Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 I reverted an unsourced assertion about the valve problem  
1 comment  




2 trim notes/remarks columns in tables?  
1 comment  




3 trim last (development) paragraph in the lede  
1 comment  




4 Trim launch vehicle in lede.  
1 comment  




5 How many seats, 7, 5, 4 ?  
2 comments  




6 No contingency?  
2 comments  




7 OIG scrutiny in lede  
4 comments  













Talk:Boeing Starliner: Difference between revisions




Page contents not supported in other languages.  









Article
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 




Print/export  



















Appearance
   

 





Help
 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 


Browse history interactively
 Previous editNext edit 
Content deleted Content added
Assessment (C): banner shell, Spaceflight, United States (Rater)
(41 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:

{{Talk header}}

{{ITN note}}

{{Talk header|archive_age=30|archive_units=days|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}

{{WikiProject banner shell |1=

{{WikiProject Spaceflight|class=C|importance=Mid|space_stations=yes}}

{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B|1=

{{WikiProject United States |class=C|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Spaceflight|importance=Mid|space_stations=yes}}

{{WikiProject United States |importance=Low}}

}}

}}

{{American English}}

{{American English}}

Line 16: Line 17:

| maxarchivesize = 100K

| maxarchivesize = 100K

| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}

| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}

| minthreadstoarchive = 1

| minthreadstoarchive = 4

| minthreadsleft = 5

| minthreadsleft = 5

}}

}}

{{Auto archiving notice |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=30 |units=days}}



== I reverted an unsourced assertion about the valve problem ==

== Time zones? ==



For the Orbital Flight Test, the lead gives the landing time in UTC, which I understand, and EST, whichIdon't. The landing wasinNew Mexico new Mexico isn't on Eastern Standard Time. Am I missing something? [[User:Fcrary|Fcrary]] ([[User talk:Fcrary|talk]]) 23:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

A anon user asserted that the sticky valves were caused by intense storms. This does not appear in any of the references, soIreverted. If it isinfact true, it should be in the paragraph about the test and not in the table entry, and it needs a reference. -[[User:Arch dude|Arch dude]] ([[User talk:Arch dude|talk]]) 01:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

:Boeing Mission Control is located at the Kennedy Space Center, which is in EST. For the same reason, you'll often see NASA missions noted in CST (Houston's time zone). [[User:Wilford Nusser|Wilford Nusser]] ([[User talk:Wilford Nusser|talk]]) 15:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)



== trim notes/remarks columns in tables? ==

== Requested move 15 June 2020 ==

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top (modified) -->

:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[WP:requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

----



The tables are too long for comfort on some displays, and the entries in the "notes" and "remarks" columns are wordy and contain too much detail. An interested reader can go to the linked articles instead. I intend to trim these entries somewhat unless there is an objection. -[[User:Arch dude|Arch dude]] ([[User talk:Arch dude|talk]]) 17:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

<span id="reqmovetag"></span>{{check talk wp}}


{{Tmbox

== trim last (development) paragraph in the lede ==

|small =


|imageright =

The last para in the lede tends to grow by accretion as we add a sentence for the latest major development. That last sentence is usually OK for the lede, but the earlier sentences are then not longer important enough for the lede. I intend to trim that paragraph. All of the actual info is still in the body of the article. -[[User:Arch dude|Arch dude]] ([[User talk:Arch dude|talk]]) 14:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

|type = move


|text = '''It was proposed in this section that [[:Boeing CST-100 Starliner]] be [[Wikipedia:Moving a page|renamed and moved]]&#32;to {{no redirect|Boeing Starliner}}.'''

