December 11 is the submission deadline for Stage 1 of GoAERO—a three-year contest backed by NASA, Boeing, RTX, and other key aviation stakeholders seeking to aid the estimated 4.5 million Americans living in “ambulance deserts,” who may need to wait longer than 25 minutes for emergency services to arrive. The aircraft created by competitors could rescue people in danger and respond to disasters, medical emergencies, or humanitarian crises.

Officially launched on February 5, GoAERO (Aerial Emergency Response Operations) has been recruiting teams of university students who lack the financial backing of large corporations. But the competition is open to just about anyone over the age of 18, GoAERO founder and CEO Gwen Lighter told FLYING.

“It is a call for engineers and entrepreneurs and innovators and universities and students and professors and retirees and businesses and corporations and all of that to join us and to create these emergency response fliers,” said Lighter.

Lighter envisions GoAERO’s emergency response flyers as “another tool in the first response toolkit.” Helicopters, she said, are great for emergency response but are expensive to procure and operate, require a pilot, and struggle to operate in tight spaces.

Drones, at the other end of the spectrum, are excellent for delivering medical supplies. Drone delivery companies Zipline and Wing, for instance, have collectively transported hundreds of thousands of shipments of blood, vaccines, and equipment. But when it comes to search and rescue, drones can only complete the latter portion of the mission.

“What we are doing is we are saying, ‘OK, helicopters are one end of the spectrum, drones are the other,’ and then putting them together, molding them into something that can deliver a first responder to someone in need, rescue someone who needs help, deliver needed goods and supplies, all within the rubric of natural disasters, everyday medical emergencies, events caused by climate change, humanitarian crises,” Lighter said.

The aircraft are intended to be simple, compact, and uncrewed, flying either entirely on their own or with help from a remote pilot. They must also be easily transportable, deployable within minutes, and capable of delivering first responders, patients, or supplies in cities, rural areas, and disaster zones.

Aviation for Public Good

Lighter previously organized GoAERO’s predecessor GoFLY, which similarly sought to put groundbreaking technology into the hands of people who otherwise would not have access. But whereas GoFLY was geared toward personal, recreational flight, GoAERO is about helping others.

“GoAERO is really focused on a singular mission, which is saving lives,” Lighter said. “It is aviation for public good.”

According to Lighter, all GoFLY partners have signed on to the new initiative, and even more have joined. Boeing is the lead GoAERO sponsor, but the contest is also backed by RTX, Honeywell, Iridium, and industry groups such as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS). First responders, aviation regulators, and other organizations are on board.

“We’ve had hundreds of discussions with not only aviation [firms], but first responders in a wide variety of different types of response, whether that is search and rescue, whether that is wildfire, whether that is earthquake, whether that is everyday medical emergencies and EMTs,” said Lighter.

She added: “Collectively, we have landed on these technical rules and specifications to create aircraft that really allow first responders to be first responders, rather than pilots and all of these other things.”

GoAERO will provide teams with some design guidelines. But Lighter told FLYING that the goal is for participants to produce a wide range of designs. Teams will be permitted to focus on medical needs and disaster scenarios specific to their area, for example.

“Success for us looks like in three years, at the end of the competition, that we have a multitude of different flyers that show up, and some are better in everyday medical emergencies, and some are better in urban environments, and some are better in remote environments, and some are better in wildfires,” said Lighter.

Participants will have some help from above. The competition offers what Lighter called a “full education platform,” with educational webinars, legal assistance, and one-on-one mentorship opportunities with experts from Boeing, U.S. government agencies such as the FAA or Department of Defense, and other mentors. Those relationships can help them refine design concepts, build autonomy, or raise funding.

GoAERO earlier this month, for example, signed a Space Act Agreement with NASA that will see the space agency lend its personnel to the initiative. NASA also committed $400,000 through its University Innovation Project to support U.S.-based university teams and will grant access to free or discounted software, services, and products.

“I think GoAERO represents bringing the best of aeronautics and aviation to the public space, to public good, making sure that we are bringing our capabilities, our technologies, our genius together to work for the American people and for the people across the globe that need these kind of services,” said Bob Pearce, associate administrator of NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) and GoAERO mentor.

The Fly-Off

The GoAERO competition will culminate in a three-day “fly-off” beginning February 2027, during which teams will put their aircraft through a series of missions to gauge adversity, productivity, and maneuverability.

At stake are $2 million worth of prizes, including a $1 million grand prize for the winner. In addition, the top performer in each of the three fly-off missions will win $150,000. A $100,000 RTX Disruptor Award will be handed out for “disruptive advancement of the state of the art,” while a $100,000 autonomy prize will highlight the best use of automation.

All missions will be flown in a single-occupant aircraft carrying a mannequin, “Alex,” or other nonhuman payload. The contest will evaluate a range of different scenarios, testing competitors’ ability to save an injured person from under a forest canopy, douse a wildfire, rescue a drowning victim, and complete other emergency missions.

All of these must be performed under difficult conditions such as inclement weather, unknown terrain, or uncooperative air traffic control. Competitors will not have access to the mission courses or locations of obstacles until the day of the event. In addition, they should “expect the unexpected”—mission conditions and elements may not be exactly as advertised.

The FAA helped write the technical rules of the competition and will mentor teams to ensure their aircraft comply with federal rules. The agency will be “deeply involved” in the fly-off to maintain safety.

“We are closely working with the FAA in a number of their departments, and we have fully integrated our programming into today’s FAA certification process, and we will be helping our teams through that,” Lighter said.

During the contest, teams will have to dodge pylons and walls and contend with less-than-ideal takeoff and landing conditions. “The Flood” site, for example, is an 18-inch deep pool with simulated rain conditions—teams must touch or pop a balloon floating on its surface. Other locations will feature inclined slopes, sandy pits, or heavy winds.

A panel of expert judges will rank attempts by completion, speed, and payload, with bonus points awarded for one-person crew operations, quick deployment, and few operator inputs. To be eligible for the grand prize, a team needs to complete two missions, or complete one and partially complete another.

What Happens After?

Lighter emphasized that GoAERO hopes to produce not just emergency response flyers, but an ecosystem around them.

“We’re building this ecosystem so it’s not one company, it’s not one university, it’s not one entrepreneur, it’s not one regulator, it’s everybody coming together to use transformative technology to save lives,” she said.

At the end of the fly-off, the winning teams will have full control over what happens next. They will retain all intellectual property rights and do not necessarily need to commercialize their technology with a partner.

But while there are zero post-competition requirements, GoAERO aims to set teams up for success. Partners such as Boeing and RTX will be present for the fly-off, and winners will then have the option to meet with them and start a partnership.

“What we want to do is enable our teams to make the best choices for themselves at the end of the competition, whether that is licensing technology, whether that is building on their own, whether that is raising funds to commercialize, whether that is joining with a strategic partner—all are open and options for each of our teams,” Lighter said. “We certainly would never dictate to our teams how they should deploy. Rather, we will create the conditions where they have multiple options to be able to commercialize should they wish to do so.”

