If all goes well late on May 6, 2024, NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams will blast off into space on Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft. Launching from the Kennedy Space Center, this last crucial test for Starliner will test out the new spacecraft and take the pair to the International Space Station for about a week.

Part of NASA’s commercial crew program, this long-delayed mission will represent the vehicle’s first crewed launch. If successful, it will give NASA – and in the future, space tourists – more options for getting to low Earth orbit.

From my perspective as a space policy expert, Starliner’s launch represents another significant milestone in the development of the commercial space industry. But the mission’s troubled history also shows just how difficult the path to space can be, even for an experienced company like Boeing.

Origins and development

Following the retirement of NASA’s space shuttle in 2011, NASA invited commercial space companies to help the agency transport cargo and crew to the International Space Station.

In 2014, NASA selected Boeing and SpaceX to build their respective crew vehicles: Starliner and Dragon.

Boeing’s vehicle, Starliner, was built to carry up to seven crew members to and from low Earth orbit. For NASA missions to the International Space Station, it will carry up to four at a time, and it’s designed to remain docked to the station for up to seven months. At 15 feet, the capsule where the crew will sit is slightly bigger than an Apollo command module or a SpaceX Dragon.

Boeing designed Starliner to be partially reusable to reduce the cost of getting to space. Though the Atlas V rocket it will take to space and the service module that supports the craft are both expendable, Starliner’s crew capsule can be reused up to 10 times, with a six-month turnaround. Boeing has built two flightworthy Starliners to date.

Starliner’s development has come with setbacks. Though Boeing received US$4.2 billion from NASA, compared with $2.6 billion for SpaceX, Boeing spent more than $1.5 billion extra in developing the spacecraft.

On Starliner’s first uncrewed test flight in 2019, a series of software and hardware failures prevented it from getting to its planned orbit as well as docking with the International Space Station. After testing out some of its systems, it landed successfully at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

In 2022, after identifying and making more than 80 fixes, Starliner conducted a second uncrewed test flight. This time, the vehicle did successfully dock with the International Space Station and landed six days later in New Mexico.

Still, Boeing delayed the first crewed launch for Starliner from 2023 to 2024 because of additional problems. One involved Starliner’s parachutes, which help to slow the vehicle as it returns to Earth. Tests found that some links in those parachute lines were weaker than expected, which could have caused them to break. A second problem was the use of flammable tape that could pose a fire hazard.

A major question stemming from these delays concerns why Starliner has been so difficult to develop. For one, NASA officials admitted that it did not provide as much oversight for Starliner as it did for SpaceX’s Dragon because of the agency’s familiarity with Boeing.

And Boeing has experienced several problems recently, most visibly with the safety of its airplanes. Astronaut Butch Wilmore has denied that Starliner’s problems reflect these troubles.

But several of Boeing’s other space activities beyond Starliner have also experienced mechanical failures and budget pressure, including the Space Launch System. This system is planned to be the main rocket for NASA’s Artemis program, which plans to return humans to the Moon for the first time since the Apollo era.

Significance for NASA and commercial spaceflight

Given these difficulties, Starliner’s success will be important for Boeing’s future space efforts. Even if SpaceX’s Dragon can successfully transport NASA astronauts to the International Space Station, the agency needs a backup. And that’s where Starliner comes in.

Following the Challenger explosion in 1986 and the Columbia shuttle accident in 2003, NASA retired the space shuttle in 2011. The agency was left with few options to get astronauts to and from space. Having a second commercial crew vehicle provider means that NASA will not have to depend on one company or vehicle for space launches as it previously had to.

Perhaps more importantly, if Starliner is successful, it could compete with SpaceX. Though there’s no crushing demand for space tourism right now, and Boeing has no plans to market Starliner for tourism anytime soon, competition is important in any market to drive down costs and increase innovation.

More such competition is likely coming. Sierra Space’s Dream Chaser is planning to launch later this year to transport cargo for NASA to the International Space Station. A crewed version of the space plane is also being developed for the next round of NASA’s commercial crew program. Blue Origin is working with NASA in this latest round of commercial crew contracts and developing a lunar lander for the Artemis program.

Though SpaceX has made commercial spaceflight look relatively easy, Boeing’s rocky experience with Starliner shows just how hard spaceflight continues to be, even for an experienced company.

Starliner is important not just for NASA and Boeing, but to demonstrate that more than one company can find success in the commercial space industry. A successful launch would also give NASA more confidence in the industry’s ability to support operations in Earth’s orbit while the agency focuses on future missions to the Moon and beyond.