== Trim launch vehicle in lede. ==

----


<small>'''{{smallcaps|result:}}'''</small><br />'''[[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Three possible outcomes|Moved.]]''' Strong support with sources shown that favor the new title as the common name. [[Wikt:kudos|Kudos]] to editors for your input, and [[Template:Clickable button/Publish buttons|Happy&nbsp;Publishing]]''!'' <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure|nac]]&nbsp;by&nbsp;[[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closure by a page mover|page&nbsp;mover]])</small><!-- This is User template [[User:Paine Ellsworth/RMpmc]]. --> '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&nbsp;&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>20:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)</small>

I removed material in lede that was based on a 13-year-old reference. We know it launches on Atlas V. We know it will never launch on Delta IV. Launch on Falcon 9 is highly unlikely, and launch on Vulcan Centaur is problematical. All of this is described in two sections in the article body. I don't think we need anything but Atlas V in the lede. If things change we can change the article. -[[User:Arch dude|Arch dude]] ([[User talk:Arch dude|talk]]) 02:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

----

<div class="floatleft">''Links:'' [{{fullurl:Special:Log/move|page={{Urlencode:Boeing CST-100 Starliner}}}} current log] • [{{fullurl:Special:Log/move|page={{Urlencode:Boeing Starliner}}}} target log]</div>

<div class="floatright">{{resize|65%|''This is template {{tls|Requested move/end}}''}}</div>

<!-- This is template "subst:Requested move/end". -->

}}



== How many seats, 7, 5, 4 ? ==

[[:Boeing CST-100 Starliner]] → {{no redirect|Boeing Starliner}} – PTG pointed out on [[commons:Category talk:Crew Dragon|Category talk:Crew Dragon]], {{xt|I've seen it referred to as "Boeing Starliner" way, way, way more often than "CST-100 Starliner"}}. Therefore, {{xt|Boeing Starliner}} is [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. Cf [[Lunar Gateway]] (previously {{!xt|Lunar Orbital Platform–Gateway}}). [[User:Soumya-8974|Soumya-8974]] <sup>[[User talk:Soumya-8974|talk]]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Soumya-8974|contribs]]</sub> <sup>[[Special:PrefixIndex/User:Soumya-8974|subpages]]</sup> 05:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)<small>—'''''Relisting.'''''&nbsp;[[User:Mdaniels5757|Mdaniels5757]] ([[User talk:Mdaniels5757|talk]]) 15:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)</small>

* I noticed that the title was requested before, but was rejected as it was not [[WP:COMMONNAME]] back then. --[[User:Soumya-8974|Soumya-8974]] <sup>[[User talk:Soumya-8974|talk]]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Soumya-8974|contribs]]</sub> <sup>[[Special:PrefixIndex/User:Soumya-8974|subpages]]</sup> 05:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' as per previous consensus and explanations. Its still not [[WP:COMMONNAME]][[User:Amkgp| ~ Amkgp]] [[User talk:Amkgp|<big>💬</big>]] 14:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

*: Those statements are outdated, and although NASA use {{xt|Boeing CST-100 Starliner}} on their articles,<ref>{{cite web|first1=James|last1=Cawley|accessdate=2020-06-15|title=Boeing and NASA Approach Milestone Orbital Flight Test|url=http://www.nasa.gov/feature/boeing-and-nasa-approach-milestone-orbital-flight-test|date=2019-12-16|website=NASA|quote=The uncrewed mission for NASA’s Commercial Crew Program will rendezvous and dock {{xt|Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner}} spacecraft with the International Space Station and return to Earth on Dec. 28. Starliner will launch atop a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket from Space Launch Complex 41 (SLC-41) at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida.}}</ref> {{xt|Boeing Starliner}} is still used on reliable sources.<ref>{{cite web|first1=Mike Wall 11|last1=June 2020|accessdate=2020-06-15|title=Virtual reality will be a big part of {{xt|Boeing's Starliner}} astronaut training|url=https://www.space.com/boeing-starliner-capsule-virtual-reality-astronaut-training.html|website=Space.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|accessdate=2020-06-15|title={{xt|Boeing Starliner}} spacecraft goes off course and fails mission|url=https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/boeing-starliner-spacecraft-goes-off-course-and-fails-mission|date=2019-12-20|website=Washington Examiner}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|accessdate=2020-06-15|title=NASA announces test flight crew change for {{xt|Boeing's Starliner}}|url=https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/01/nasa-test-flight-crew-change-boeings-starliner/|date=2019-01-22}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|first1=Eric|last1=Berger|accessdate=2020-06-15|title=Starliner flies for the first time, but one of its parachutes failed to deploy|url=https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/starliner-flies-for-the-first-time-but-one-of-its-parachutes-failed-to-deploy/|date=2019-11-04|website=Ars Technica|quote=On a cold Monday morning in New Mexico, {{xt|Boeing's Starliner}} spacecraft took flight for the first time. Under the power of its main launch abort engines, the capsule accelerated to 650mph in just 5 seconds during a demonstration of its escape system.}}</ref> --[[User:Soumya-8974|Soumya-8974]] <sup>[[User talk:Soumya-8974|talk]]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Soumya-8974|contribs]]</sub> <sup>[[Special:PrefixIndex/User:Soumya-8974|subpages]]</sup> 17:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

