Talk:Boeing Starliner/Archive 1

New picture
I think that there needs to be a new picture on the page. The one shown is a normal Orion mockup. I do have a picture that includes an Orion Lite mockup. The link is. I also have another picture showing a mockup interior, which is at. I'd rather have the first one up there though. I am just giving everyone out there my idea. Theguywhohatestwitter (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly support a new picture. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a picture on the Boeing website: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=13&item=1046 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.177.81 (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Name
The name Orion Lite is suspicious. It looks as if it has no Orion heritage at all. Lockheed Martin may still enter the new commercial competition proposed by the Obama administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.177.81 (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - I propose changing the title to "Boeing CCDev capsule". Use of the term "Orion" in any form is not supported by a reliable source, i.e. by Boeing or NASA.  It is also misleading to use "Orion Lite" as that term is also used for potential spacecraft which are truly derived from the LM Orion, but which are lighter in mass. (sdsds - talk) 18:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, one more person who agrees and I'll move the page. Or the third person can be bold and do it themselves. What should the new page be called? Your proposed "Boeing CCDev capsule" sounds good enough to me. It's strange that the thing doesn't have an official name yet. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, a new name is obviously needed. NASA has co-opted the term "Orion Lite" for their crew rescue vehicle that's based on Orion, so we don't want confusion on that front. However, who should be credited with this design is somewhat ambiguous. Everything I've read suggests that while Boeing is building the craft, Bigelow is responsible for its design (which is why NASA gave Boeing the CCDev monies). I dunno. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless anyone objects I'll go ahead and change the title to Boeing CCDev capsule tomorrow. It's an improvement over the current name and if someone comes up with a better name (or if Boeing comes up with an official name!) we can always change it later. I think we have sufficient support for a move, so anyone feel free to do it yourself. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Martijn, any comments on the above whether to use Boeing or Bigelow? — Huntster (t @ c) 21:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My impression is that Bigelow and others are contributing usability requirements while Boeing would do the design. I'll try to look up the details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmeijeri (talk • contribs) 05:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Reference #2 states "As part of the Boeing CCDev team, Las Vegas-based Bigelow Aerospace will provide requirements for crew transportation to support its planned Orbital Space Complex, as well as additional investment and expertise in testing and validating the technologies necessary to construct and deploy the complex." Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I feel stupid for missing that. Thanks Martijn. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We now have a semi-official name: CST-100. Time to start thinking about a new page move, but we probably need official confirmation from Boeing first. What should the page be called? CST-100(spacecraft)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmeijeri (talk • contribs) 15:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just "CST-100" is fine...since there is no other article with that name, disambiguation with "(spacecraft)" is unnecessary. But yes, let's wait until there is further confirmation. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You can consider this [Commercial Spaceflight Federation annoucement] as a further CST-100 name confirmation. I belive it's a good time to rename this page to CST-100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnuthomson (talk • contribs) 18:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And another one, this one in an interview with the Boeing project manager: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/boeing-new-capsule-concept-100625.html Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Orion too prominent in this article?
I have the feeling that Orion is mentioned too prominently in the introduction. This is because the present article was split off from Orion Lite. Some comparison with Orion seems desired, as it will be an obvious point of reference for many readers, and that may eventually evolve into an article about crew taxis and how they differ from exploration capsules. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Reusable?
Is it fully reusable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.64.64 (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * See http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=28595:

"Harwood: How reusable? Capsule reused up to ten times. Some parts get ejected (forward cone, base heat shield). Land at White Sands."
 * Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What happens after the tenth use? Is it scrapped or rebuilt? 173.58.64.64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Let's just see this vehicle get a first use before that question is answered. Very likely that the first time one of these gets to about ten uses it will be placed in a museum of some kind.  I seriously doubt it will simply get tossed into a landfill or some other scrapyard until there have been thousands of flights with this kind of vehicle.... which would be an historical record for spacecraft in general.  Very likely there will be a "next generation vehicle" well before that happens.  --Robert Horning (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox or other top-of-article summary
I note that the CST-100 article uses the template while many of the other Human-carrying spacecraft and Unmanned resupply spacecraft with Wikipedia articles use something rather different:  See, for example, SpaceX Dragon, Dream Chaser, Orion Lite, Cygnus, the ESA Automated Transfer Vehicle, the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle, and the Russian Progress spacecraft — each of them use a similar template format that seems more amenable to the specific sorts of spacecraft that move to and from space stations rather than the, more general,  template.

