NASA's turbulent journey with Boeing's Starliner could have been far worse if not for a crucial turning point a decade ago. An insider's recounting reveals that a near-fateful decision to select Boeing as the sole commercial spacecraft provider for astronaut transport to the International Space Station (ISS) was almost executed, which would have dramatically altered the trajectory of space exploration.

In 2014, NASA embarked on its Commercial Crew Program aimed at developing safe and reliable transportation to the ISS by awarding contracts to both Boeing and SpaceX. SpaceX quickly demonstrated its capabilities, launching eight crewed missions since November 2020. In stark contrast, Boeing's Starliner faced significant setbacks during its initial tests. The spacecraft's first crewed launch attempt became notorious when it undocked from the ISS on September 6, returning to Earth prematurely due to a series of critical malfunctions.

Starliner was supposed to serve as a shining example of U.S. aerospace prowess, carrying NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Sunni Williams to the ISS in June 2021. However, during the flight, it suffered five thruster failures and developed multiple helium leaks, raising serious safety concerns. The mission team eventually concluded that the spacecraft was unfit for crewed operations and opted to return the astronauts aboard SpaceX's Dragon instead.

At the time of the NASA decision, Boeing appeared to be the more reliable choice. Contrary to SpaceX, which was viewed as an untested upstart led by the high-profile Elon Musk, Boeing had the reputation of a legacy aerospace giant. However, in hindsight, opting to choose Boeing exclusively would have been a monumental error for NASA.

Sources indicate that during a pivotal meeting with senior officials and space advisors, the majority favored Boeing over SpaceX. Financial constraints compelled NASA to consider a single contractor for the mission, and Phil McAlister, then head of the Commercial Crew program, expressed that there was insufficient budget to support two companies. In this environment, an evaluation board assessed the two corporations based on their proposals regarding price, suitability for the mission, and historical performance.

Boeing's bid totaled a staggering $4.2 billion compared to SpaceX's significantly lower $2.6 billion. While Boeing did achieve a higher rating for mission suitability and had a better past performance score, the company's refusal to conduct a critical in-flight abort system test ultimately proved detrimental. NASA deemed Boeing's approach unsatisfactory, a pivotal factor that allowed SpaceX to secure a place alongside Boeing.

The competition prompted NASA to amend its Commercial Crew contract to include both companies despite initial intentions to solely align with Boeing. This decision, in retrospect, was revolutionary for U.S. space travel, especially following the Space Shuttle's retirement and the necessity to transition away from dependence on Russia’s Soyuz spacecraft.

The decision to diversify contractors has allowed NASA not only to maintain continuous access to the ISS but also to do so at a reduced cost. Moreover, SpaceX's success has enhanced the competitiveness in the private space industry, while Boeing has grappled with eroding credibility, struggling to deliver on its commitments.

Imagine a world where NASA had staked everything on Boeing alone—it's a sobering thought. The saga illustrates the dynamic evolution of the aerospace sector and underscores the importance of competition in fostering innovation and reliability. Thanks to a pivotal decision to embrace multiple partners, NASA avoided a potentially disastrous reliance on a single, faltering contractor. Today, as we witness ongoing advancements with SpaceX’s Dragon and the impressive achievements of the commercial space market, it's clear that the choice to invite competition was not just a smart move— it was essential for the future of human spaceflight.