{{reflist talk}}

* '''Suppoer''' – It's about time. CST-100 was a technical designation used during capsule development. The ''Starliner'' name is now preferred by most RS. — [[User:JFG|JFG]] <sup>[[User talk:JFG|talk]]</sup> 06:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

* '''Oppose'''. In fact, I would rather have it renamed to ''Boeing CST-100''. [[User:Mikus|Mikus]] ([[User talk:Mikus|talk]]) 22:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''' [[User:Timmccloud|Timmccloud]] ([[User talk:Timmccloud|talk]]) 16:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

* '''Relisting comment''' If I closed this right now, I'd have to disregard much of the opposition. Opposers should provide evidence of RS preferring the current name as over the proposed name if they intend to rebut the nominator's assertion, which is backed by (at least some) sources. --[[User:Mdaniels5757|Mdaniels5757]] ([[User talk:Mdaniels5757|talk]]) 15:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)



Has the number of seats changed during development ? Infobox says 7, other places imply 4 or 5. - [[User:Rod57|Rod57]] ([[User talk:Rod57|talk]]) 12:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

* '''Support''' – I second JFG's sentiment that it indeed is about time. Here's a selection of sources – all from 2020 – that specifically refer to the spacecraft as "{{xt|Boeing Starliner}}".<ref>"[https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2020/06/03/despite-spacex-success-nasa-will-pay-russia-90-million-to-take-us-astronaut-to-the-iss/ Despite SpaceX Success NASA Will Pay Russia $90 Million To Take U.S. Astronaut To The ISS]", [[Forbes]], "{{xt|The expectation is cosmonauts will fly on Crew Dragon and '''Boeing Starliner''' and vice versa. [...] Boeing will fly a second uncrewed flight test of its '''CST-100 Starliner''' vehicle later in 2020.}}"</ref><ref>"[https://www.digitaltrends.com/news/boeing-starliner-astronauts-vr-training/ Astronauts are using VR to train for the Boeing Starliner capsule]", [[Digital Trends]], "{{xt|'''Boeing Starliner''' Spacecraft Crew Module}}"</ref><ref>"[https://www.engadget.com/virgin-galactic-nasa-private-citizens-iss-122804738.html Virgin Galactic signs NASA deal to take private citizens to the ISS]", [[Engadget]], "{{xt|That could involve training and possibly brokering trips on the SpaceX Crew Dragon, '''Boeing Starliner''' or Russia's Soyuz Capsule.}}"</ref><ref>"[https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/02/07/investigators-fault-boeing-for-potentially-catastrophic-software-errors-in-starliner-test-flight/ NASA, Boeing managers admit problems with Starliner software verification]", Spaceflight Now, "{{xt|Two software errors detected after launch of a Boeing Starliner crew ship during an unpiloted test flight last December [...] Neither Loverro, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine nor '''Boeing Starliner''' project manager John Mulholland [...] The '''Boeing CST-100 Starliner''' was launched from Cape Canaveral...}}"</ref><ref>"[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/science/boeing-starliner-nasa.html Boeing Starliner Flight's Flaws Show 'Fundamental Problem,' NASA Says]", ''[[The New York Times]]'', "{{xt|The '''Boeing Starliner''' test capsule landing in White Sands, N.M., on Dec. 22.}}"</ref><ref>"[https://www.mynews13.com/fl/orlando/space/2020/02/07/boeing-starliner-test-launch-investigation NASA: Boeing Starliner Test Could Have Ended in Catastrophe]", [[News 13]], "{{xt|Despite the '''Starliner''' not making it to the ISS as planned, the joint NASA-'''Boeing Starliner''' team successfully took corrective actions...