She added: “We all came together because we realized that there’s been a convergence of breakthrough technologies in aviation and in adjacent industries, and we now have this first moment in history that we have the ability to create new forms of emergency response aircraft.”

How to Get Involved

The deadline for GoAERO’s initial paper submission phase is December 11, which means there is plenty of time to apply.

To do so, applicants can visit goaeroprize.com to find the Stage 1 application forms, which include short biographies of each team member and legal documents covering liability and insurance, for example. Application is free, but there is a design submission fee of $250 for individuals and $500 for teams.

“Everything is on the website, from the technical rules to the schedules to the webinars to who the advisors are and who the partners are to how to engage with us,” said Lighter.

GoAERO excludes applicants under the age of 18, employees of Boeing or RTX and their families, and citizens or residents of countries subject to U.S. sanctions or export controls. But all others may apply, and the competition already includes teams from 40 countries. Entities that would prefer not to form a team but are interested in a partnership can also contact GoAERO.

Ten $10,000 winners will be selected from the Stage 1 pool, and eight Stage 2 teams will win $40,000 each. But teams can enter the competition at any time, including during the final fly-off. For that last phase, participants will need an aircraft with registration and airworthiness certification that has demonstrated, via video evidence, controlled flight with a full payload.

The stage is set. The rules are clear. All interested parties need to do is join the competition.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post Innovators Compete to Build Self-Flying Emergency Aircraft appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Wyche is set to speak at the “Women Take Flight: Fashion to Fission” luncheon at the Frontiers of Flight Museum in Dallas on October 1. The event is sponsored by JSX, a private jet service, and scheduled to begin at 11:30 a.m. CST.

As part of her anticipated keynote presentation, Wyche, who has been part of NASA’s leadership team for the past 20 years, is expected to discuss her professional journey and how STEM made it possible for her to pursue the career she enjoys.

“The Frontiers of Flight Museum is truly honored to have Vanessa Wyche as our phenomenal keynote speaker for our inaugural ‘Women Take Flight: Fashion to Fission’ luncheon,” said Abigail Erickson-Torres, president and CEO of the museum. 

The event includes a panel discussion featuring women who are leaders in the aerospace industry, including:

• Leanne Caret, retired president and CEO of Boeing Defense, Space and Security
• Dyan Medina Gibbens, pilot, SpaceWERX, and U.S. Space Force adviser
• Caeley Looney, CEO and founder of Reinvented Inc. and flight director at Firefly Aerospace
• Amy Spowart, CEO of the National Aeronautic Association

The panelists will be discussing the paths they took to achieve their successes in aerospace and offer suggestions on ways to support more girls and women with an interest in STEM.

Tickets for the lunch start at $185 and may be purchased here. Proceeds will go toward supporting future STEM programs at the museum, as well as creating a new permanent exhibit to honor women in aerospace.

The post Frontier of Flight Museum Event to Celebrate Women in Aerospace appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Commander Jared Isaacman, the billionaire CEO of Shift4 Payments who purchased the five-day orbital flight from SpaceX, and mission specialist Sarah Gillis, one of two SpaceX engineers who are the company’s first employees to fly to space, exited SpaceX’s Dragon capsule one at a time, each spending about 12 minutes outside. The astronauts were traveling at 17,500 mph at an altitude more than 450 miles above Earth, higher than the International Space Station.

But there’s a catch. Because Dragon does not have an airlock, all four crewmembers were exposed to the vacuum of space. The mission profile added risk compared to a typical spacewalk, where astronauts enter and exit through a vacuum-sealed chamber.

“Today’s EVA was the first time four humans were exposed to the vacuum of space while completing the first-ever commercial astronaut spacewalk from a commercially-produced spacecraft in commercially-produced extravehicular activity [EVA] suits,” said Stu Keech, vice president of Dragon engineering at SpaceX.

SpaceX provided live stream coverage of the full, approximately two-hour process, which can be rewatched here.

The Falcon 9 rocket carrying Dragon and the Polaris Dawn crew lifted off from Launch Complex 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida early Tuesday morning. Almost immediately, the astronauts began preparing for the spacewalk.

The first step was a “prebreathe” to remove nitrogen bubbles that can form within body tissues, causing decompression sickness. During the approximately two-day process, the cabin’s pressure was lowered and oxygen levels were raised gradually to help the crew acclimate.

After that, the astronauts donned their EVA spacesuits, which are designed to be worn both inside and outside the spacecraft. Developed by SpaceX with help from Isaacman’s Polaris team, the suits have endured hundreds of hours of testing and feature greater mobility, durability, and even a high-tech heads-up display (HUD).

“Building a base on the moon and a city on Mars will require thousands of spacesuits,” SpaceX said in a post on X. “The development of this suit, and the EVA performed on this mission, will be important steps toward a scalable design for spacesuits on future long-duration missions.”

After completing suit leak checks and venting Dragon down to vacuum, Isaacman opened the hatch and was first to egress. Remaining attached to the spacecraft, he used a specially designed structure called Skywalker to move around and perform tests on the suit’s thermal and mobility systems. Skywalker is equipped with several cameras that were used to capture the moment in real time.

“SpaceX, back at home we all have a lot of work to do,” Isaacman said as he looked down on the planet below, “but from here, Earth sure looks like a perfect world.”

After Isaacman returned, it was Gillis’ turn. The SpaceX engineer stepped out and performed the same series of tests, while mission pilot Scott “Kidd” Poteet and mission specialist and medical officer Anna Menon monitored her support systems.

Finally, the hatch was closed, Dragon was repressurized, and the astronauts removed their suits.

“Dragon uses pure nitrogen during ‘repress,’ which mixes with the pure oxygen being released into the cabin via the open loop system that keeps the EVA suits pressurized,” SpaceX said. “This process is unique to Dragon which acts as its own airlock.”

From venting to repressurization, the entire process took about one hour and 45 minutes.

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk was quick to praise the crew for its historic achievement, as was NASA administrator Bill Nelson.

“Congratulations @PolarisProgram and @SpaceX on the first commercial spacewalk in history!” Nelson posted on X. “Today’s success represents a giant leap forward for the commercial space industry and @NASA’s long-term goal to build a vibrant U.S. space economy.”

Polaris Dawn, the first of three missions Isaacman purchased for SpaceX under the Polaris program, has so far lived up to its lofty expectations. In addition to the spacewalk, the astronauts on day two of the mission ascended to an orbital height not reached by humans since the Apollo 17 astronauts in 1972, passing through hazardous radiation belts. 

Menon also read a children’s book she authored, Kisses from Space, for her family and patients of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, live from orbit. While the Polaris missions are scientific—Polaris Dawn alone will conduct nearly 40 experiments—they are also billed as charitable endeavors to raise money for St. Jude.

Ultimately, the Polaris program may have a ripple effect on NASA’s efforts to return Americans to the moon via the Artemis program.

Polaris Mission III is expected to be the debut crewed flight of SpaceX’s Starship, the largest and most powerful rocket ever built. The space agency has asked the company to develop a lunar lander variant of Starship to land astronauts on the moon’s south pole, which will be used during Artemis III scheduled for September 2026.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post SpaceX Polaris Dawn Crew Completes Historic Civilian Spacewalk appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

On Tuesday, as the company occasionally does when facing what it deems to be unfair treatment, SpaceX posted a lengthy update decrying the decision. According to the firm, the FAA had assured it that Starship would get the green light this month. It claims the rocket has been ready to fly since early August, an assertion CEO Elon Musk reiterated last week.

