Talk:Boeing Starliner
| 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 C-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:
|
I reverted an unsourced assertion about the valve problem edit
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? edit
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 edit
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. edit
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)
How many seats, 7, 5, 4 ? edit
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)
- @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)
No contingency? edit
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? -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. -Arch dude (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)