}}"</ref> Note that only two of these seven sources even mention the "{{xt|CST-100}}" part of the name. In addition, here's a selection of sources which describe it as "{{xt|Boeing's Starliner}}" without once mentioning the "{{xt|CST-100}}" part of the name.<ref>"[https://www.space.com/spacex-astronaut-launch-russia-space-chief-comments.html Russian space chief weighs in on SpaceX's historic astronaut launch]", [[Space.com]], "{{xt|lights by SpaceX's Crew Dragon capsule and, eventually, '''Boeing's Starliner''' spacecraft should largely replace the Russian Soyuz missions...}}"</ref><ref>"[https://mashable.com/article/boeing-varjo-space-simulator-vr-training/ Boeing's new VR simulator immerses astronauts in space training]", [[Mashable]], "{{xt|'''Boeing's Starliner''' craft is headed to space, but first its astronauts are training in virtual reality.}}"</ref><ref>"[https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/nasa-declares-starliner-mishap-a-high-visibility-close-call/ NASA declares Starliner mishap a "high visibility close call"]", [[Ars Technica]], "{{xt|After pondering the totality of issues that arose during a December test flight of '''Boeing's Starliner''' spacecraft this week...}}"</ref><ref>"[https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/28/tech/boeing-starliner-spacecraft-software-testing-safety-issues-scn/index.html Boeing's Starliner spacecraft is built to carry astronauts, but safety concerns loom]", [[CNN]], "{{xt|Boeing's Starliner spacecraft [...] John Mulholland, manager of '''Boeing's Starliner''' program...}}"</ref><ref>"[https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2020/02/28/boeing-starliner-software-glitch-missed-due-shortened-test/4894930002/ Boeing skipped test and missed Starliner software problem]", [[USA Today]], "{{xt|'''Boeing's Starliner''' capsule sits atop a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket...}}"</ref><ref>"[https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/02/07/boeing-starliner-software-problems/ NASA finds 'fundamental' software problems in Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft]", [[The Washington Post]], "{{xt|Investigators probing the botched flight of '''Boeing's Starliner''' spacecraft in December...}}"</ref><ref>"[https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/02/boeing-nasa-starliner-software-problems/606361/ NASA Will Only Tolerate So Much Danger]", [[The Atlantic]], "{{xt|Timing is everything, especially in spaceflight, and that's where '''Boeing's Starliner''' first had trouble.}}"</ref><ref>"[https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/29/boeing-starliner-410-million-to-redo-failed-astronaut-flight-test.html Boeing takes $410 million charge to redo failed astronaut flight test if NASA requires]", [[CNBC]], "{{xt|...as NASA would look to buy seats on '''Boeing's Starliner''' capsule and SpaceX's Crew Dragon.}}"</ref> The point is, the "{{xt|CST-100}}" part of the name is no longer used often enough to justify its use to disambiguate the article now that it is declining as a commonly recognisable name per [[Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names|Wikipedia's policy on commonly recognisable article titles]]. Regardless of this, "{{xt|Boeing Starliner}}" is also concise enough per [[Wikipedia:Article titles#Conciseness|Wikipedia's policy on conciseness in article titles]], while "{{xt|Boeing CST-100 Starliner}}" is too precise per [[Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision and disambiguation|Wikipedia's policy on precision in article titles]].