“Unfortunately, we continue to be stuck in a reality where it takes longer to do the government paperwork to license a rocket launch than it does to design and build the actual hardware,” the firm said. “This should never happen and directly threatens America’s position as the leader in space.”

With the ability to be used multiple times on the cheap, Starship is expected to be a game-changer for U.S. spaceflight. SpaceX wants to launch the rocket up to 120 times per year from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. Musk last week claimed the vehicle will reach Mars within two years.

SpaceX is also developing a Starship human landing system (HLS), a lunar lander variant of the spacecraft, for NASA’s Artemis III mission, which would return Americans to the moon for the first time in more than half a century. Starship will require a few more test flights before the mission, which is scheduled for late 2026.

That’s not much time, but SpaceX plans to get there using its philosophy of iterative design. Basically, the company puts flight hardware through real-world testing as often as possible to learn quickly and improve the chances of success on the next flight. The strategy helped it commercialize the now-ubiquitous Falcon rocket.

“The more we fly safely, the faster we learn; the faster we learn, the sooner we realize full and rapid rocket reuse,” SpaceX said.

Each Starship test flight has flown farther and accomplished more than the last. The fourth, in June, marked the first time both Starship and the Super Heavy booster made it back to Earth in one piece after the first two attempts ended in explosions.

Keeping with the trend, Flight 5 will feature the most ambitious goal yet. SpaceX will attempt to catch Super Heavy midair using two large “chopstick” arms, returning it safely to the Starbase launch pad in Boca Chica, Texas. 

The maneuver could pose risk to Starbase’s launch tower, but SpaceX says it has been preparing for years. The delay could create a ripple effect that hampers future Starship test flights. Safely returning the booster is a critical piece of the system’s reusability.

“It’s understandable that such a unique operation would require additional time to analyze from a licensing perspective,” the firm said. “Unfortunately, instead of focusing resources on critical safety analysis and collaborating on rational safeguards to protect both the public and the environment, the licensing process has been repeatedly derailed by issues ranging from the frivolous to the patently absurd.”

What’s the Holdup?

SpaceX said the FAA communicated that a launch license would be awarded this month, but the process has been delayed due to “four open environmental issues” it deems unnecessary.

Starship’s maiden voyage in April 2023 was a brief but bombastic one. The FAA grounded the rocket as it investigated the launch and explosion, which shook buildings, shattered windows, and sent ash and debris flying miles away.

The impact was more severe than SpaceX anticipated due to the lack of a flame deflector—a common fixture at launch sites that uses water to absorb energy and heat—beneath Starbase. According to Musk, the system was absent because it “wasn’t ready in time” and the company thought the pad could withstand the launch.

The FAA’s handling of Starship’s initial launch license prompted a lawsuit from five environmental groups, which the agency reportedly has sought to dismiss. With the flame deflector installed, subsequent Starship flights have not destroyed the launch pad.

However, the FAA has approved two 60-day consultations that could extend the timeline for a fifth mission.

According to SpaceX, the only proposed change to the mission’s hot-stage jettison—during which the top of the Super Heavy booster is expelled—is a new splashdown location, which it says would not raise the risk of harm to marine life. Still, the FAA signed off on a consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service to evaluate the new site.

“SpaceX’s current license authorizing the Starship Flight 4 launch also allows for multiple flights of the same vehicle configuration and mission profile,” the agency told FLYING. “SpaceX chose to modify both for its proposed Starship Flight 5 launch which triggered a more in-depth review.”

SpaceX, though, fears the review could be longer.

“The mechanics of these types of consultations outline that any new questions raised during that time can reset the 60-day counter, over and over again,” it said.

A separate consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), requested by the FAA due to Flight 5’s larger sonic boom radius, could add to the delays. A sonic boom occurs as Starship slows from supersonic speeds on its way back to Earth.

“SpaceX submitted new information in mid-August detailing how the environmental impact of Flight 5 will cover a larger area than previously reviewed,” the FAA said. “This requires the FAA to consult with other agencies.”

According to SpaceX, both agencies have studied Starship booster landings and concluded there is no significant environmental impact from sonic booms. The firm also claims studies back the idea that sonic booms have no detrimental effect on wildlife—but the jury is still out on that one.

According to an evaluation by the California Coastal Commission of SpaceX’s request to increase Falcon 9 launches at Vandenberg Space Force Base in California, experts don’t fully understand the effects of noise on animals. The commission rejected the request in part because sonic booms generated by Falcon 9—a less powerful rocket than Starship—force too many closures and evacuations of local parks.

“At Starbase, we implement an extensive list of mitigations developed with federal and state agencies, many of which require year-round monitoring and frequent updates to regulators and consultation with independent biological experts,” SpaceX said.

Among other things, the company says it works with a local nonprofit to transport injured sea turtles for treatment and monitors bird local populations, using drones to search for nests before and after launch and. It also “adopted” Boca Chica Beach through a Texas state program and sponsors quarterly cleanups it says have removed hundreds of pounds of trash.

A CNBC report last month, which SpaceX swiftly rebuked, alleged that the company violated the Clean Water Act. The Environmental Protection Agency, though, told FLYING it did indeed violate that law.

Days before Starship’s third test flight in March, the EPA issued an order directing the company to eliminate “unpermitted discharges,” citing a liquid oxygen spill from the flame deflector’s water deluge system that seeped into the surrounding wetlands. SpaceX was forced to apply for a new permit from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), which it did in July, but still ate a fine of nearly $150,000 to resolve the violation.

In response, the company denied it ever discharged pollutants or operated the deluge system without TCEQ permission. According to SpaceX, the device uses “literal drinking water” and has been deemed safe by the FAA, TCEQ, and USFWS.

SpaceX further claimed that the EPA issued its order without knowledge of its TCEQ license or “a basic understanding of the facts” of the system’s operation. It added that the fines are “entirely tied to disagreements over paperwork” and stem from a simple misunderstanding.

“We chose to settle so that we can focus our energy on completing the missions and commitments that we have made to the U.S. government, commercial customers, and ourselves,” SpaceX said. “Paying fines is extremely disappointing when we fundamentally disagree with the allegations, and we are supported by the fact that EPA has agreed that nothing about the operation of our flame deflector will need to change. Only the name of the permit has changed.”

The proposed settlement is open for public comment until October 21.

Singled Out?

The implication by SpaceX is that it is being unfairly targeted for its successes.

The company is prolific within the commercial spaceflight industry—experts estimate it accounted for 87 percent of all spacecraft mass space operators sent into orbit in 2023. At the same time, it handles more NASA missions than any of the agency’s private contractors.

That dominance occasionally draws ire from competitors such as Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin, or, as SpaceX puts it, “bad-faith hysterics from online detractors or special interest groups.”

