NASA says Boeing Starliner astronauts may fly home on SpaceX in 2025
NASA may bring two Boeing Starliner astronauts back from the International Space Station on a SpaceX Crew Dragon as early as 2025, after ongoing thruster and software concerns left Starliner’s reliability in doubt. Commenters debate whether this effectively ends Boeing’s troubled crew capsule program, what alternatives exist for U.S. human spaceflight, and how much risk NASA should accept given SpaceX’s stronger track record but single‑vendor downside. The conversation also touches on Boeing’s wider safety and culture problems, the politics and contracts shaping NASA’s redundancy strategy, and the personal impact on the astronauts facing a far longer mission than planned.
Starliner status, risk, and options
- Many see the mission as a near-total failure: thruster issues, helium leaks, missing autonomous undock/return configuration, and now likely crew return on SpaceX’s Crew Dragon in 2025.
- NASA and Boeing reportedly disagree on risk: Boeing downplays it, some NASA engineers are said to be more concerned. NASA is seeking more data from ground tests to narrow a “wide band of uncertainty.”
- Several argue that with Dragon available and well‑proven, returning crew on Starliner is an unnecessary risk; some suggest flying Starliner home uncrewed as the real test.
- Others note NASA must always accept some risk and that, if Starliner were the only option, they’d probably fly it.
Certification, contract, and Boeing’s future
- Debate over whether NASA will or should certify Starliner even if this flight returns uncrewed, given massive cost overruns and repeated test failures.
- Fixed‑price contracts mean Boeing eats additional costs; some think this incentivizes cutting corners and political pressure to “declare success.”
- Some expect Starliner’s cancellation; others think NASA will keep it for redundancy and to avoid sole dependence on SpaceX.
- Legal/contract angle: Boeing can’t simply walk away; exit would likely require NASA‑led cancellation or litigation.
Broader industry and alternatives
- Discussion of other potential LEO crew providers: Sierra Space/Dream Chaser (cargo first, crew later), Blue Origin (New Shepard experience; possible capsule), Northrop Grumman (Cygnus‑derived), and Orion for LEO as an overkill fallback.
- Several note Russia/Soyuz as the only immediate non‑SpaceX option, but politics and landing in Russia are complicating factors.
Astronaut experience and safety culture
- Mixed speculation on astronaut feelings: extra time in space as dream vs. concern over health, family separation, and trust in Boeing hardware.
- Many stress that astronauts accept risk but rely on ground teams not to add avoidable risk.
- Comparisons made to past NASA disasters (Challenger, Columbia, Apollo 1) and worries about management overruling engineers.
Views on SpaceX and Musk
- Widely seen as technically superior and far ahead on reliability and cadence.
- Some want NASA to limit dependence on a single, founder‑controlled company; others argue only performance should matter, not the CEO’s behavior or politics.