Contents

Talk:Boeing Starliner: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:13, 1 September 2022

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spaceflight: Space stations C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the space stations working group. United States C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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: CST-100 Starliner → Boeing Starliner – Moved to Boeing CST-100 Starliner, 15 August 2018 (Discussion) Boeing CST-100 Starliner → Boeing Starliner – Not moved, 25 August 2019 (Discussion) Boeing CST-100 Starliner → Boeing Starliner – Moved, 5 July 2020 (Discussion)

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. -Arch dude (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. -Arch dude (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. -Arch dude (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Boe-CFT insignia.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ni I have a great idea for a big story for the star liner program. I worked for the Army National Guard for 30 years and the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office. My idea is to send me up to the space station to let the world know that the U.S Military is always on guard along with the U.N Nato Laws. Tghis would be the biggest and best publicity for the star liner program.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58B:100:6D70:BC2C:1EC9:10C:BC30 (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] 

Please do not post your personal information here, it's a public site and ill-intentioned folks might abuse it. -Arch dude (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is not a general formu. It's a page where we discuss how to improve the article. -Arch dude (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The capsule "features wireless Internet and tablet technology for crew interfaces". This is taken directly from the reference, which is the Boeing information site, However, it is almost certainly incorrect. the Internet (capital "I") is a global network. I doubt the capsule command interfaces access the Internet. I suspect the capsule WiFi is a local Intranet.

Are we required to use the Boeing info unmodified when it is likely to be incorrect? Perhaps we should convert this to a quote:

• Boeing states that "it features wireless Internet and tablet technology for crew interfaces".

-Arch dude (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]