# NASA redaction (Starliner) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 24, 2026, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-redaction-starliner/1027921 "2026-02-24T04:17:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2026, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-redaction-starliner/1027921/1 "2026-02-24T04:17:33Z")
[nasa-report-with-redactions-021926.pdf](https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/nasa-report-with-redactions-021926.pdf) NASA has released a redacted report on the recent Starliner fiasco. Astronauts parked in space while they waited for a ride home, while and after they decided that Starliner wasn’t presently suitable for manned space flight. Normally, we expect ‘redacted’ reports to exclude names and indentifying information, but this is different. Sample: ``` due to the valve -redacted- overheating ``` and ``` since flow is controlled by -redacted- swell contribution to resistance change would be negligable. ``` WTF? Does anyone have any idea what **kind** of information is redacted from that report? ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2026, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-redaction-starliner/1027921/2 "2026-02-24T04:38:05Z")
Your first sentence is, “… due to the valve **solenoid** overheating”. Your second sentence is “since flow is controlled by **trim orifice and seat** swell contribution to resistance change would would be negligible.” Why are these things even redacted? ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2026, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-redaction-starliner/1027921/3 "2026-02-24T13:55:41Z")
Well, maybe they used AI which then triggered by the word “orifice”. And AI also realized telling everyone your “orifice and seat” has painful “solenoids” would be a HIPPA violation. ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2026, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-redaction-starliner/1027921/4 "2026-02-24T15:32:57Z")
> [@Melbourne](#): > > Starliner fiasco. It wasn’t a “fiasco”. A fiasco would be having the Starliner explode, but the astronauts survived to touchdown, but the rescue helicopter carrying them home crashed into a bus of orphans and puppies. This was just an overabundance of caution. ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Vaughan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/francis_vaughan/32/3093_2.png) [@Francis\_Vaughan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Francis_Vaughan)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2026, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-redaction-starliner/1027921/5 "2026-02-25T00:07:02Z")
The preamble to the report explicitly says there is no ITAR controlled content, as determined by NASA. This does suggest that a legal team has been part of redaction and they had zotted out anything that might cross the line on ITAR. That could drive a lot of the redactions. The redacted parts seem to be avoiding mention of any operating parameters, which is reasonable. But it is also avoiding identifying the part of the fuel valve assembly actuated by helium gas. Quite why is odd. It should just be a piston. System is helium bottle to solenoid valve, helium line to piston atop poppet valve which flows oxidiser or fuel. Maybe there are some commercial sensitivities involved, or something special about the part. I would disagree about the over abundance of caution. They identified that the capsule thruster system was not dual redundant. Which is a major flaw in everyone’s process. The craft did not meet safety requirements out of the box. That is before any failures. Next you have evidence that the thruster systems are somehow flawed and can fail in use. Loss of two thrusters on the same axis in the capsule would lead to loss of vehicle and crew on reentry. That the capsule came back OK isn’t evidence of over abundance of caution. That is the mindset that normalises failure. And NASA should have learned the hard lessons that come with that. At the time they made the call to not bring the crew back on it all the evidence pointed to a craft with unacceptable critical flaws. Moreover flaws such that they won’t fly it again until the systems have been redesigned and proven. This includes actual dual redundancy. The actual failures were all on the aft section, which is discarded before capsule reentry. But one assumes that there are enough common design and components not to trust the thrusters on the capsule. Overall this is evidence of serious problems with the whole process of designing and building the Starliner. Not just within Boeing, but NASA oversight should have caught problems early. It won’t be just a matter of fixing the thruster valves before flight. There will need to be top to bottom reviews of the entire mess. Nobody should trust that there are not similar or worse problems in other systems. The evidence is that there were never design and review procedures in place to catch them. This sort of problem is scarily reminiscent of Apollo 1. ---
**Author:** ![Heracles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heracles/32/487_2.png) [@Heracles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heracles)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2026, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-redaction-starliner/1027921/6 "2026-02-25T01:29:53Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > This was just an overabundance of caution. The descent was non-catastrophic because one of those unreliable thrusters managed to _not_ fail. > In addition to the thruster failures in the Starliner service module on approach to the ISS, there was a separate failure of a thruster in the crew module during its uncrewed return to Earth. Notably, that failure brought the module to zero fault tolerance. “ **Loss of the single remaining redundant thruster, for this control axis, would have resulted in a loss of crew,** ” the report stated. That’s an indirect quote, bolding mine, from [this article](https://www.thespacereview.com/article/5166/1)at The Space Review. Which article left me with a somewhat improved opinion of new NASA administrator Jared Isaacman. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2026, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nasa-redaction-starliner/1027921/7 "2026-02-25T02:38:36Z")
> [@Francis\_Vaughan](#): > > This sort of problem is scarily reminiscent of Apollo 1. I was getting flashbacks to the CAIB report (Columbia). Parts about bad management culture and a lack of trust, proceeding with tests with the root cause unidentified, make sure we never have this happen again.