Wendy Whitman Cobb, Professor of Strategy and Security Studies, Air University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

“Pat the Bunny,” the 1940 classic touch-and-feel book, is still in print – a testament to the value of touch in introducing infants and toddlers to the world of reading. Later, when children reach school age, a common technique for teaching the alphabet is using hands-on manipulation, such as forming letters out of clay.

But as these students get older, the role of touch diminishes – to the students’ detriment. Today’s reading assignments are heavily digital, and use of computer keyboards for writing shows no sign of abating, especially given the lure of AI tools for editing and composing.

I’m a linguist who investigates the differences between print and digital reading and how writing supports thinking. My colleague Anne Mangen and I asked more than 500 secondary students at an international school in Amsterdam about their experiences when reading print versus digital texts. Separately, I surveyed 100 university students and young adults in the U.S. and Europe on their likes and dislikes about handwriting versus typing.

Together, their responses demonstrate that adolescents and young adults continue to value touch in their encounters with the written word. The research offers important lessons for educators and parents.

What students tell us

In the studies, students wrote glowingly about touch when asked for the one thing they liked most about reading in print or writing by hand. What surprised me was how closely their perceptions about the importance of touch aligned in both studies.

On a physical level, the feeling of holding a book or writing instrument in their hands mattered to students. These are some of their observations: “You actually feel like you are reading because the book is in your hands,” and “I like feeling the paper and pen under my hands, being able to physically form words.” Study participants also commented on the interaction of touch and movement. Regarding reading, one wrote about “the feeling of turning each page and anticipating what’s to happen next.” About writing by hand, one participant described “being able to feel the words just glide across the page.”

Many students also mentioned cognitive benefits. A host of respondents wrote about focus, concentration, immersion or memory. Regarding print reading, one student said, “I take it more seriously because it’s physically in my hands.” For writing, one response was, “I can see what I’m thinking.”

There were also psychological reflections. Students wrote, “The feeling of a book in my hands is a very comfortable feeling,” and “The satisfaction of a whole page filled by handwriting, it feels like I climbed a mountain.” Other comments addressed how touch made students feel more personally connected to the act of reading and writing. About reading, one reflected that “it is more personal ‘cause it’s in your hands.” About handwriting, another declared, “I feel more attached to the content I produce.”

A number of respondents wrote that reading physical books and writing by hand somehow felt more “real” than engaging with their digital counterparts. One student commented on “the realness of the book.” Another reported that “it feels more real than writing on a computer, the words seem to have more meaning.”

The studies also asked what participants liked most about digital reading and about writing on a computer keyboard. Out of more than 600 answers, only one mentioned the role of touch in what they liked most about using these technologies for reading and writing. For reading, students praised the convenience and access to the internet. For writing, greater speed as well as internet access were frequent responses.

What science tells us

What students say about the importance of touch mirrors what researchers have found: Touch is an effective way to build early reading and writing skills, as well as to support how more developed readers and writers interact with the written word.

Psychologists and reading specialists continue to report higher comprehension in children and young adults when reading in print versus digitally, for both academic and leisure reading. For proficient writers, evidence suggests that spending more time writing by hand than using a computer keyboard correlates with better fine motor skills. A recent study in Norway compared brain images of university students taking notes and found that those who wrote by hand – rather than typing – showed greater electrical connectivity in the parts of the brain that process new information and support memory formation.

Strategies going forward

The challenge for teachers and parents is to figure out how to incorporate touch into literacy activities in a world that’s so reliant on digital tools. Here are three suggestions for addressing this paradox.

• Parents and teachers can begin by listening to students themselves. Despite all their time spent on digital devices, many young people clearly recognize how touch contributes to their reading and writing experiences. Expand the conversation by talking together about differences between digital and hands-on reading and writing.

• Next, parents can find opportunities for children to read print and write by hand outside of school, such as bringing their kids to the library to check out print books and encouraging them to write a story or keep a journal at home. Better still is when adults model these practices in their own lives.

• Finally, educators need to increase space in the curriculum for print reading and for handwritten assignments. Some teachers are already revisiting the intrinsic benefits of handwriting, including as a memory aid and a vehicle for thinking – both qualities that participants mentioned in my writing survey.

Digital reading materials and keyboards will undoubtedly persist in schools and homes. But this reality must not preclude the power of touch.

Naomi S. Baron, Professor Emerita of Linguistics, American University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.