A NASA safety watchdog has accused the agency of soft-pedaling serious problems on Boeing’s Starliner capsule, arguing that officials framed a troubled crewed test flight as a near-routine success instead of a close call. The criticism cuts to the heart of how NASA balances political pressure, commercial partnerships, and its historic commitment to transparency when astronauts’ lives are at stake.
At issue is whether NASA leadership treated a cascade of thruster failures and helium leaks on Starliner as a warning sign to slow down, or as a public-relations problem to manage away. The safety panel’s rebuke suggests the latter, and it raises uncomfortable questions about whether the agency has fully internalized the lessons of past disasters.
The flight that triggered a reckoning
The immediate flashpoint for the safety panel’s anger was a Starliner crewed test flight that ran into trouble almost as soon as it reached orbit. The capsule, which was supposed to showcase Boeing’s readiness to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station, instead suffered multiple failures in its maneuvering thrusters and persistent helium leaks during roughly 27 hours of operations, a cluster of issues that would alarm any flight controller responsible for crew safety. According to detailed accounts of that mission, The Starliner struggled to maintain its planned performance envelope, forcing engineers to improvise workarounds while the spacecraft was already in space.
What has unsettled the safety experts is not only the technical failure, but the way NASA leadership chose to describe it. Rather than foregrounding the severity of the thruster problems and the pernicious nature of the helium leaks, officials emphasized that the capsule ultimately reached the station and returned, a framing that, in the panel’s view, glossed over how close the mission came to a more serious outcome. The panel’s concerns are rooted in the specific sequence of anomalies that hit The Starliner capsule, which was beset by thruster failures and helium leaks during its 27 hour rendezvous and docking profile.
What the safety panel actually said
The sharpest critique came from NASA’s own independent safety advisers, who are tasked with calling out risks that program managers might be tempted to downplay. In public remarks, the panel argued that NASA should have treated the Starliner incident as a major red flag, not as a minor hiccup on the way to operational service. One member described the agency’s posture as too relaxed given the number and seriousness of the anomalies, warning that such an attitude can normalize deviance, the slow drift from strict safety standards that has haunted NASA before.
Those concerns were echoed in a broader assessment that NASA had not fully conveyed to the public, or even to some internal stakeholders, how close the mission came to requiring contingency plans. The panel’s language was unusually blunt, saying that NASA should have taken the Starliner incident “more seriously” and pressed for a more exhaustive review before talking about future crew flights. That critique is captured in a detailed summary of how the NASA safety panel called out officials for downplaying the Starliner mess and in a separate account of how Safety experts said NASA should have taken the incident more seriously, especially after engineers raised alarms about the procedure.
Charlie Precourt and the culture clash inside NASA
One of the most influential voices in this debate is Charlie Precourt, a former space shuttle commander who now serves on NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. Precourt has lived through the consequences of cultural drift inside the agency, and his comments carry the weight of someone who has strapped into a vehicle whose margin for error is measured in seconds. When he argues that NASA’s response to Starliner’s problems was too casual, he is not just critiquing a single mission report, he is warning that the organization’s instincts may be drifting away from the hard-earned caution that followed the shuttle accidents.
Precourt’s concern is that the agency’s embrace of commercial partnerships has outpaced the internal checks that once forced uncomfortable conversations about risk. He has suggested that it would have been better for NASA to pause and reassess the Starliner program’s readiness rather than pressing ahead with optimistic timelines, especially while engineers were still dissecting the thruster and helium issues. His comments, relayed in a summary of how Charlie Precourt and other panel members pressed NASA to take the incident more seriously, highlight a growing culture clash between those who prioritize schedule and those who insist that safety must remain the only non-negotiable metric.
A pattern of Starliner close calls
The latest incident did not occur in a vacuum. Starliner has a history of near misses that have already rattled NASA’s safety community, including a notorious software problem that nearly turned an earlier uncrewed test into a catastrophe. In that case, a timing error in the spacecraft’s code caused the capsule to fire its thrusters incorrectly, burning through fuel and threatening its ability to reach the correct orbit. Only a late discovery of a second software bug, which could have led to a collision between the capsule and its service module, prevented what one official later described as a potentially “catastrophic” failure.
Those earlier problems prompted the safety panel to demand a sweeping review of Boeing’s software development and testing practices, and they also raised questions about NASA’s oversight of its commercial partner. The fact that such a serious flaw slipped through the preflight checks once has made the panel particularly sensitive to any sign that the agency is again underestimating risk. The severity of that earlier episode is captured in a detailed reconstruction of how Starliner faced a “catastrophic” failure before a software bug was found, a case that still looms over every subsequent discussion of the capsule’s safety.
Delays, dollars, and Boeing’s shrinking margin for error
Beyond safety, the Starliner saga has become a financial and schedule quagmire for Boeing and a strategic headache for NASA. The program was supposed to provide a second, independent way to carry crews to the International Space Station, complementing SpaceX’s Crew Dragon and giving the agency redundancy in case one system was grounded. Instead, repeated technical setbacks have pushed Starliner’s operational debut further into the future, eroding confidence that it will ever become a routine part of the crew rotation.
