Skip to main content
  1. Home
  2. Emerging Tech
  3. News

Boeing acknowledges 49 ‘gaps in testing’ in NASA Starliner test flight failure

Add as a preferred source on Google
 

Following Boeing’s failed orbital flight test of its Starliner capsule in December, NASA has announced it has produced a list of 61 “corrective actions” which Boeing will follow to ensure the Starliner can fly successfully in the future. The agency will also be initiating an Organizational Safety Assessment, to check for underlying issues with Boeing’s processes.

Recommended Videos

The actions suggested by NASA’s review board include steps to fix the specific software issues that failed to function properly during the orbital flight test, which included a problem with the timing during the launch process and a problem with the service module de-orbit burn while returning to Earth. The actions will also address how software testing is performed and how Boeing’s software and hardware teams work together.

As an example, part of the Starliner software had four “logical conditions” which represent different ways the software could operate. However, not all four of the conditions were tested. In the future, Boeing has committed to testing all logical conditions in its software. Boeing also acknowledged that it had delegated too much authority to the software board and that software changes should have gone to the higher engineering board for approval.

NASA announced it will also be adding a focused software lead role, embedding more software experts in the Boeing team, and strengthening its Boeing oversight team.

Boeing performed its own audit of its software testing process, which identified 49 “gaps in testing.” John Mulholland, vice president and manager of Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner Program, stressed this did not mean that there were 49 errors in the code, but rather 49 places in which testing was not sufficiently thorough to identify potential errors.

NASA also officially recognized the problems that occurred during the test flight represented a “high visibility close call.” Douglas Loverro, associate administrator of NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, acknowledged that “we could have lost the spacecraft at two points during the mission” but also emphasized that the designation “is the lowest level of call, so it’s not in the category of mishaps. It’s in the close call category. We can all agree that this was a close call.”

As for the future of the Starliner, Loverro said he didn’t yet know if there would be a second uncrewed test flight of the Starliner. He did say that Boeing will come back to NASA with a plan for how it will address the issues, and NASA will evaluate the plan before deciding whether another test flight is necessary

The review process and improvement are “going to get us back flying with the best possible spacecraft, as our astronauts don’t deserve anything less,” a Boeing representative said.

Georgina Torbet
Georgina has been the space writer at Digital Trends space writer for six years, covering human space exploration, planetary…
OpenAI admits it needs to rethink what happens when AI goes rogue
As increasingly capable AI agents move beyond controlled tests, OpenAI is confronting a difficult question: When does strange model behavior become an incident the public deserves to know about?
OpenAI logo on blurred background

OpenAI has spent plenty of time explaining how it plans to stop increasingly capable AI agents from doing things they shouldn't. Now, the company says it needs to get better at telling everyone when those things have already happened. The admission follows reports of another previously undisclosed incident involving OpenAI's AI agents, this time affecting a German-language programming wiki. According to Reuters, agents made more than 15,000 unauthorized edits to DseWiki, using the site to communicate and share ways to bypass restrictions, cheat on tasks, and avoid detection.

OpenAI has now acknowledged what it calls the "wiki incident" and says the episode exposed a larger problem with how AI companies disclose unexpected model behavior. The company says it is developing a framework for deciding when and how to make incidents involving misaligned AI public.

Read more
AI has a safety problem nobody is ready for
AI safety efforts are ramping up, but their protections don’t work equally well everywhere. In developing countries, language gaps and cultural blind spots can turn everyday AI mistakes into serious real-world consequences.
Logo, Hockey, Ice Hockey

AI companies are spending an enormous amount of time worrying about what happens when their models become too capable. OpenAI even took the unusual step of temporarily pausing training on a model last month over safety concerns, as the industry grapples with risks ranging from autonomous behavior to increasingly sophisticated cyber capabilities.

But there’s another AI safety problem that is much easier to overlook: the protections already being built into these systems don’t necessarily work equally well for everyone. A new report from Rest of World highlights how AI safety efforts remain heavily centered around the needs of wealthier, English-speaking countries. That can leave people in parts of Asia, Africa, and other developing regions dealing with problems as basic and potentially dangerous as a chatbot misunderstanding their language.

Read more
The IFA 2026 Publisher Award Winners Bring Fresh Ideas to Everyday Tech
From Smarter Entry to Screen-Free Wellness, These IFA 2026 Winners Do Things Differently
IFA 2026 Publisher Awards

IFA is the kind of event where almost every corner promises the next big thing in tech. Some ideas are ambitious, others are surprisingly simple, and a few make you wonder why nobody thought of them sooner. But among hundreds of new products, the most memorable ones usually have something more going for them than novelty alone.

This year’s IFA Publisher Award winners are a good example. They span everything from smart entry and personal wellness to coffee, floor care, and big-screen entertainment. What connects them is how they take technology in interesting new directions while keeping its purpose grounded in how people actually use it.

Read more