“Despite a small, but vocal, minority of detractors trying to game the regulatory system to obstruct and delay the development of Starship, SpaceX remains committed to the mission at hand,” the company said.

NASA has made it known that it intends to become one of many customers within a commercial space ecosystem, rather than a service provider, by the end of the decade. As SpaceX continues to snap up NASA contracts—including an agreement to deorbit the International Space Station, ushering in that new era—rivals and critics may fear that its supremacy will only grow.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post SpaceX Takes Aim at FAA After Latest Starship Launch Delay appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The 218-page document, assembled by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) at the behest of Congress, warns that NASA is prioritizing short-term missions and commercial contracts over the people and technology that make its out-of-this-world activities possible.

Per the report, the space agency’s emphasis on near-term victories and overreliance on private contractors comes at the price of a strained budget, degraded infrastructure, and exodus of talented personnel.

“NASA should rebalance its priorities and increase investments in its facilities, expert workforce, and development of cutting-edge technology, even if it means forestalling initiation of new missions,” the NASEM said.

NASEM operates under a congressional charter and comprises private and nonprofit institutions that provide independent analysis on public policy decisions. The academies release decadal reports on topics such as astronomy and planetary science, effectively giving NASA and Congress a roadmap for funding over the next ten years. The studies take years to put together and are considered influential within the spaceflight community.

Tuesday’s publication, titled NASA at a Crossroads, is a bit of an aberration. The report was requested by Congress in 2022 amid growing pressure from China, which in June became the first nation to return samples from the moon’s far side.

NASEM members met with experts, visited NASA centers, sent requests for information, and reviewed agency documents to inform their conclusions. The outlook, the organization says, may be bleak.

The State of NASA

The NASEM report paints the picture of an agency in turmoil from top to bottom.

Internal and external pressure from NASA and its benefactors has placed it in a bit of a tight spot. Agency senior center managers told researchers they would prefer to spend additional funding on new missions rather than facility maintenance or personnel training. But per the U.S. Committee on Human Spaceflight, NASA annually spends about $3 billion on missions it cannot afford.

“Each dollar of mission support that previously had to sustain a dollar of mission activity now has to support $1.50 of mission activity, effectively a 50 percent increase,” the report says.

In short, the agency’s workload is expanding more rapidly than its mission budget—and that’s absorbing money that could be better spent elsewhere.

NASA infrastructure is essential to the agency’s mission and is used by other agencies and private partners. But “chronic insufficient funding” has resulted in about 83 percent of the agency’s facilities, many of which were built in the 1960s, exceeding their design life. These aging assets are difficult to maintain, soak up valuable personnel time, and make NASA less attractive to prospective talent.

“During its inspection tours, the committee saw some of the worst facilities many of its members have ever seen,” NASEM said.

For example, according to the report, NASA’s Deep Space Network (DSN)—a network of radio dishes around the globe that receive and transmit data from missions—is too degraded to support current and planned projects without disrupting others. DSN locations over the next decade will cost tens of millions to maintain, it predicts, while contending with a thin workforce and failing infrastructure. The DSN budget in 2022 was $200 million, down from $250 million in 2010.

NASA’s employee turnover rate is largely consistent with the commercial space industry, per the report. But agency employees cited lower salaries and greater private sector involvement as deterrents to working there. In addition, NASEM found that women and minorities are underrepresented, leaving plenty of talent untapped.

Researchers worry the prevalence of certain commercial contracts, such as fixed-price or milestone-based, could make matters even worse by turning NASA engineers into contract monitors. These agreements stifle agency personnel by reducing hands-on work while opening the door for private companies to develop technology that, in the NASEM’s view, should be built in-house.

“Innovative, creative engineers don’t want to have a job that consists of overseeing other people’s work,” said ex-Lockheed Martin executive Norm Augustine, the lead author of the report, during a virtual briefing Tuesday afternoon.

A Tight Budget

NASA’s tendency to prioritize short-term missions over long-term success stems in part from a constrained budget environment.

Between 2014 and 2023, the agency’s funding actually increased by an average of more than 3 percent over the previous year. But over the past two decades, its purchasing power has essentially held flat while mission complexity has grown. During the peak of the Apollo program, NASEM estimates, purchasing power was about three times higher.

The 2023 debt ceiling agreement capped increases to federal non-defense discretionary funding for fiscal years 2024 and 2025, and NASA has felt the impact. Its 2024 budget left it with about half a billion less than it had in 2023. The 8.5 percent discrepancy between what the agency requested and what it received was the largest since 1992.

The funding cut gives NASA little wiggle room for certain missions such as Mars Sample Return, for which the agency has requested help from private industry to lower costs. Another high-profile program, the Chandra X-ray observatory, was placed on the chopping block, and several others have been delayed.

It could be a similar story in 2025. The White House’s 2025 NASA budget request, which seeks the same amount awarded in 2023, has been marked up by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, with the latter’s proposal reading much more favorable.

Under the House budget, NASA would receive $200 million less than requested, a slight increase over 2024 in real dollars but below the current rate of inflation.

The biggest loser would be the Science Mission Directorate, which would get $7.3 billion—the same as 2024’s allocation, which represented the first cut to NASA’s science budget in a decade. A coalition of scientific organizations and more than 40 members of Congress believe the agency needs closer to $9 billion to support its dozens of space science missions.

Mars Sample Return could also suffer despite the House requiring it to spend $450 million more than NASA requested.

That’s because it would provide less than half of that money, leaving NASA to scrounge up the rest by axing other planetary science projects. The House would require full funding for certain programs, so only a few—namely Discovery, New Frontiers, and fundamental research—would be candidates for cuts. Within those programs are the critical Veritas Venus mission and Dragonfly Saturn moon mission, both of which could be jeopardized.

Also at risk is the Artemis lunar program, the successor to Apollo. NASA asked to shift funding from flight-proven components to novel technology that will be used on future missions, including the return of Americans to the moon during Artemis III. But the House mandates that the former programs maintain their historical levels of funding.

According to Casey Dreier, head of policy at the Planetary Society, that creates a roughly “half-billion-dollar hole” for the Lunar Gateway moon space station. To fill it, NASA will need to either redirect funds from other programs or significantly cut Gateway funding.

Artemis II and Artemis III have already been pushed to September 2025 and 2026, respectively, and NASA has hinted at delays to future missions. Earlier this year, it suddenly canceled development of the Viper lunar rover due to budget uncertainty.

“Future funding is clouded by the ever-declining federal discretionary budget from which NASA support is provided,” the report says.

Things may improve in 2026 when spending caps are lifted. However, NASA within the last year and change has lowered its budget projection for 2030 from about $30 billion to $28 billion.

Instant Gratification

NASA’s inefficiencies arise not just from its meager budget but also from how the agency uses it, the NASEM says.

The agency is often stretched thin by the sheer number of projects it pursues, causing setbacks to individual missions as in the case of Mars Sample Return or the James Webb Space Telescope.

Further, according to the report, many NASA leaders dismiss the need for long-term internal strategy, citing immense influence from Congress on its annual projects and budget. In short, the perception within NASA is that doing so would waste resources.

