An independent investigation commissioned by NASA has found that a chain of technical breakdowns and management failures on Boeing’s Starliner capsule left astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams stranded aboard the International Space Station for nine months. The report, released on February 19, 2026, assigns blame to both Boeing and NASA itself, classifying the botched crewed flight test as a Type A mishap, the agency’s most severe incident category. The findings raise hard questions about the reliability of America’s second crewed spacecraft provider at a time when the country’s access to low-Earth orbit depends on just two commercial partners.
Helium Leaks and Thruster Failures Triggered a Mission Spiral
Starliner launched on June 5, 2024, carrying Wilmore and Williams on what was planned as a roughly eight-day test flight to the ISS. Almost immediately, the capsule developed in-flight helium leaks and reaction control thruster problems during its approach to the station. Those propulsion anomalies did not resolve cleanly once Starliner docked. Instead, they set off a weeks-long diagnostic effort that included docked hot-fire testing and ongoing data analysis of the propulsion system throughout the summer of 2024. Engineers on the ground were trying to determine whether the capsule could safely bring the crew home, and the answer kept slipping further from certainty.
NASA ultimately decided the risk was too high. The agency sent Starliner back to Earth uncrewed in September 2024, while Wilmore and Williams remained on the station waiting for an alternative ride. That ride came aboard SpaceX’s Crew-9 spacecraft, according to the independent investigation released by NASA. What began as a short certification flight stretched into a nine-month ordeal, turning a test mission into one of the longest unplanned crew stays in the station’s history and underscoring how quickly a seemingly manageable anomaly can escalate into a full-blown crisis when multiple systems falter at once.
Investigators Pin Blame on Boeing and NASA Leadership
The report from NASA’s independent Program Investigation Team does not limit its criticism to hardware. Investigators found that leadership failures at both Boeing and NASA contributed to the outcome, a conclusion that New York Times reporting confirmed on the same day the findings went public. NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman and Associate Administrator Amit Kshatriya presented the findings at a news conference, where Isaacman directed sharp criticism at Boeing’s leadership and at NASA managers who, in his view, failed to escalate risks early enough. He framed the review as a necessary reckoning rather than routine post-flight analysis, emphasizing that the agency needed to confront uncomfortable truths about how it certifies commercial spacecraft.
The dysfunction extended beyond boardrooms. According to Reuters reporting on the investigation, the review documented shouting and unprofessional behavior during the mission, painting a picture of a program under severe stress as engineers and managers clashed over how to handle the worsening situation. That kind of breakdown in communication is exactly the environment in which safety-critical decisions get delayed or distorted, and the investigation treats it as a contributing factor rather than a side note. By spotlighting these cultural and managerial issues alongside technical root causes, the report signals that any path forward for Starliner will have to include reforms in how both NASA and Boeing manage risk, dissenting opinions, and real-time crisis responses.
Type A Classification Puts Starliner Alongside Shuttle-Era Disasters
Perhaps the most striking element of the report is the decision to upgrade the mission’s severity to a Type A mishap. That classification is reserved for incidents involving loss of life, permanent disability, or damage exceeding a high dollar threshold. NASA has historically applied it to its worst failures, including shuttle-era tragedies. Placing the Starliner crewed flight test in that category signals that the agency views the near-stranding of two astronauts as a close call of the highest order, not simply a technical setback on a test vehicle. The crewed demonstration was supposed to clear Starliner for regular crew rotation missions. Instead, it became a case study in how cascading technical problems and organizational hesitation can compound each other until the margin for error nearly disappears.
Most coverage has focused on the hardware failures and the dramatic length of the crew’s stay. But the Type A designation carries a practical consequence that deserves more attention: it triggers a more rigorous corrective-action process within NASA and imposes stricter requirements on Boeing before the program can advance. The classification is not symbolic. It changes the bureaucratic and engineering pathway that Starliner must travel before it flies again with people on board, forcing a deeper review of design assumptions, test coverage, and contingency planning. NASA officials have pointed to the agency’s broader safety culture—shaped in part by decades of human spaceflight, planetary exploration, and Earth science missions—as the context in which this tough judgment was made, arguing that hard-earned lessons from past accidents demand a conservative stance when lives are at stake.
Boeing’s Path Forward Narrows to Uncrewed Cargo
The fallout has already reshaped the Commercial Crew program’s near-term schedule. NASA and Boeing modified the Commercial Crew contract late last year, reducing Boeing’s definitive mission order and converting the next Starliner flight from a crewed rotation to an uncrewed cargo mission targeted for no earlier than April 2026. That decision effectively strips Starliner of its crew-carrying role for the foreseeable future and leaves SpaceX as NASA’s sole provider for transporting astronauts to and from the ISS. For a program originally conceived to foster redundancy and resilience in access to low-Earth orbit, the result is an uncomfortable return to single-string dependence, even as NASA stresses that a cargo-focused Starliner could still contribute to station logistics if it can demonstrate reliability.
For Boeing, the narrowed mandate raises existential questions about the long-term business case for Starliner, which has already been hit by cost overruns and schedule slips. NASA’s own summary of the investigation findings makes clear that any future role for the spacecraft will hinge on successful completion of corrective actions and a demonstrated change in program culture. In the meantime, the agency continues to highlight its broader portfolio of exploration and science work—from solar system missions to deep-space observatories studying the wider universe—as evidence that it can manage complex, multi-partner projects safely when lessons are internalized. NASA has also been using platforms like NASA+ and its curated streaming series to explain how investigations like the Starliner review fit into a continuous loop of risk, discovery, and improvement across human spaceflight and robotic exploration.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