:{{re|Rod57}} Initially designed for 7, 5 seats actually mounted, NASA CCP missions use four. On CCP missions, Boeing can apparently sell the fifth seat but the details are not known. There is somewhat similar confusion on [[Crew Dragon]], which was originally designed for 7, has 4 seats mounted and will never launch with more than 4, but could apparently be used to bring 7 back from ISS in an emergency. -[[User:Arch dude|Arch dude]] ([[User talk:Arch dude|talk]]) 16:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

{{Reflist talk}}

:– ''<span style="color:#00543c;">PhilipTerryGraham</span> ([[User talk:PhilipTerryGraham|talk]]&nbsp;<b>&middot;</b>&#32;[[User:PhilipTerryGraham/Articles|articles]]&nbsp;<b>&middot;</b>&#32;[[User:PhilipTerryGraham/Reviews|reviews]])'' 10:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

* '''Support'''. [[CST-100 Starliner]] would be an option (that doesn't need more disambiguation) but [[Starliner]] is not available and we have a pattern of "companyname product" that is easy to follow here. --[[User:Mfb|mfb]] ([[User talk:Mfb|talk]]) 14:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

* '''Comment''' – {{Reply to|Mdaniels5757}} What's your current opinion on closing this discussion, now that any opposing arguments have failed to materialise in the eight days since you relisted the discussion? – ''<span style="color:#00543c;">PhilipTerryGraham</span> ([[User talk:PhilipTerryGraham|talk]]&nbsp;<b>&middot;</b>&#32;[[User:PhilipTerryGraham/Articles|articles]]&nbsp;<b>&middot;</b>&#32;[[User:PhilipTerryGraham/Reviews|reviews]])'' 05:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

*:I think the consensus is fairly clearly in favor of a move, but since my relisting comment could be construed as taking a side (even though it wasn't, IMO), I'll leave this for someone else to close. Best, --[[User:Mdaniels5757|Mdaniels5757]] ([[User talk:Mdaniels5757|talk]]) 14:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

----

: ''The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] -->

</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>



== Specification - masses ==

== No contingency? ==



I removed this:

To help comparison with Crew Dragon it would be helpful if we could add dry mass, and max cargo to the info box - [[User:Rod57|Rod57]] ([[User talk:Rod57|talk]]) 21:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

*Since Boeing does not intend to build Spacecraft 4, no spare vehicle contingency exists for spacecraft issues (or loss) during NASA Commercial Crew contract.



It is not supported by the reference. The second part looks like Original resarch. Can someone find a reference? -[[User:Arch dude|Arch dude]] ([[User talk:Arch dude|talk]]) 20:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

== Spacecraft 3 for Starliner-1 ==



Is that still right? Calypso is planned to fly CFT and then Starliner-1 as well? The only source I find is older than the OFT - made at a point where Spacecraft 2 was plannedtofly CFT. With the added OFT-2 I think this source is obsolete. --[[User:Mfb|mfb]] ([[User talk:Mfb|talk]]) 19:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Note also that NASA does have a contingency, namely Crew Dragon, so the statement will needtobe modified even if we do find a reference. -[[User:Arch dude|Arch dude]] ([[User talk:Arch dude|talk]]) 20:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

:I changed it to "TBD". --[[User:Mfb|mfb]] ([[User talk:Mfb|talk]]) 04:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)



== OIG scrutiny in lede ==

The Boeing CST-100[a] Starliner[5] is a class of reusable crew capsules expected to transport crew to the International Space Station (ISS) [6] and other low Earth orbit destinations.[7] It is manufactured by Boeing for its participation in NASA's Commercial Crew Program. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/130.76.112.31|130.76.112.31]] ([[User talk:130.76.112.31#top|talk]]) 21:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->



{{re|RickyCourtney}} I was not objecting to mention of OIG scrutiny. The problem is that the particular comparison was from a 2019 OIG analysis of CCP as a whole, but the sentence in the lede makes it appear that it was directed specifically at Boeing/Starliner. It is a side issue that has been picked up (probably from Wikipedia) by Joey Foust and other journalists. There are very real and very important problems that have required much more scrutiny. I think they are in the Reuters article that Foust referenced. -[[User:Arch dude|Arch dude]] ([[User talk:Arch dude|talk]]) 15:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Boe-OFT

Spacecraft 3

Calypso

20 December 2019, 11:36:43 N/A First uncrewed orbital test flight of Starliner. The mission's main objective of ISS rendezvous was aborted due to software incorrectly keeping mission time, leading to a late orbital insertion burn with excessive fuel expenditure. Starliner landed in New Mexico two days after launch.[74][75][76][61]

2 days Mission Partially Completed <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/130.76.112.31|130.76.112.31]] ([[User talk:130.76.112.31#top|talk]]) 21:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->



:After reading [https://oig.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/IG-20-005.pdf the IG report], I see what you mean.

== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==

:Perhaps we could reword it like this:

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

::Because of the multiple delays, Boeing has lost more than $1.5 billion on the project. NASA's inspector general has criticized the agency for overpaying Boeing for Starliner flights. Observers have also criticized the $90 million per-seat cost for flights on the spacecraft, which is over 60% higher than the $55 million for the Crew Dragon.

* [[commons:File:Orbital Flight Test-2 mission patch.png|Orbital Flight Test-2 mission patch.png]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-03-08T22:14:25.313942 | Orbital Flight Test-2 mission patch.png -->

:Or we can leave out the per-seat costs:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Orbital Flight Test-2 mission patch.png|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 22:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

::Because of the multiple delays, Boeing has lost more than $1.5 billion on the project. NASA's inspector general has criticized the agency for overpaying Boeing for Starliner flights. Observers have also criticized the cost for flights on the spacecraft, which are over 60% higher than on the competing Crew Dragon.

:[[User:RickyCourtney|RickyCourtney]] ([[User talk:RickyCourtney|talk]]) 18:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

::Better, but the problem with the per-seat cost comparison is that so far NASA has not paid anything for Starliner CCP seats! I think (not sure) that Boeing is locked in to the $90M/seat for six missions (Crew-1 to 6). NASA paid the $55M/seat for the first six Crew Dragon missions, but those have already flown. The seat price rose for the first contract extension (Crew-7 to 9) and again for the second contract extension (Crew-10 to 14). The prices rose by approximately the inflation rate. I think we should drop the prices fromt helede, but we need a section in the article about the more recent increased oversight and the cost to NASA of that oversight. We can then add a one-sentence description in the lede, since it is a big part of the Starliner story. -[[User:Arch dude|Arch dude]] ([[User talk:Arch dude|talk]]) 20:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

:::I still think it's important context. [https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/nasa-will-pay-boeing-more-than-twice-as-much-as-spacex-for-crew-seats/ A recent article], which takes into account the costs through Crew-14 states:

::::''"Boeing, in flying 24 astronauts, has a per-seat price of $183 million. SpaceX, in flying 56 astronauts during the same time frame, has a seat price of $88 million. Thus, NASA is paying Boeing 2.1 times the price per seat that it is paying SpaceX, inclusive of development costs incurred by NASA."''

:::If we want to avoid getting into the numbers, which is admittedly a moving target, we could say:

::::Because of the multiple delays, Boeing has lost more than $1.5 billion on the project. The price paid per flight has also drawn criticism from NASA's inspector general and from observers who point to significantly lower costs on the competing Crew Dragon.

:::[[User:RickyCourtney|RickyCourtney]] ([[User talk:RickyCourtney|talk]]) 20:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


Revision as of 20:56, 17 June 2024

I reverted an unsourced assertion about the valve problem

A anon user asserted that the sticky valves were caused by intense storms. This does not appear in any of the references, so I reverted. If it is in fact true, it should be in the paragraph about the test and not in the table entry, and it needs a reference. -Arch dude (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

trim notes/remarks columns in tables?

The tables are too long for comfort on some displays, and the entries in the "notes" and "remarks" columns are wordy and contain too much detail. An interested reader can go to the linked articles instead. I intend to trim these entries somewhat unless there is an objection. -Arch dude (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

trim last (development) paragraph in the lede

The last para in the lede tends to grow by accretion as we add a sentence for the latest major development. That last sentence is usually OK for the lede, but the earlier sentences are then not longer important enough for the lede. I intend to trim that paragraph. All of the actual info is still in the body of the article. -Arch dude (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trim launch vehicle in lede.