“Even planning for the advancing Artemis program lacks certain action-specific details associated with an architecture that is more complex and interdependent than Apollo,” the NASEM said.

But the lack of foresight by leadership results in unrealistic initial cost estimates, creating a domino effect that forces underfunded missions to pull money from other programs. The NASEM characterizes NASA’s internal research and development program, for example, as underfunded.

“The inevitable consequence of such a strategy is to erode those essential capabilities that led to the organization’s greatness in the first place and that underpin its future potential,” the report reads. “The profound negative consequences of this are felt far beyond the specific projects producing the delays and unanticipated funding demands.”

The NASEM recommended a total overhaul of NASA’s long-term mission planning process, including required “need dates” for capability and component needs. It also suggested that as responsibility shifts from NASA centers to specialized mission directorates, the agency should make sure its checks and balances are providing enough oversight.

An Eroding Base

Because NASA puts so much energy into its missions, the agency has neglected the engine that drives them: personnel and infrastructure.

Since 2017, only two NASA congressional authorization acts—which allocate funds from the Treasury Department and establish new programs and policy focuses—have been made law.  According to the report, “this inhibits the forecasting of workforce, infrastructure, and technology needs.”

On the infrastructure side, the NASEM recommended NASA work with Congress to create a revolving working capital fund (WCF) financed by the government and users of NASA facilities, similar to those for other federal departments. The agency could use the money to eliminate its maintenance backlog over the next decade and make continuous infrastructure enhancements.

Equally concerning is the agency’s workforce, which faces more competition for employment than ever before. Creating a commercial space ecosystem was a U.S. national policy goal for decades, and NASA has benefitted from working with private companies. These partnerships are necessary, the report argues, but verging on excessive.

Researchers contend that specialized, early phase mission work should be handled in-house, or NASA risks losing the talent that has propelled it thus far. Fixed-price or milestone-based contacts, such as the Artemis human landing system (HLS) agreements with SpaceX and Blue Origin, take agency personnel out of the picture. Many employees told researchers they would like more training or opportunities to hone their skills.

“In this case, NASA is more of a contract monitor than a technical organization capable of taking humanity into the solar system,” the NASEM said. “The concern is not only an erosion of ‘smart-buyer’ capability, but also of the capacity to invent and innovate.”

There is also the risk that a commercial provider exits the market or fails to deliver. A NASA inspector general report, for instance, blames contractor Boeing for certain delays associated with the Artemis program.

The NASEM directs NASA to invest in “early-stage, mission-critical technologies” that commercial firms have yet to crack, emphasize more hands-on work, and unearth new talent by targeting underrepresented demographics.

It could also seek to update the NASA Flexibility Act of 2004, which was implemented partially in response to the space shuttle Columbia accident and dictates what the agency can pay employees. By securing greater appointment and hiring authority, it could ease the burden of attracting and retaining talent.

Houston, Do We Have a Problem?

NASA’s budget woes have been well documented. The NASEM report, however, raises new concerns about how the agency uses what little it receives.

It’s not all NASA’s fault—the agency’s effort to scale back Mars Sample Return, for example, faces opposition from the House. If NASA must divert funding from other projects to support that mission, the blame would land squarely on Congress.

But the agency certainly isn’t helping matters. The neglect of long-term mission planning, despite lawmakers’ control over the budget, borders on ineptitude. Infrastructure and technology are dated. And private firms are snapping up talent faster than NASA can produce it.

Given the pressure the agency faces internally, from the government, and from its contractors, these issues are unlikely to resolve themselves without some serious effort. The hope is that the adoption of the Senate’s more favorable budget proposal, and the lifting of spending caps in 2026, could give it some much needed support. But NASA’s fortunes will also hinge on a reassessment of its priorities.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post Report to Congress: Shortsighted, Aging NASA Faces Uncertain Future appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The mission to return the spacecraft to Earth concludes a flight test to the International Space Station (ISS) that was unexpectedly extended to three months after Starliner experienced helium leaks and thruster malfunctions on June 6. 

The two astronauts aboard the Starliner—Barry “Butch” Wilmore and Sunita “Suni” Williams—have since been staying on the ISS alongside the Expedition 71 crew. After weeks of in-space and ground testing, technical interchange meetings, and agency reviews, NASA announced in August that Wilmore and Williams would be returning via the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft next February.

• READ MORE: A Brief History of Astronauts Stuck in Space

A news release from NASA on Friday stated that its Commercial Crew Program requires a spacecraft to fly a crewed test flight to prove the system is ready for regular flights to and from the orbiting laboratory. The goal of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program is safe, reliable, and cost-effective transportation to and from the ISS and low Earth orbit.

Following Starliner’s return, the agency will review all mission-related data.

Ken Bowersox, the associate administrator for the space operations mission directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C., said in the release that he was proud of his team’s work during the flight test and Starliner’s safe return.

“I am extremely proud of the work our collective team put into this entire flight test, and we are pleased to see Starliner’s safe return,” Bowersox said. “Even though it was necessary to return the spacecraft uncrewed, NASA and Boeing learned an incredible amount about Starliner in the most extreme environment possible. NASA looks forward to our continued work with the Boeing team to proceed toward certification of Starliner for crew rotation missions to the space station.”

The flight on June 5 was the first time astronauts launched aboard the Starliner. It was the third orbital flight of the spacecraft, and its second return from the orbiting laboratory. The spacecraft will now ship to NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida for inspection and processing.

“We are excited to have Starliner home safely,” said Steve Stich, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, in the release. “This was an important test flight for NASA in setting us up for future missions on the Starliner system. There was a lot of valuable learning that will enable our long-term success. I want to commend the entire team for their hard work and dedication over the past three months.”

Bringing Starliner Home

As scheduled, Starliner departed from the ISS at 6:04 p.m. EDT Friday evening. 

The spacecraft’s 59-second deorbit burn went off without a hitch just over five hours later at 11:17 p.m. EDT. Despite initial concerns around the mutch-scrutinized aft-facing thrusters, telemetry visualization on NASA’s broadcast showed they appeared to fire as needed.

The service module separated and performed its disposal burn, and Starliner was then set to reenter the atmosphere and touch down around midnight. 

Live video taken from the ISS and two NASA chase planes showed the craft streaking through the atmosphere for a little under an hour before the ship touched down at White Sands Space Harbor at 12:01 a.m. EDT. Landing and recovery teams followed NASA’s previously published mission timeline plans, and the spacecraft was then on its way to Kennedy Space Center.

Following the mission, NASA hosted a live post-landing press conference to answer questions from journalists. Officials answering questions were Joel Mantalbano, deputy associate administrator for the space operations mission directorate at NASA Headquarters; Steve Stich, Commercial Crew Program manager at NASA Kennedy; and Dana Wiegel, International Space Station manager at NASA Johnson.

Stich said during the conference that Starliner executed a nominal breakout sequence.

“[It’s] the first time we’ve used that to back away from the station,” Stich said. “We backed out to about five meters and then did a series of about 12 burns using the service module 4 jets. After that sequence of maneuvers, we ended up opening at about 22 kilometers per rev away from the space station. All those thrusters did really well through that SEP [Solar Electric Propulsion] sequence, no problems at all. [There were] no fail-offs or any problems at all.”