My proposal would be to use the similar template format of the other space station transfer spacecraft for this article, the CST-100, also. What do others think about this proposed change? N2e (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just the opposite. Those other articles need to be adjusted to use Infobox spacecraft. They do *not* need to be using non-standard bare code. Another option is to create a template specific to human-rated transports, similar to Infobox cargo spacecraft. If you'd like to work towards that, I'm all for crafting a custom template. Toss me a message on my talk page with a layout the parameters you think would be most appropriate and I can start on that. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine with me; my concern is about how they look and what information they contain. As it is now, the other articles are better on both counts.  I was not considering at all the underlying "code."  But since you've offered to help with that, I say go for it.  I'll provide some thoughts on "requirements" in on your talk page.  I very much support the effort to do something on a new template, but perhaps not a new Infobox cargo spacecraft.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I put a note on Huntster's Talk page to see if s/he is still interested in developing a better/more-complete template for reusable crew spacecraft and/or transfer-vehicle-one-time-use-spacecraft. I haven't done any templates personally.  I do, however, support the concept as best for WP if somebody wants to take the time to create templates that can contain all the good information of the more bare bones approach.  As it stands now, the CST-100 article (with the existing, more general spacecraft template) is decidedly short of good infobox information relative to the other competitive spacecraft that don't use the inadequate infobox template. N2e (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm currently figuring out the best parameters to use for this. Just taking a while as lots of real life stuff is occupying my days. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Huntster, what is your status/progress on thinking through ideas for a new/better infobox? N2e (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

New links
Some new links to cull information from:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2010/08/06/04.xml&headline=Boeing%20Looking%20For%20Commercial%20Space%20Success

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/08/florida-could-benefit-from-planned-boeing-spacecraft.html

http://www.ocregister.com/news/boeing-260847-capsule-space.html

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100806/NEWS02/8060315/1006/NEWS01/Boeing+plans+space+taxis+by+2015

Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1421 Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

http://thespacereview.com/article/1698/1 Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.ispcs.com/files/tiny_mce/file_manager/presentations/reiley.pdf Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.boeing.com/bds/mediakit/2012/commercialcrew/pdf/boeing_ccts_media_deck_08032012.pdf--Craigboy (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Reiley_2-6-13/Reiley_2-6-13.pptx --Craigboy (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Launch abort?
Do we have any further information on the launch abort system for this vehicle? It is mentioned that there was supposed to be a study & down-select between pusher and tractor types in 2010, and also some kind of hardware demo, but no further info. It is hard to take any crew vehicle too seriously until this crucial detail is nailed down. I am not clear that Dragon has really settled this very well either. Wwheaton (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Both will use pusher abort systems. Dragon's will be integrated into it's crew module.--Craigboy (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Yes. See the next section of the Talk page, Feb 2013 Program Status Presentation by Boeing, below.  Launch abort system is on page 7 of the PPT slides.  Looks like development of the LAS abort engines are complete, and quite a bit of analysis of the the various Launch Abort scenarios has been completed.  Of course, testing an abort on a live Atlas V vehicle is still a couple of years out, after the PDR and CDR reviews (CDR will complete no earlier than May 2014) of the current CCDev-3 development program are complete. Cheers.  N2e (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Feb 2013 Program Status Presentation by Boeing
A Boeing VP on the CST-100 program recently (6 Feb) gave a summary presentation, and took questions, on the status of the CST-100 project:
 * NewSpace Watch article, 7 Feb 2013
 * PowerPoint slides, 6 Feb 2013
 * Audio mp3 file of the talk, 6 Feb 2013

— Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Info
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6GmuRY5bHA

Crew access tower expected to be completed by March 2016 - 37:00

More info on schedule - 44:40

--Craigboy (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CST-100 Starliner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100710092025/http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/orbital-complex-construction.php to http://bigelowaerospace.com/orbital-complex-construction.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CST-100 Starliner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://spacenews.com/civil/120803-boeing-spacex-sierra-ccicap.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110924163725/http://www.boeing.com/Features/2011/09/bds_cst_100_airbag_09_12_11.html to http://www.boeing.com/Features/2011/09/bds_cst_100_airbag_09_12_11.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004212749/http://nysebigstage.com/articles/boeing-aviationday to http://nysebigstage.com/articles/boeing-aviationday

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 4 August 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page at this time. There is slightly more support for the consistently-titled Boeing CST-100 Starliner than the more concise version, but no clear consensus in favor of either the longer version or the proposed title; thus, please feel free to initiate a new move request at any time. Dekimasu よ! 06:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