The cost of those delays is not abstract. Boeing has disclosed that it has lost more than 2 billion dollars on Starliner, a figure that reflects redesigns, rework, and the expense of repeated test flights that did not go as planned. At the same time, NASA has been forced to reshuffle its crew assignments and extend reliance on other vehicles while it waits for Starliner to prove itself. The financial strain is spelled out in filings that show Boeing has lost more than 2 billion dollars on Starliner, while the schedule impact is evident in NASA’s decision, announced on a Friday update, to delay the next Starliner flight until at least early 2026, as described in coverage of how further delays of Starliner’s next flight have pushed the program’s future into uncertainty.
Commercial contracts and the Artemis warning
The Starliner controversy is also feeding a larger debate about how NASA structures its contracts with private companies, especially as it leans on commercial partners for the Artemis program that aims to return astronauts to the Moon. The agency has increasingly used fixed price, milestone based contracts that shift more technical and financial risk onto companies, a model that worked well for some cargo and crew services but may not translate cleanly to more complex deep space systems. Safety experts worry that when companies are under intense pressure to hit milestones within a fixed budget, they may be tempted to cut corners or push hardware to flight before it is truly ready.
That concern was voiced explicitly by Katrina McFarland, a member of NASA’s safety panel, who warned that the same contracting mechanisms used for lower risk services are now being applied to Artemis hardware without fully accounting for the different stakes. She argued that NASA needs to revisit how it balances cost, schedule, and safety in these agreements, and to ensure that oversight is robust enough to catch problems early rather than after a near miss in flight. Her comments are summarized in a report on how Katrina and other panel members recommended a review of Artemis plans, specifically citing the application of commercial contracting mechanisms to development efforts that were not originally designed with those contracts in mind.
Engineers’ alarms and the communication gap
One of the most troubling threads running through the Starliner story is the suggestion that engineers raised concerns internally that did not fully register at higher levels of NASA management. Safety culture depends on a clear, unbroken chain between those who see anomalies in real time and those who make decisions about risk acceptance. When that chain frays, either because managers are overloaded, optimistic, or under political pressure, the system can drift into a dangerous gray zone where problems are known but not treated as urgent.
Accounts of the Starliner incident describe how some engineers were uneasy with the procedures used to manage the thruster and helium issues, and how they felt that the incident should have triggered a more formal stand down and review. Instead, the mission was publicly framed as a qualified success, and discussions about the severity of the anomalies were largely confined to technical circles. That disconnect is captured in reporting that details how engineers’ alarms about the procedure fed into the Safety panel’s conclusion that NASA should have taken the incident more seriously.
Public perception, YouTube scrutiny, and NASA’s messaging problem
While NASA and Boeing have tried to keep their messaging measured and technical, the Starliner saga has spilled into the broader public conversation in ways that the agency cannot fully control. Spaceflight enthusiasts, engineers, and former astronauts have dissected the program’s missteps in long form interviews and explainer videos, often with a candor that contrasts sharply with official briefings. In one widely watched discussion, Eric and Butch, both deeply familiar with crewed spaceflight, spent far longer than planned unpacking how the Starliner disaster was “even worse than we thought,” a sign of how much unease exists even among insiders who want the program to succeed.
Another popular video framed the situation more bluntly, warning that “something bad is happening” to Starliner and arguing that the problems are worse than the public has been led to believe. These commentaries do not carry the weight of official investigations, but they shape how taxpayers, lawmakers, and future astronauts perceive the program, and they amplify the safety panel’s core message that transparency matters. The depth of this online scrutiny is evident in the extended interview where Eric and Butch dissected Boeing’s Starliner disaster, and in a separate analysis that argued something bad is happening to Starliner, raising doubts about whether astronauts will fly on it again any time soon.
Why the panel’s warning matters now
The safety panel’s criticism lands at a moment when NASA is juggling overlapping ambitions: maintaining continuous crew access to the International Space Station, standing up Artemis, and nurturing a broader commercial ecosystem in low Earth orbit. Each of those goals depends on public trust that the agency will not compromise on safety, even when budgets are tight and schedules are politically sensitive. If NASA is seen as shading the truth about Starliner’s problems, it risks undermining that trust just as it asks Congress and the White House to back more complex and expensive missions.
For me, the core of the panel’s warning is not about any single thruster failure or helium leak, but about whether NASA still has the institutional reflex to slam on the brakes when something feels off. The agency’s history is full of moments when engineers saw danger coming but could not quite get leadership to act in time. The Starliner incident, and the panel’s insistence that NASA downplayed it, is a reminder that safety is not just a checklist, it is a culture that must be defended every time a mission goes sideways, no matter how inconvenient that truth may be.
More from MorningOverview