He further stated that all eight of the Starliner’s forward thrusters and the two aft thrusters worked well during a hot fire.

“We had great performance from the GNC system, the guidance navigation control [and] the Vesta system,” Stich said. “Last fight on OFT2, we had a little bit of trouble with what we call a ‘calibration maneuver’ to really make sure that the attitude is good for this space integrated GPS INS system, and that went really well. We had a deorbit burn that executed on time at 11:17 p.m. central. It was about 130 meters per second, a 58 second burn. It was a really good burn and the service module thrusters performed well for that burn [and] the OMAX performed well.”

During the deorbit burn, Stich stated that the team noticed temperatures being a little higher in the top and starboard “dog houses.” He said that one of the thrusters—S2A2—didn’t fail off but had a little higher temperature than expected.

Stich said that Starliner performed great during entry, but one of the 12 thrusters—an upfiring thruster—did not perform at all during a hot fire before entry. He also said that the SIGI-3 navigation system failed off temporarily during landing. The SIGI-2 also had a couple of hiccups during entry that Stich said his team would be looking into.

What’s Next for NASA and Boeing?

Despite the change in mission plans over the last several months, Mantalbano said he would not describe this test flight as a mission failure.

“I would not call it a successful failure,” Mantalbano said. “We knew going in this was going to be a test mission. We learned a lot. The teams worked together, both the Boeing and the NASA team to understand the systems of the spacecraft and how they operated. The team worked together at White Sands to understand the analysis that was done. On the test mission, things don’t always go as you planned. And so we were prepared. The fact that this vehicle is home, we’re very happy to have the vehicle home. To me, [this was] a success. Clearly we [have] some work to do. The teams will understand that work and move forward.”

When asked if the next flight would be fully certified or another test flight, Stich said that it was too early to say.

“I think we wanna take the steps to go look at all the data,” Stich said. “Certainly our goal is to get to the rotation flight. Our goal all along has been to have one flight a year, one flight from Boeing Starliner, and another flight from SpaceX with Dragon. It’ll take a little time to determine the path forward. But today we saw the vehicle perform really well. We’ve got some things we know we’ve got to go work on, and we’ll go do that and fix those things, and then go fly when we’re ready.”

Stich said that one of the first things NASA will do when the Starliner is taken back to Kennedy Space Center will be analyzing the tracking data relay satellite to the ground from the recorded data onboard.

“With the test flight, we have a number of sensors across the systems that record data,” Stich said. “We’ll want to downlink all that high rate data and take a look at that data. And then it’s a series of analyzing all the data from the entry, the undocking and the deorbit across all the systems on the vehicle to just see if there’s anything that was off nominal. We’ll study the data at a little higher rate. So it will take a couple of weeks to get it back and a week or so to get the data off the spacecraft.

Several journalists present at NASA’s press conference asked why Boeing wasn’t in attendance to answer questions. Mantalbano answered that Boeing deferred to NASA because it represents the mission.

“I will tell you that Boeing has critical work that they do for NASA in the International Space Station Program, the Commercial Crew Program, and the Space Launch Systems Program,” Mantalbano said. “Their work is critical to our success, and we fully expect Boeing to continue all three of those programs.”

When asked again if the relationship between NASA and Boeing had been damaged, Mantalbano reaffirmed his previous statement.

“And I think from a human perspective, all of us feel happy about the successful landing, but then there’s a piece of us, all of us, that we wish it would have been the way we had planned it,” Stich said. “We had planned to have the mission land with Butch and Suni on board. I think there’s, depending on who you are on the team, different emotions associated with that. And I think it’s going to take a little time to work through that. For me, a little bit, and then for everybody else on the Boeing and NASA team.”

The post Boeing Starliner Returns Home Safely appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

But theirs is not the first mission to be unexpectedly lengthened or hit by unforeseen circumstances.

What Happened to Boeing Starliner?

Launched on June 5 from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida, Starliner’s Crew Flight Test (CFT) sought to evaluate the capabilities of the Boeing-built craft before NASA certifies it for regular International Space Station (ISS) astronaut rotation missions. It was scheduled to spend eight days at the ISS then return Wilmore and Williams to a parachute-aided homecoming in the western United States.

But shortly after liftoff, Starliner suffered multiple helium leaks and reaction control system thruster failures. With several thrusters critically sited on its disposable service module (which will burn up at mission’s end), NASA and Boeing repeatedly extended the flight to perform more tests and gather more data.

Days turned to weeks and weeks became months as testing and data-gathering took place in space and on Earth. The astronauts assessed Starliner’s habitability and functionality. The helium leaks slowly stabilized. And at White Sands in New Mexico, a Starliner thruster was rigorously test-fired to assess its performance and understand possible causes of the thruster failures in orbit. 

But it was not enough.

On August 24, NASA opted to return Starliner to Earth empty and keep the astronauts on the ISS until February. In a press conference, Steve Stich, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, said that “the bottom line” was that “there was just too much uncertainty” in how the thrusters would behave. Wilmore and Williams’ homebound ride will instead be SpaceX’s four-seat Dragon Freedom, scheduled to launch on September 24 with two crew members and a pair of empty seats. It is scheduled to return to Earth—with Wilmore and Williams aboard—in February 2025.

Space Ride-Swapping

Over the decades, it has become a common practice for crew to return to Earth in a different spacecraft than the one that took them to space.  

The first instance came in January 1969 when, in a bid to grab some of the spotlight from the U.S. Moon-orbiting Apollo 8 weeks earlier, the Soviet Union achieved the first docking of two spacecraft. Soviet cosmonaut Vladimir Shatalov piloted Soyuz 4 to rendezvous with Soyuz 5’s Boris Volynov, Alexei Yeliseyev, and Yevgeni Khrunov. After the two craft docked, Yeliseyev and Khrunov spacewalked over to Soyuz 4 and returned to Earth with Shatalov while Volynov landed alone.

From 1978, cosmonauts routinely swapped Soyuz capsules as visiting crews to the space stations Salyut 6, Salyut 7, and Mir left fresh ships for use by long-duration resident crews, then returned home in older ships approaching the end of their operational lifetimes. 

And after 1995, Soyuz cosmonauts began launching or landing on space shuttles and shuttle astronauts via Soyuz. Norm Thagard became the first American to launch and land in different ships—riding a Soyuz to Mir, then landing on space shuttle Atlantis. Between 1997 and 2009, several flyers launched to space on one member of NASA’s shuttle fleet and returned on another.

Stranded by the Shuttle

But missions lengthened by unforeseen factors are rarer. 

A notable character at the August 24 Starliner announcement was Ken Bowersox, NASA’s associate administrator for space operations. A former astronaut who flew four shuttle missions and commanded the ISS, he knows a thing or two about getting stranded far from home. 

On February 1, 2003, Bowersox was midway through a four-month stint aboard the ISS at the helm of Expedition 6, partnered with Russian cosmonaut Nikolai Budarin and NASA astronaut Don Pettit. The crew planned to return home in mid-March aboard the space shuttle Atlantis. Days earlier, they made a ship-to-ship call with space shuttle Columbia, flying the STS-107 microgravity research mission. 

As the ISS flew over Ukraine and Columbia soared high above Brazil, Bowersox and STS-107 commander Rick Husband exchanged pleasantries for a few minutes. 

“Glad to see you guys made it into orbit,” said Bowersox. 

“We’re really excited to be able to talk to you guys,” replied Husband. “One big space lab to another big old space lab on that beautiful station of yours.” 

But Columbia would disintegrate during reentry on February 1, 2003, killing her entire crew, grounding the shuttle fleet and stalling construction of the half-built ISS.

“My first reaction was pure shock,” Bowersox said 11 days later. “I was numb and it was hard to believe what we were experiencing was really happening.” 

Mission Control adjusted Expedition 6’s schedule, furnishing the crew some time for reflection.

“When you’re up here for this long, you can’t just bottle up your emotions and focus all of the time,” said Bowersox. “Each of us had a chance to shed some tears.”  

With shuttles indefinitely grounded, getting Bowersox’s crew home proved problematic. An unoccupied ISS was hardly ideal but without regular shuttle visits normal operations were untenable. Two-person caretaker crews on six-month tours would keep the station functional until the shuttle returned to flight. 

The first such crew arrived in April and Expedition 6 came home on May 6—making Bowersox and Pettit the first Americans to launch on a U.S. shuttle and land in a Russian Soyuz. At 161 days, their tragedy-tinged voyage ran 30 percent longer than planned.

Other Extended Stays

Bowersox and Pettit weren’t the first to experience a significant hike in their mission’s duration.

In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed, tanks rumbled into Moscow’s streets and Russia’s tricolor flag replaced the hammer and sickle fluttering over the Kremlin. And two cosmonauts were acutely aware of their once-proud nation’s crumbling future.

One of them, Sergei Krikalev, launched to Mir in May and was due home in October. But with the Baikonur launch base located in Kazakhstan, Russia feared the newly independent Kazakh government might nationalize or refuse access to it.

To placate them, a Kazakh guest cosmonaut was hastily added to the October Soyuz mission, forcing Krikalev to pull a double-length Mir mission of 10 months.

Sergei Krikalev departed Earth a citizen of the Soviet Union and returned to the Russian Federation.

In 1996, NASA’s Shannon Lucid saw her own four-month Mir stay protracted to six months due to shuttle launch delays. Her mission grew from 140 to 188 days, the longest ever flown by a woman. But Lucid also missed her son’s 21st birthday—illustrating spaceflight’s unpredictable impact on families.  

Other missions were also lengthened. Notably, in 1998 and 1999 Russian cosmonaut Sergei Avdeyev spent 379 days on Mir—twice his original flight length. And throughout the ISS era, mission failures, changing circumstances and launch delays kept multiple crews in space far longer than intended. 

In 2017, a reduced number of Russian cosmonauts on the ISS led NASA to extend astronaut Peggy Whitson’s six-month stay to 9.5 months, a new record for women. And Christina Koch, launched for a six-month stay in early 2019, relinquished her Soyuz return seat that fall to a visiting astronaut from the United Arab Emirates. Koch returned to Earth in early 2020 after 11 months—another record for women.

More recently, in 2021 and 2022 the six-month mission of Mark Vande Hei and Pyotr Dubrov was doubled to 355 days. Vande Hei later remarked that taking care of his mental health proved critically important in getting through the flight.

And across 2022 and 2023, the half-year stay of Russian cosmonauts Sergei Prokopyev and Dmitri Petelin and U.S. astronaut Frank Rubio doubled to 371 days—the first year-plus human space mission of the 21st century. Their lengthy ISS stint arose when a coolant leak rendered their Soyuz capsule unsafe to return to Earth, requiring a replacement ship to be launched to bring them home.

‘Extraordinary Sacrifices’

“Our astronauts,” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson, “make extraordinary sacrifices away from their homes and loved ones to further discovery.” His rousing words are fittingly apt for Wilmore and Williams as their week-long flight morphs to eight months: the biggest duration hike of any crewed mission in history—a staggering 25 times longer than planned on their day of launch.  

Despite immense sacrifices on their families, there can be no doubting Wilmore and Williams’ steely resolve. Having both flown the shuttle and Soyuz, their Starliner launch and Dragon landing jointly will make them the first humans to launch or land in four different spacecraft types. And theirs will sit in the top 20 longest missions ever flown—adding to a corpus of knowledge that someday will get humans to Mars. 

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on Astronomy.

The post A Brief History of Astronauts Stuck in Space appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

This comes after a weeklong mission to the ISS extended into an eight-month nightmare for two astronauts after the Starliner experienced thruster malfunctions during the trip to space. Since their blastoff on June 5, NASA astronauts Barry “Butch” Wilmore and Sunita “Suni” Williams have been staying on the ISS alongside the Expedition 71 crew.

• READ MORE: NASA Explains Strange Noises Heard on Boeing Starliner

NASA announced in August that the crew would be returning via the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft in February. They won’t be the first astronauts returning to Earth in a separate spacecraft than the one they launched from, though missions extended from unforeseen factors are rare. 

Returning the Starliner

NASA’s mission timeline posted on Thursday states that safety and mission success remains top priorities for teams during the Starliner’s return.

As the first American capsule designed to touch down on land, the Starliner will use potential landing locations in the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico; Willcox, Arizona; and Dugway Proving Ground, Utah. NASA said that Edwards Air Force Base in California is also available as a contingency landing site.

NASA said it analyzes weather predictions for the various landing sites, taking note of winds, ground temperatures, cloud ceiling height, visibility, precipitation, and nearby storms. When the teams start undocking, the Starliner will complete several departure burns. From there, the spacecraft is planned to reach its landing site in as little as six hours.

During this deorbit burn, a final weather check will commence.

• READ MORE: SpaceX—Not Boeing—Will Return Starliner Astronauts After Monthslong Mission

“Winds must be at or below 10 mph (9 knots),” NASA’s mission timeline said. “If winds exceed these limits, teams will waive the deorbit burn, and Starliner will target another landing attempt between 24 and 31 hours later.”

Assuming weather meets acceptable conditions, Starliner will execute its deorbit burn for approximately 60 seconds. This will slow it down enough to reenter earth’s atmosphere and land at its target site. Immediately after the deorbit burn, the spacecraft will reposition for service module disposal, which will burn up during reentry over the southern Pacific Ocean.

Reentry will see the capsule reach temperatures of up to 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit, which may interrupt communications with the spacecraft for approximately four minutes. After this, the forward heat shield on top of the aircraft will be jettisoned and several parachutes will be deployed at 30,000 feet.

• READ MORE: NASA: Starliner Astronauts May Not Return Until February

As the aircraft continues to slow down, the base heat shield will jettison at 3,000 feet and cause six landing bags to inflate. The spacecraft will travel at approximately 4 mph at touchdown.

Recovery After Landing

After touchdown, several NASA and Boeing landing recovery teams stationed near Starliner’s landing site will move toward the spacecraft in sequential order:

• The gold team will use equipment to “sniff” the capsule for any hypergolic fuels that didn’t fully burn off before re-entry. They also cover the spacecraft’s thrusters.