CST-100 Starliner → Boeing Starliner – The "CST-100" development moniker is nowhere to be seen in recent announcements about the capsule. is natural disambiguation from other Starliners, and would match the article of SpaceX Dragon, the other spacecraft contracted by NASA for ISS crew transport. — JFG talk 10:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support: Since most other aerospace page titles seem to include the name of the manufacturer (e.g. Boeing 747, the Dyna-Soar page redirects to one including Boeing in the title, etc.) this move would make sense. Albeetle (talk) 04:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support for reasons above. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose: the assertion above "CST-100 development moniker is nowhere to be seen in recent announcements" seems incorrect in a broader interpretation of "annoncements", eg the recently cited Spaceflight Now article uses "CST-100 Starliner" throughout. A google news search shows plenty of use of CST-100, eg yesterday's Scientific American uses "Boeing's CST-100 Starliner". I would need to see convincing evidence that "Boeing Starliner" is the WP:COMMONNAME currently in use to support this rename. Maybe Boeing are pushing this rename, but from what I see it doesn't seem to have happened in the media yet. Rwendland (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Sounds reasonable and seems consistent with other articles on the subject. Timmccloud (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Move to Boeing CST-100 Starliner would be my preferred choice, after reading the comments below. Timmccloud (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Opposed The article itself says Starliner is "a name that follows the conventions of the 787 Dreamliner produced by Boeing Commercial Airplanes." I think following the tradition for Boeing commericial aircraft makes most sense. That would make the appropriate title "Boeing CT-100 Starliner", just as people talk about the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. (Which, by the way, is the title of the Wikipedia article on the 787.) It's also a specific and unambiguous title.
 * This comparison is not quite accurate. "CST-100" was the code for the capsule's development project, started back in 2010. More recently (in 2015) "Starliner" was added as commercial name, and finally the CST-100 code is being dropped as the product gets ready to make its public debut. The equivalent development name in the Dreamliner case was "7E7" in 2003, and there is no suggestion that should be kept in the article title; we just use the commercial name, which is "787 Dreamliner". — JFG talk 05:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A reference on that might be nice. I mean about "CST-100" being exclusively the development name, not about the 7E7; you're right about that. I don't object to adding Boeing to the title. It really does belong there. But I also think we should wait until I see Boeing dropping "CST-100". We shouldn't drop it until they do. (And, at that point, add a redirect. "7E7" does redirect to "Boeing 787 Dreamliner.") Fcrary (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure; if the page is moved, the current title will be redirected to the new one, per usual practice. Re: has Boeing dropped CST-100? Not entirely: part of their product page still includes this code, others don't. — JFG talk 20:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that Boeing's home webpage for the capsule is simply titled "CST-100 Starliner", which does not suggest Boeing is pushing a rename yet, nor supporting the case for an article rename. Also the Boeing 3 August astronaut web announcement uses "Boeing CST-100 Starliner", and the official press release "Boeing [NYSE: BA] CST-100 Starliner" with the contacts department name as "CST-100 Starliner". Rwendland (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Opposed at least for now. Per User:Rwendland above and the fact that the common name for almost all modern Boeing aircraft is the model number. If there is evidence of Boeing clearly dropping CST-100 in the future we can revisit. However I have no objection to a move to "Boeing CST-100 Starliner". With redirects from all the possible combinations, I see no problem with that title.--agr (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Move to Boeing CST-100 Starliner. It's an exception to conciseness in the name of recognisability and consistency. Agree that the current title is not the best. Andrewa (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, unlikely to see many other "Starliners", so we can do without non-descriptive codes in the title. Rowan Forest (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree that this would be an improvement, it's my second choice. Andrewa (talk) 05:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support "Boeing Starliner" as first choice, "Boeing CST-100 Starliner" as a somewhat distant second choice. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support "Boeing CST-100 Starliner" as first choice, and "Boeing Starliner" as second, as "Boeing CST-800 Starliner" is the full name (like the article Boeing 787 Dreamliner, which is not just "Boeing 787", along with the articles Boeing 737 MAX and Boeing 737 Next Generation). Definite name change needed, as the manufacturer name is not listed in title, as most other air and space related vehicles are. QUICKWITTEDHARE   CONVERSE  01:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 17 August 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved - no consensus exists yet for this page move. Based on the discussion here, I recommend waiting for more information in reliable sources post September. (closed by non-admin page mover) Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 02:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Boeing CST-100 Starliner → Boeing Starliner – Per guidelines on precise article titles and natural disambiguation, we probably don't need to spell out the vehicle's entire official name for people to recognise what the subject of this article is – the manufacturer's name is really the only thing needed to disambiguate this article with other articles about subjects named "Starliner". Boeing Starliner already redirects to this article anyways. I fail to see how this situation is that much different from the Rhode Island example that is listed for WP:CONCISE. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 12:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Opposed Has something changed since we discussed this last year? If not, I don't see why we should make a change. In any case, the Rhode Island example is a poor one. In the case of CST-100 Starliner, some people use "CST-100" all by itself and some people use "Starliner" all by itself. That's why I'd rather retain both in the title. In contrast, no one uses "Providence Plantations", all by itself, to refer to the state. So the full "Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations" really is unnecessary. Fcrary (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not yet – Let's wait until the first launch in mid-September to see how Boeing describes the capsule and how the press covers it. Then if "Starliner" is the dominant moniker, we can drop CST-100. — JFG talk 22:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The official webpage from Boeing calls it the CST-100 Starliner. That's good enough for me. As is, I've seen plenty of articles on the internet that call it the CST-100, so there isn't even a WP:COMMONNAME argument to be made. -- Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already?  13:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pad abort test happened
Abort itself looked successful, but only two parachutes instead of three deployed. Waiting for a secondary source to write an article about it. --mfb (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/starliner-flies-for-the-first-time-but-one-of-its-parachutes-failed-to-deploy/ But I probably won't have a chance to add anything to the Wikipedia article today. Fcrary (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Starliner OFT Rollout.jpg