I removed material in lede that was based on a 13-year-old reference. We know it launches on Atlas V. We know it will never launch on Delta IV. Launch on Falcon 9 is highly unlikely, and launch on Vulcan Centaur is problematical. All of this is described in two sections in the article body. I don't think we need anything but Atlas V in the lede. If things change we can change the article. -Arch dude (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How many seats, 7, 5, 4 ?

Has the number of seats changed during development ? Infobox says 7, other places imply 4 or 5. - Rod57 (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rod57: Initially designed for 7, 5 seats actually mounted, NASA CCP missions use four. On CCP missions, Boeing can apparently sell the fifth seat but the details are not known. There is somewhat similar confusion on Crew Dragon, which was originally designed for 7, has 4 seats mounted and will never launch with more than 4, but could apparently be used to bring 7 back from ISS in an emergency. -Arch dude (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No contingency?

I removed this:

It is not supported by the reference. The second part looks like Original resarch. Can someone find a reference? -Arch dude (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that NASA does have a contingency, namely Crew Dragon, so the statement will need to be modified even if we do find a reference. -Arch dude (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OIG scrutiny in lede

@RickyCourtney: I was not objecting to mention of OIG scrutiny. The problem is that the particular comparison was from a 2019 OIG analysis of CCP as a whole, but the sentence in the lede makes it appear that it was directed specifically at Boeing/Starliner. It is a side issue that has been picked up (probably from Wikipedia) by Joey Foust and other journalists. There are very real and very important problems that have required much more scrutiny. I think they are in the Reuters article that Foust referenced. -Arch dude (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the IG report, I see what you mean.
Perhaps we could reword it like this:
Because of the multiple delays, Boeing has lost more than $1.5 billion on the project. NASA's inspector general has criticized the agency for overpaying Boeing for Starliner flights. Observers have also criticized the $90 million per-seat cost for flights on the spacecraft, which is over 60% higher than the $55 million for the Crew Dragon.
Or we can leave out the per-seat costs:
Because of the multiple delays, Boeing has lost more than $1.5 billion on the project. NASA's inspector general has criticized the agency for overpaying Boeing for Starliner flights. Observers have also criticized the cost for flights on the spacecraft, which are over 60% higher than on the competing Crew Dragon.
RickyCourtney (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but the problem with the per-seat cost comparison is that so far NASA has not paid anything for Starliner CCP seats! I think (not sure) that Boeing is locked in to the $90M/seat for six missions (Crew-1 to 6). NASA paid the $55M/seat for the first six Crew Dragon missions, but those have already flown. The seat price rose for the first contract extension (Crew-7 to 9) and again for the second contract extension (Crew-10 to 14). The prices rose by approximately the inflation rate. I think we should drop the prices fromt helede, but we need a section in the article about the more recent increased oversight and the cost to NASA of that oversight. We can then add a one-sentence description in the lede, since it is a big part of the Starliner story. -Arch dude (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it's important context. A recent article, which takes into account the costs through Crew-14 states:
"Boeing, in flying 24 astronauts, has a per-seat price of $183 million. SpaceX, in flying 56 astronauts during the same time frame, has a seat price of $88 million. Thus, NASA is paying Boeing 2.1 times the price per seat that it is paying SpaceX, inclusive of development costs incurred by NASA."
If we want to avoid getting into the numbers, which is admittedly a moving target, we could say:
Because of the multiple delays, Boeing has lost more than $1.5 billion on the project. The price paid per flight has also drawn criticism from NASA's inspector general and from observers who point to significantly lower costs on the competing Crew Dragon.
RickyCourtney (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_Starliner&oldid=1229624991"

Categories: 
B-Class spaceflight articles
Mid-importance spaceflight articles
Space stations working group articles
WikiProject Spaceflight articles
B-Class United States articles
Low-importance United States articles
B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
WikiProject United States articles
Wikipedia articles that use American English
 



This page was last edited on 17 June 2024, at 20:56 (UTC).

This version of the page has been revised. Besides normal editing, the reason for revision may have been that this version contains factual inaccuracies, vandalism, or material not compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.



Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Code of Conduct

Developers

Statistics

Cookie statement

Mobile view



Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki