NASA decision against using a Boeing capsule to bring astronauts back adds to company’s problems

In this photo provided by NASA, Boeing's Starliner spacecraft is docked to the Harmony module of the International Space Station on July 3, 2024, seen from a window on the SpaceX Dragon Endeavour spacecraft docked to an adjacent port. (NASA via AP)
Short Url
Updated 25 August 2024
Follow

NASA decision against using a Boeing capsule to bring astronauts back adds to company’s problems

  • The space capsule program represents a tiny fraction of Boeing’s revenue, but carrying astronauts is a high-profile job — like Boeing’s work building Air Force One presidential jets

NASA’s announcement Saturday that it won’t use a troubled Boeing capsule to return two stranded astronauts to Earth is a yet another setback for the struggling company, although the financial damage is likely to be less than the reputational harm.
Once a symbol of American engineering and technological prowess, Boeing has seen its reputation battered since two 737 Max airliners crashed in 2018 and 2019, killing 346 people. The safety of its products came under renewed scrutiny after a panel blew out of a Max during a flight this January.
And now NASA has decided that it is safer to keep the astronauts in space until February rather than risk using the Boeing Starliner capsule that delivered them to the international space station. The capsule has been plagued by problems with its propulsion system.
NASA administrator Bill Nelson said the decision to send the Boeing capsule back to Earth empty “is a result of a commitment to safety.” Boeing had insisted Starliner was safe based on recent tests of thrusters both in space and on the ground.
The space capsule program represents a tiny fraction of Boeing’s revenue, but carrying astronauts is a high-profile job — like Boeing’s work building Air Force One presidential jets.
“The whole thing is another black eye” for Boeing, aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia said. “It’s going to sting a little longer, but nothing they haven’t dealt with before.”
Boeing has lost more than $25 billion since 2018 as its aircraft-manufacturing business cratered after those crashes. For a time, the defense and space side of the company provided a partial cushion, posting strong profits and steady revenue through 2021.

Since 2022, however, Boeing’s defense and space division has stumbled too, losing $6 billion — slightly more than the airplane side of the company in the same period.
The results have been dragged down by several fixed-price contracts for NASA and the Pentagon, including a deal to build new Air Force One presidential jets. Boeing has found itself on the hook as costs for those projects have risen far beyond the company’s estimates.
The company recorded a $1 billion loss from fixed-price government contracts in the second quarter alone, but the problem is not new.
“We have a couple of fixed-price development programs we have to just finish and never do them again,” then-CEO David Calhoun said last year. “Never do them again.”
In 2014, NASA awarded Boeing a $4.2 billion fixed-price contract to build a vehicle to carry astronauts to the International Space Station after the retirement of space shuttles, along with a $2.6 billion contract to SpaceX.
Boeing, with more than a century of building airplane and decades as a NASA contractor, was seen as the favorite. But Starliner suffered technical setbacks that caused it to cancel some test launches, fall behind schedule and go over budget. SpaceX won the race to ferry astronauts to the ISS, which it accomplished in 2020.
Boeing was finally ready to carry astronauts this year, and Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams launched aboard Starliner in early June for what was intended to be an 8-day stay in space. But thruster failures and helium leaks led NASA to park the vehicle at the space station while engineers debated how to return them to Earth.
The company said in a regulatory filing that the latest hitch with Starliner caused a $125 million loss through June 30, which pushed cumulative cost overruns on the program to more than $1.5 billion. “Risk remains that we may record additional losses in future periods,” Boeing said.
Aboulafia said Starliner’s impact on Boeing business and finances will be modest — “not really a needle-mover.” Even the $4.2 billion, multi-year NASA contract is a relatively small chunk of revenue for Boeing, which reported sales of $78 billion last year.
And Aboulafia believes Boeing will enjoy a grace period with customers like the government now that it is under new leadership, reducing the risk it will lose big contracts. NASA administrator Nelson said Saturday he was “100 percent” confident that the Starliner will fly with a crew again.
Robert “Kelly” Ortberg replaced Calhoun as CEO this month. Unlike the company’s recent chief executives, Ortberg is an outsider who previously led aerospace manufacturer Rockwell Collins, where he developed a reputation for walking among workers on factory floors and building ties to airline and government customers.
“They are transitioning from perhaps the worst executive leadership to some of the best,” Aboulafia said. “Given the regime change underway, I think people are going to give them some slack.”
Boeing’s defense division has recently won some huge contracts. It is lined up to provide Apache helicopters to foreign governments, sell 50 F-15 fighter jets to Israel as the bulk of a $20 billion deal, and build prototype surveillance planes for the Air Force under a $2.56 billion contract.
“Those are some strong tailwinds, but it’s going to take a while before they get (Boeing’s defense and space business) back to profitability,” Aboulafia said.


