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 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. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
can we find a good design image?
editI moved the image of the mock-up of the capsule out of the "design" section, since we have images of real hardware now. However, we do not have an image that adequately shows the entire spacecraft (capsule+SM). We need an image similar to something like this, but with a proper license. -Arch dude (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I added an image that at least shows capsule and SM in a reasonable perspective. Still not an actual design image. -Arch dude (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Table entries for future flights
editI will trim the entries for Starliner-1 through Starliner-6. The info was speculative, basically reasonable but unsupported extrapolations which constituted WP:OR. See WP:CRYSTAL. And is subject to change based on the results of the CFT. I did not remove the rows completely, although a case can be made that we should do that. Please discuss. -Arch dude (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I am removing Starliner-3 through Starliner-6. We cannot know when or if they will fly. There is not enough time to fly them with a yearly cadence before the ISS de-orbits. -Arch dude (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I’d just suggest that you add a note that Boeing has been contracted by NASA to fly six operational missions, but that the timing in unclear. RickyCourtney (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Please feel free to edit further as you see fit: It's not my table and I won't be offended. -Arch dude (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. It’s possible that Boeing could end up flying all the missions they were contracted for, but I agree that there’s just too many unknowns at this point. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it could happen, but at this point it would require two or more sets of back-to-back missions. Boeing can probably do back-to-back, but not three in a row. They only have two capsules and the turnaround is too tight. I don't see how NASA could certify the CFT, either, and Boeing might abandon the Starliner program instead of flying another CFT. Far too many unknowns. -Arch dude (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- The last crew is expected to depart the ISS at the end of 2030 or early 2031. If Starliner-1 flies in H2 2025 and Crew-11 flies in H1 2026 as currently scheduled, then the final SpaceX contracted mission Crew-14 will fly in H1 2029. If Starliner-5 can fly in H2 2029 and Starliner-6 in H1 2030, that would be the only back-to-back missions needed and will close out the program right on schedule. There will perhaps be the need to fly a final crew in H2 2030, but that’s not covered by the current contracts. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it could happen, but at this point it would require two or more sets of back-to-back missions. Boeing can probably do back-to-back, but not three in a row. They only have two capsules and the turnaround is too tight. I don't see how NASA could certify the CFT, either, and Boeing might abandon the Starliner program instead of flying another CFT. Far too many unknowns. -Arch dude (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. It’s possible that Boeing could end up flying all the missions they were contracted for, but I agree that there’s just too many unknowns at this point. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Please feel free to edit further as you see fit: It's not my table and I won't be offended. -Arch dude (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
What's the contractual status of Starliner-1 through Starliner-6?
edit@RickyCourtney: Thanks for your edit viting to Ars technica: "Tellingly, perhaps, NASA has only placed firm orders with Boeing for three Starliner flights once the agency certifies the spacecraft for operational use." However, I'm trying to figure out if Stephen Clark got it right.
The original CctCap contracts were for two operational flights with an option for four more, totalling six. (e.g. https://spacenews.com/41924nasa-commercial-crew-awards-leave-unanswered-questions/, https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2015-05-27-Boeing-Awarded-First-Commercial-Human-Spaceflight-Mission)
My memory from reading other sources (which I can't find at the moment) is that NASA sweetened the deal for Boeing by committing to exercise those options, so they ordered six.
This is supported by the 2019 OIG report which talks about "Ordering Four Missions at Once was an Excessive and Unnecessarily Costly Response to Perceived Access Gap" and criticizes NASA for paying a premium to Boeing to speed up Starliner-3 through Starliner-6, saying they only needed to pay for -3 and -4.
But it's not completely clear. The OIG is coy about some contractual details (because the per-flight prices are apparently proprietary), and what they do say could be interpreted as talking about NASA paying for "schedule assurance" for those flights, basically paying Boeing to start some long-lead-time work, without formally committing to purchasing the flights.
The OIG report is clear about is the 2+4 division. Yet the article mentioned above says there are firm orders for three. I'd think I could find a formal announcement of the commitment to buy the third.
It might be hiding in https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/CCtCap_Boeing_508.pdf or some of the other paperwork at https://www.nasa.gov/foia/nasa-e-libraries/kennedy-foia-library/electronic-library-boeing-cctcap/, but that's an unbelievably abstruse pile of legal-bureaucrat-contractese. this slide deck from November 2017 says that NASA has "Awarded Post Certification Missions (PCMs) 3-6 to both Providers", which matches what I remember reading.
But apparently there's a difference between "awarded" and "authority to proceed", at least as this NASASpaceflight forum thread is saying. It cites to this May 2022 newspaper article which says:
- Beyond the uncrewed Starliner test flight to the ISS, Boeing currently has an agreement with NASA to support only three crewed missions.
- Mark Nappi, Boeing vice president, and Starliner program manager, however, expressed confidence in the longevity of the program. “We have three post-certification missions and then there will be a follow on after that for (post-certification missions) four, five, and six that are not authorized today.”
Hey, look, confirmation on the three number! But on the rest of it, I'm thoroughly befuddled. If we can ever untangle this mess, it would be a good addition to the article. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
OMAC thruster arrangement
editAfter writing up what I thought was true, derived from Boeing-provided pictures, I leaned I may be wrong.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=60593.msg2618875#msg2618875 says
- There are actually only 4 forwards facing (−X) OMACs. There are 2 doghouses with 2 forwards facing OMACs and 2 doghouses without. The remaining 4 OMACs are in the middle of the doghouses for roll control.
I doubt you'd actually use OMACs to roll the craft, as they'd be entirely too violent, but they might be used to translate the service module sideways after separation so it doesn't collide with the capsule during atmospheric entry. Thus their location lower than the RCS thrusters, since they are positioned at the service module CG, while the latter are positioned at the combined service module+capsule CG.
Can anyone find a more WP:RELIABLE source than a forum post for this? NSF forums tend to be reasonably well informed, but I'd like to respect WP sourcing rules if possible. And I actually think the NSF poster is wrong about the lateral OMACs. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 09:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Just the story of 4 helium leaks
editRecently 8 heard that the cst-100 had 4 helium leaks "which can not cause much " said by the engineers of NASA and Boeing 2409:4051:2EBF:EF2F:0:0:C249:5205 (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
100 in CST-100?
editThe article claims that the 100 in CST-100 refers to the Karman line, but one of the two citations is a single paragraph that doesn't mention the Karman line and the other is a poorly formatted article with random deleted spaces in between words and dubious punctuation. To quote the article: "the '100' in the name stands for [sic] 100kilometers (62 miles) ? the distance from the ground to low-Earth orbit that [sic] itwill travel." First of all, if a spacecraft had a circular, 100 kilometer orbit, it would almost immediately decay and reenter the atmosphere. (It's possible it wouldn't even make a full orbit: in the video of Starhsip IFT-4, plasma began building up before 100 kilometers.) Second of all, based on the punctuation of the article, I think most people would agree that calling it sketchy would be putting it mildly. This statement needs to be supported with further citations or removed. Titan(moon)003 (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Fixed Provided a better reference from NASA. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
What mass of Starliner capsule as landed
editWhat is mass of Starliner capsule as landed (under parachutes, on airbags) ? (with or without heatshield ?) Article says mass had to be reduced, but does not give any mass figures. - Rod57 (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can't recall ever seeing that data being provided by NASA or Boeing. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)