Photo caption
In the crew shot, shouldn't the man in the middle be Andrei Borisenko? He's listed as "Eric Boe". Flanker235 (talk) 12:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Eric Boe looks like the person in the image, Andrei Borisenko looks different. Eric Boe was selected to fly but dropped out for medical reasons after this image was taken. --mfb (talk) 07:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 15 June 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Boeing CST-100 Starliner → Boeing Starliner – PTG pointed out on Category talk:Crew Dragon, I've seen it referred to as "Boeing Starliner" way, way, way more often than "CST-100 Starliner". Therefore, Boeing Starliner is WP:COMMONNAME. Cf Lunar Gateway (previously Lunar Orbital Platform–Gateway). Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I noticed that the title was requested before, but was rejected as it was not WP:COMMONNAME back then. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per previous consensus and explanations. Its still not WP:COMMONNAME ~ Amkgp 💬  14:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Those statements are outdated, and although NASA use Boeing CST-100 Starliner on their articles, Boeing Starliner is still used on reliable sources.   --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Suppoer – It's about time. CST-100 was a technical designation used during capsule development. The Starliner name is now preferred by most RS. — JFG talk 06:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In fact, I would rather have it renamed to Boeing CST-100. Mikus (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose 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. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2020 (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 "Boeing Starliner".     Note that only two of these seven sources even mention the "CST-100" part of the name. In addition, here's a selection of sources which describe it as "Boeing's Starliner" without once mentioning the "CST-100" part of the name.        The point is, the "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's policy on commonly recognisable article titles. Regardless of this, "Boeing Starliner" is also concise enough per Wikipedia's policy on conciseness in article titles, while "Boeing CST-100 Starliner" is too precise per Wikipedia's policy on precision in article titles.
 * –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;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. --mfb (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – 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? –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;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, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Time zones?
For the Orbital Flight Test, the lead gives the landing time in UTC, which I understand, and EST, which I don't. The landing was in New Mexico new Mexico isn't on Eastern Standard Time. Am I missing something? Fcrary (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2020 (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). Wilford Nusser (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2020 (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 planned to fly CFT. With the added OFT-2 I think this source is obsolete. --mfb (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "TBD". --mfb (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.112.31 (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2020 (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  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.112.31 (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2020 (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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Orbital Flight Test-2 mission patch.png

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: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Spacecraft 2 in preparation for OFT-2.jpg

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Boe OFT-2 in preparation.jpg

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Boeing CST-100 Starliner Pad Abort Test Preparations KSC-20191031-PH-BOE01 0001 orig (cropped).jpg

"self-funded Boe-OFT 2" is POV.
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)

Need an actual "Design" section
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)
 * 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)

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Boe-CFT insignia.png

Idea
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Wireless Internet?!
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)