Space Launch System, which is preparing to eventually take astronauts back to the Moon?
[11]NASA pares back Boeing's Starliner deal after 2024 calamity
[12]FAA gives Boeing 90 days to fix serious safety shortcomings found in report
[13]Boeing's Starliner future uncertain as NASA weighs next steps
[14]Boeing top brass stand down amid safety turbulence
We put those questions to Isaacman, and he was unequivocal: CCP isn't going anywhere.
"CCP is a very successful program," Isaacman [15]said . "It helped return American spaceflight capability after more than a decade after the Space Shuttle was retired."
Isaacman said that NASA has been leveraging private industry expertise since the beginning of the space program. He didn't directly address the question of whether allowing private industry to do the work itself was the best approach in light of NASA's own admitted CCP culture failures.
"Relying on industry to get us there is one of our strengths," Isaacman said, before adding that NASA has work to do, too. "There are certainly things we can do better here to achieve our objectives, and step one is the conversation we're having today." ®
Get our [16]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geneWmI9ZMY
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2024/12/19/spacex_delayed_boeing_crew/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aZeWCxk8N3exCOs62g9LhQAAANU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aZeWCxk8N3exCOs62g9LhQAAANU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aZeWCxk8N3exCOs62g9LhQAAANU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/nasa-report-with-redactions-021926.pdf?emrc=76e561
[7] https://constructionsafety.ssc.nasa.gov/documents/NASAMishapClassifications.pdf
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aZeWCxk8N3exCOs62g9LhQAAANU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/09/united_alaska_737_loose_bolts/
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aZeWCxk8N3exCOs62g9LhQAAANU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/25/nasa_starliner_contract/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/28/faa_gives_boeing_90_days/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/20/boeing_starliner_whats_next/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/25/boeing_leadership_exits/
[15] https://www.youtube.com/live/geneWmI9ZMY?si=V5Hpgb9W6Bg_TlrO&t=2964
[16] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Never Never
Allow private industry in mark their own home work!
Re: Never Never
You'd have thought that the MCAS fiasco where Boeing marked their own homework and killed a few hundred people would have been a warning, apparently not. Mind you, the FAA have gone back to allowing Boeing's aircraft business to mark their own homework, albeit every other week. Presumably the 777X engine attachments will be certified in those weeks where Boeing do their own checks.
What a sad, sad state you're in America.
Re: Never Never
Its not really a reflection of America, its more down to whos infesting senior mangement ranks at boeing, the sorts of people who are good at selling stuff or costing stuff, but when it comes down to the technical stuff, have barely got a clue.
And thats not what you want at the top of a business like boeing that deals in real world physical objects that can go very very wrong.
Its the sort of people who can insist on the re-design of a component, not to improve performance or cheaper to make, but to make it different enough that it needs a new part number. why? so they can charge more for it, especially on a government job.
But it makes no difference really as the engineer types never seem to rise to the C level as we're far too useful at the lower rungs.
Its just like the planes
Boeing's reputation was so solid that the FAA effectively gave up on certifying them, leaving the process mostly to Boeing QA. This actually worked while Boeing was its original engineering driven corporation but after the McDonnell merger (which was more like a hostile takeover) the bean counters became ascendant. This caused a shift the company's priorities, a shift that wasn't noticeable at first because of the long lag time involved in developing new aircraft. When problems surfaced what started out as a few shortcomings rapidly became a tsunami.
NASA were dealing with the 'old' Boeing when they set up Starliner. Boeing's offering may not have been the cheapest or most innovative but the name guaranteed it to work out of the box. Unfortunately the company building this project was actually 'new' Boeing, a company rich in promises and PR but possibly a bit short where it counted. Although there were plenty of warning signs of problems optimism carried the day and it had to be a very public debacle before anyone would admit there was a problem. (Fortunately, unlike glitches in airliners, the result didn't hurt anyone.)
I'd guess that Boeing will recover but I doubt if the 'new, new' Boeing will ever have the reputation and level of trust that the original one had.
and the CCP was more focused on Starliner's success than ensuring that the craft was safe.
This implies that "safe" was not a subset of "success" in Boeing's view. Which, if true, is really really bad.
You be careful making accusations like that, Jared.
Especially against companies who's CEO frequent a golf club somewhere in Florida.
I'm just sayin' ...