|
Files used on this page or its Wikidata item are up for deletion
|
→OIG scrutiny in lede: Add link
|
||
| (28 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ITN note}} |
|||
{{Talk header|archive_age=30|archive_units=days|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}} |
{{Talk header|archive_age=30|archive_units=days|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell |1= |
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |1= |
||
{{WikiProject Spaceflight |
{{WikiProject Spaceflight|importance=Mid|space_stations=yes}} |
||
{{WikiProject United States |
{{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 = |
| minthreadstoarchive = 4 |
||
| minthreadsleft = 5 |
| minthreadsleft = 5 |
||
}} |
}} |
||
== I reverted an unsourced assertion about the valve problem == |
|||
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion == |
|||
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: |
|||
* [[commons:File:Spacecraft 2 in preparation for OFT-2.jpg|Spacecraft 2 in preparation for OFT-2.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: speedy | 2021-07-17T00:08:49.433205 | Spacecraft 2 in preparation for OFT-2.jpg --> |
|||
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 00:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
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. -[[User:Arch dude|Arch dude]] ([[User talk:Arch dude|talk]]) 01:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == |
|||
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: |
|||
* [[commons:File:Boe OFT-2 in preparation.jpg|Boe OFT-2 in preparation.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-08-06T22:38:44.545246 | Boe OFT-2 in preparation.jpg --> |
|||
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boe OFT-2 in preparation.jpg|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 22:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== trim notes/remarks columns in tables? == |
|||
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == |
|||
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: |
|||
* [[commons:File:Boeing CST-100 Starliner Pad Abort Test Preparations KSC-20191031-PH-BOE01 0001 orig (cropped).jpg|Boeing CST-100 Starliner Pad Abort Test Preparations KSC-20191031-PH-BOE01 0001 orig (cropped).jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-08-08T20:53:37.310345 | Boeing CST-100 Starliner Pad Abort Test Preparations KSC-20191031-PH-BOE01 0001 orig (cropped).jpg --> |
|||
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Boeing Starliner Spacecraft 2|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 20:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
== "self-funded Boe-OFT 2" is POV. == |
|||
== trim last (development) paragraph in the lede == |
|||
Boeing signed a fixed-price contract with payments depending on stated milestones. They "self-fund" the entire development, and they get paid when they achieve each such milestone. The fact that Boeing's press releases refer to the repeat of the OFT as being "self funded" is basically a PR move and this characterization is simply repeated in the press. I think it falls under the "what the subject says about itself" NPOV rule. I think "NASA agreed to allow Boeing to repeat the test" is more objective. Boeing's alternative to "self-funding" this repeat test would have been to withdraw from the contract. -[[User:Arch dude|Arch dude]] ([[User talk:Arch dude|talk]]) 17:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
== Need an actual "Design" section == |
|||
== Trim launch vehicle in lede. == |
|||
The actual design of this spacecraft is not properly described in the article. I think we should replace the "background" section with a "Design" section. What little is left of "background" can move to the top of the "Development" section. -[[User:Arch dude|Arch dude]] ([[User talk:Arch dude|talk]]) 17:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:I merged the "specification" section into the the "background" section and renamed it to "spacecraft characteristics", I moved a little stuff from "background" into "Development" and I moved bits from various places describing the spacecraft into the new section. it's now less bad. -[[User:Arch dude|Arch dude]] ([[User talk:Arch dude|talk]]) 16:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == |
|||
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: |
|||
== How many seats, 7, 5, 4 ? == |
|||
* [[commons:File:Boe-CFT insignia.png|Boe-CFT insignia.png]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-12-05T02:07:53.287365 | Boe-CFT insignia.png --> |
|||
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Boeing Crew Flight Test|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 02:08, 5 December 2021 (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) |
|||
:{{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) |
|||
== No contingency? == |
|||
I removed this: |
|||
*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) |
|||
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. -[[User:Arch dude|Arch dude]] ([[User talk:Arch dude|talk]]) 20:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== OIG scrutiny in lede == |
|||
{{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) |
|||
:After reading [https://oig.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/IG-20-005.pdf 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. |
|||
:[[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) |
|||
 | An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the Main Page in the "In the news" section. You can visit the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from reliable news sources to include recent events. Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boeing Starliner article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
@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]