With Iran war exit elusive, Trump aides vie to affect outcome

Updated 13 March 2026
Follow

With Iran war exit elusive, Trump aides vie to affect outcome

  • Aides debate when and how to declare victory even as the conflict spreads across the Middle East
  • In taking America to war, US President Donald Trump offered little explanation

WASHINGTON: A complex tug-of-war inside the White House is driving US President Donald Trump’s shifting public statements on the course of the Iran war, as aides debate when and how to declare victory even as the conflict spreads across the Middle East.

Some officials and advisers are warning Trump that surging gasoline prices could exact a political cost from the US-Israeli attacks on Iran, while some hawks are pressing the president to maintain the offensive against the Islamic Republic, according to interviews with a Trump adviser and others close to the deliberations.

Their observations to Reuters offer a previously unreported glimpse inside White House decision-making as it adjusts its approach to the biggest US military operation since the 2003 Iraq war.

Shifting messages, various internal viewpoints

The behind-the-scenes maneuvering underscores the high stakes Trump, who returned to office last year promising to avoid “stupid” military interventions, faces nearly two weeks after plunging the nation into a war that has rattled global financial markets and disrupted the international oil trade.

The jockeying for Trump’s ear is a feature of his presidency, but this time the consequences are a matter of war and peace in one of the world’s most volatile and economically critical regions.

Shifting from the sweeping goals he framed in launching the war on February 28, Trump in recent days has emphasized that he views the conflict as a limited campaign whose objectives have mostly been met.

But the message remains unclear to many, including the energy markets, which have lurched in both directions in response to Trump’s statements.

He told a campaign-style rally in Kentucky on Wednesday that “we won” the war, then abruptly pivoted: “We don’t want to leave early, do we? We’ve got to finish the job.”

Economic advisers and officials, including from the Treasury Department and the National Economic Council, have warned Trump that an oil shock and rising gasoline prices could quickly erode domestic support for the war, said the adviser and two others close to the deliberations, speaking on the condition of anonymity to disclose internal discussions.

Political advisers, including Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and deputy chief James Blair, are making similar arguments, focusing on the political fallout from higher gas prices and urging Trump to define victory narrowly and signal the operation is limited and nearly finished, the sources said.

Pushing in the other direction are hawkish voices urging Trump to sustain military pressure on Iran, including Republican lawmakers such as US Senators Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton, and media commentators such as Mark Levin, according to people familiar with the matter.

They argue the US must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and respond forcefully to attacks on American troops and shipping.

A third force comes from Trump’s populist base and figures such as strategist Steve Bannon and right-wing television personality Tucker Carlson, who have been pressing him and his top aides to avoid getting dragged into another prolonged Middle East conflict.

“He is allowing the hawks to believe the campaign continues, wants markets to believe the war might end soon and his base to believe escalation will be limited,” the Trump adviser said.

Asked for comment, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement: “This story is based on gossip and speculation from anonymous sources who aren’t even in the room for any discussions with President Trump.

“The President is known for being a good listener and seeking the opinions of many people, but ultimately everyone knows he’s the final decision maker and his own best messenger,” she said. “The President’s entire team is focused on ensuring the objectives of Operation Epic Fury are fully achieved.”

Other people named for their roles in the deliberations did not immediately respond to Reuters’ questions.

Looking for an exit

In taking America to war, Trump offered little explanation, and the administration’s stated war aims have ranged from thwarting an imminent attack by Iran to crippling its nuclear program to replacing its government.

As he seeks an exit from an unpopular conflict, Trump is trying to juggle competing narratives that some critics say have complicated an already difficult situation, with Iran defiant despite the devastating US-Israeli air assault.

Top political aides and economic advisers, whose warnings before the war of the potential economic shock were largely ignored, appear to have played a major role in pushing Trump’s efforts this week to reassure skittish markets and contain rising oil and gas prices.

His public shift to downplaying the war’s impact, describing it as a “short-term excursion,” and his insistence that gas price hikes would be short-lived appeared aimed at calming fears of an open-ended conflict.

Some top aides have advised him to work toward a conclusion to the conflict that he can call a triumph, at least militarily, the sources said, even if much of the Iranian leadership survives, along with remnants of a nuclear program that the campaign was meant to target.

Wave after wave of US and Israeli air strikes have killed a number of top Iranian leaders among some 2,000 people overall – some as far away as Lebanon – devastated its ballistic missile arsenal, sunk much of its navy and degraded its ability to support armed proxies around the Middle East.

But the military achievements have been seriously undercut by Iran’s stepped-up attacks on oil tankers and transport facilities in the Gulf, driving up oil prices.

Trump has said he will decide when to end the campaign. He and his aides say they are far ahead of the four- to six-week timeframe Trump initially announced.

The shifting reasons for launching the conflict, which has spilled over into more than half a dozen other countries, have only made it more difficult to predict what comes next.

For their part, Iran’s rulers will claim victory, analysts say, for simply surviving the US-Israeli onslaught, especially after demonstrating their ability to fight back and inflict damage on Israel, the US and its allies.

Venezuela miscalculation

Critical to the war’s final trajectory will be the Strait of Hormuz. A fifth of the world’s oil shipments, which normally traverses the narrow waterway, has come to a near-standstill. Iran in recent days has struck tankers in Iraqi waters and other ships near the strait, and the new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has vowed to keep it shut.

If Iran’s stranglehold on the waterway pushes US gas prices high enough, that could increase political pressure on Trump to end the military campaign to help his Republican Party, which is defending narrow majorities in Congress in November’s midterm elections.

Trump has recently refrained from pushing the idea that the war seeks to topple the government in Tehran. US intelligence indicates that Iran’s leadership is not at risk of collapse anytime soon, Reuters reported on Wednesday.

At least some of the confusion over the war’s trajectory appears rooted in the quick US military success in Venezuela.

Since the start of the war, some aides have struggled to convince Trump that the Iran campaign was unlikely to unfold in the same way as the January 3 Venezuela raid that captured President Nicolas Maduro, according to another source familiar with the administration’s thinking.

That operation opened the way for Trump to coerce former Maduro loyalists into giving him considerable sway over the country’s vast oil reserves – without requiring extended US military action.

Iran, by contrast, has proved a much tougher, better-armed foe with an entrenched clerical and security establishment.

Experts have rejected claims by Trump aides that Iran had been within weeks of being able to produce a nuclear weapon, despite the president’s insistence in June that US-Israeli bombing had “obliterated” its nuclear program.

Most of Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium is believed to have been buried by the June strikes, meaning the material potentially could be retrieved and purified to bomb grade. Iran has always denied seeking nuclear weapons.

If the war drags on, American casualties mount and the economic costs multiply, some analysts say it could erode backing from Trump’s political base. But despite criticism from some supporters opposed to military interventions, members of his “Make America Great Again” movement have so far largely stayed with him on Iran.

“The MAGA base is going to give the president wiggle room,” said Republican strategist Ford O’Connell.