• The silver team will then electrically ground and stabilize the Starliner.
• The green team will supply power and cooling to the crew module since the spacecraft will be powered down.
• The blue team will then document the recovery for public dissemination and future process review.
• The red team, which includes Boeing fire rescue, emergency medical technicians, and human factors engineers, then will open the Starliner hatch.

The teams will begin unloading time-critical cargo from the Starliner. The spacecraft will then be moved to Boeing facilities at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida for refurbishment.

The post NASA Reveals Mission Timeline for Crewless Starliner Return appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The spacecraft is scheduled to autonomously undock from the ISS no earlier than Friday, making way for a SpaceX Dragon spacecraft carrying NASA’s two-person Crew-9 astronaut rotation mission. Wilmore and Williams will hitch a ride home on that Dragon, rather than Starliner, after NASA determined the beleaguered Boeing spacecraft poses too much risk to return with crew as planned.

The space agency on Monday said the strange sounds have ceased and will have “no technical impact to the crew, Starliner, or station operations, including Starliner’s uncrewed undocking from the station.”

According to a conversation picked up by a Michigan-based meteorologist and first reported by Ars Technica, Wilmore on Saturday radioed NASA mission control at Johnson Space Center in Houston to report the odd sound.

“Got a question about Starliner,” he said. “There’s a strange noise coming through the speaker…I don’t know what’s making it.”

The astronaut asked mission control to listen in and see if it could determine the source of the noise. Moments later, Houston called back and Wilmore, now inside Starliner, held his microphone up to the spacecraft’s speakers, picking up the unusual sound.

“All right, Butch, that one came through,” mission control said. “It was kind of like a pulsing noise, almost like a sonar ping.”

The operator confirmed with Wilmore that there were no “other weird noises” coming from Starliner.

“I’ll do it one more time and let y’all scratch your heads and see if you can figure out what’s going on,” Wilmore replied, capturing the sound again. “Call us if you figure it out.”

Retired Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield, who flew two space shuttle missions and served a stint as ISS commander, had an ominous response to the noise in a post on X.

“There are several noises I’d prefer not to hear inside my spaceship, including this one that @Boeing Starliner is now making,” Hadfield said.

NASA, though, offered a more mundane explanation for the pulsing sound.

“The feedback from the speaker was the result of an audio configuration between the space station and Starliner,” the space agency said. “The space station audio system is complex, allowing multiple spacecraft and modules to be interconnected, and it is common to experience noise and feedback. The crew is asked to contact mission control when they hear sounds originating in the comm system.”

This wouldn’t be the first time astronauts have encountered unusual noises in space. In 1969, for example, Apollo 10 astronauts reported hearing strange whistling “music” as they circled the moon. Apollo 11 pilot Michael Collins said he heard a similar “woo-woo sound” during his mission, which engineers have chalked up to radio interference.

More recently, Yang Liwei, the first Chinese man to reach space in 2003, recalled hearing what sounded like “someone knocking the body of the spaceship just as knocking an iron bucket with a wooden hammer.” Scientists now believe it was the result of air pressure changes.

It appears the noise heard aboard Starliner likewise has a rational explanation. Regardless, Wilmore and Williams will not need to concern themselves with it, as they are set to ride SpaceX’s Dragon back to Earth. The astronauts will return in February, eight months after they arrived at the space station.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post NASA Explains Strange Noises Heard on Boeing Starliner appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The FAA on Wednesday announced it will require an investigation into Falcon 9’s launch of 21 Starlink satellites that morning, which concluded with the booster tipping over into the Atlantic Ocean. Depending on the length of the investigation, two crewed SpaceX missions that will rely on the rocket—one for NASA, the other for a billionaire entrepreneur—could face setbacks.

“We’re just focused on recovery weather at this point. I think that is still [the] gate to our launch.” Jared Isaacman, the purchaser and commander of the latter mission, said in a post on X, seeming to dismiss concerns of a lengthy inquiry.

Wednesday’s flight was the first of two planned back-to-back Starlink launches, the second of which was called off. After its second stage successfully deployed the satellites into orbit, Falcon 9’s first stage appeared to suffer a collapsed landing leg when it touched down on SpaceX’s A Shortfall of Gravitas droneship, stationed several miles off the Florida coast. As flames erupted around it, the booster gave way and tumbled into the water. Beyond the loss of the booster, no injuries or damage were reported.

Still, the incident was enough to bring an FAA investigation, seemingly ending a streak of more than 250 successful SpaceX booster recoveries dating back to 2021. The first stage that flew Wednesday, B1062, completed a record-setting 23rd launch and landing. It played a crucial role for SpaceX, serving as the booster for Inspiration4, which sent the first all-civilian crew to orbit, and Ax-1, the first crewed mission to the International Space Station flown entirely by commercial operators.

“Losing a booster is always sad,” said Jon Edwards, vice president of Falcon launch vehicles at SpaceX, in a post on X. “Each one of them has a unique history and character. Thankfully this doesn’t happen often, due to the robust design and vigilance of the team.

An investigation does not necessarily mean a prolonged grounding. SpaceX will need to submit a final report, including any actions it needs to take to prevent the issue from happening again, for FAA approval.

But if the mishap did not jeopardize public safety or Falcon 9’s safety-critical systems, SpaceX could request the FAA make a public safety determination. If approved, that would allow launches to continue during the investigation. When Falcon 9 was grounded in July, SpaceX used this method to return to flight in just two weeks.

“We are working as hard as we can to thoroughly understand root cause and get corrective actions in place ASAP,” Edwards said on X. “One thing we do know though is this was purely a recovery issue and posed no threat to primary mission or public safety.”

SpaceX is relying on Falcon 9 to launch Isaacman and three other crewmembers, including the first company employees to fly to space, on the historic Polaris Dawn mission. Originally scheduled for this week but delayed due to weather concerns and a small helium leak, the five-day mission will feature the first attempt at a civilian spacewalk. It also aims to orbit at a higher altitude than humans have reached since Apollo 17 more than half a century ago.

Complicating matters somewhat is that Launch Complex 39-A at Kennedy Space Center in Florida, which SpaceX will use for Polaris Dawn, is needed by NASA for the Europa Clipper mission scheduled for October 10. The company will also use Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station to launch Crew-9 to the ISS, which itself could be delayed by the investigation.

Unlike other Commercial Crew rotation missions SpaceX has flown for NASA, Crew-9 will have two astronauts rather than four to accommodate Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams, who have been at the ISS since June on Boeing Starliner’s inaugural crew flight test (CFT). The space agency over the weekend opted to bring home the astronauts on SpaceX’s Dragon capsule rather than Starliner, making Falcon 9 an important piece of the operation.

Any delay to Crew-9 could further force NASA to come up with a new plan for Starliner. The capsule needs to depart the space station before Crew-9 launches in order to make way for Dragon.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post SpaceX Falcon 9 Rocket Grounded Amid Upcoming Human Spaceflight Missions appeared first on FLYING Magazine.