Talk:Boeing Crew Flight Test
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boeing Crew Flight Test 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: 1 |
![]() | A news item involving Boeing Crew Flight Test was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 7 June 2024. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Delay to sometime in 2021:
[edit]Since Boeing will be conducting a second uncrewed test flight sometime after October 2020, it is highly unlikely that this flight will take place anytime before 2021. Abul Bakhtiar 103.60.175.28 (talk) 09:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Confirmed for June 2021 UnitedFarmingInc (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Wilmore
[edit]Wilmore contrary to Ferguson is a NASA astronaut and not a Boeing employee. 2A01:CB0C:65A:2200:B114:84C4:F110:C241 (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ah thanks, I missed that. The previous edits didn't have any edit comment. --mfb (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
We forgive you UnitedFarmingInc (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Crew roles
[edit]This article says:
- "Three NASA astronauts will serve as the crew of Boe-CFT: commander Barry Wilmore, pilot Michael Fincke, and mission specialist Nicole Aunapu Mann."
And in the table below:
- Spacecraft Commander - Barry Wilmore
- Pilot - Nicole Aunapu Mann
- Joint Operations Commander - Michael Fincke
No source is given for any of this. Now which is correct? Who will be pilot, and will the third one be mission specialist or joint operations commander? --PM3 (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Mann will become the first woman to fly on the maiden crewed flight of an American spacecraft.
[edit]I don't think there is any precedent for Russian or Chinese spacecraft. So it should be any spacecraft, not just American. Hektor (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Flags for NASA astronauts
[edit]As part of their official duties NASA civil servant astronauts represent the country to the general public. The use of flags here is thus appropriate. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 07:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- The addition of such flags is mostly counter to MOS:ICON. In this case the addition of three identical flags in front of names is purely decoration. Maungapohatu (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with @Maungapohatu here, having three flag icons in front of these astronauts' names is redundant when they're all from the same organization and country. Looking at previous spaceflight articles, especially FAs and GAs such as Apollo 11, STS-125, STS-8, and other articles like Gemini 9, where the crews are all from one nation (the United States), the same flag icon isn't used two or three or five or more times in one table since its redundant, and the reader should already know where the astronauts come from from earlier in the article. Compare those to more recent flights with international crews: STS-47, STS-71, Expedition 1, SpaceX Crew-6, and Soyuz MS-10, among plenty of others. Here I'd say the use of flags helps the reader to clearly identify the names of the astronauts with their nationalities. Of course there are exceptions to this rule, including the GA Mir EO-19, many of the Shenzhou missions, and of course the SpaceX Crew Demo-2, Inspiration 4, and the Polaris Dawn missions. At least for this article and other NASA-sponsored launches, precedent should establish that the flag icons aren't necessary when the mission consists entirely of crewmembers from one country or organization. I'll edit this article to reflect that shortly. SpacePod9 (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't. Dragon routinely flies astronauts from other countries, it's expected that Starliner will do the same in the future. It is not obvious that both astronauts are Americans. This makes it different from e.g. the Gemini or the Apollo programs. I think removing flags if and only if all crew members are from one country is weird and unhelpful. --mfb (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Has been scrubbed
[edit]Would update but kinda lazy -Links to my Profily, chat discussion, and editing history! This message was sent by TenGolfPedia at 16:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Return date
[edit]@RickyCourtney NASA has not published return dates. The only thing they have said is the return is after the spacewalks. This is literally the only official information we have about the return date, and the infobox should reflect that. The earliest date of 4 July is extrapolation made by journalists and we don't know if that's the official date NASA has internally set. Also, you cannot change a SOURCED statement with something that is not supported by the source. Agile Jello (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Journalists are secondary sources considered to be the gold standard of Wikipedia sourcing. They can provide the proper analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Journalists are saying the next return date opportunity is no earlier than 4 July. “No earlier than” is not an “official date NASA has internally set” it means that’s the earliest the landing could happen, while acknowledging that it could also be delayed. It’s a typical term used with space missions. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- NET usually implies that's the official date NASA is currently planning for the end of the mission. Having this information on the infobox will mislead readers into thinking an official date has been set. The infobox should be reserved for factual information, while the text should contain the analysis and interpretation from secondary sources. Agile Jello (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Listing planned mission length
[edit]Is there any opposition to listing "~8 days (planned)" under the actual mission length? I think it's important, because it's part of the story of the mission... and it's been a stable part of the page for a while now... however one IP editor keeps removing it without any explanation. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Autonomous return of uncrewed Boeing Starliner
[edit]Given that the Boeing Starliner must be unlocked from the ISS in order to make way for the next SpaceX crewed flight to the — most recently rescheduled to Sunday, August 18, 2024. At the time of writing, the Boeing Starliner has not been cleared for a crewed return to Earth. This appears to leave (at least) four scenarios:
- Crew returns safely in the Boeing Starliner
- Crew departs and problems emerge...
- Starliner returns autonomously, and crew return via SpaceX Dragon instead.
- Starliner undocks and makes an unsuccessful attempt to return autonomously.
Also, SpaceX has stated that they have spacesuits that would fit the Boeing Starliner crew. (Evidently, there is not a common NASA standard for spacesuit — presumably, the life-support plumbing is different for SpaceX and Boeing).
Anyway, given the obvious risks of attempting to return the crew on the Boeing Starliner, I think these four (or more) scenarios should be identified and discussed.
Enquire (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- The proper place for those discussions would be a discussion board or forum, not Wikipedia. Once it’s known for sure what the plan is, it can be added to the page. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @RickyCourtney I will be blunt. Reading your preceding comment, I would be forgiven for concluding that you are ignorant and arrogant. Certainly, you do not hide your contempt for other editors. Furthermore it would appear that you do not actually understand the purpose of Talk pages. If you troubled yourself to actually read the article, you would discover that there are over 360 words discussing the return of not only the spacecraft, but also its astronauts, per Return to Earth, much of it speculative. Furthermore, you do not seem to appreciate that this is, potentially, a life and death situation for the astronauts. Boeing, SpaceX and NASA would, understandably prefer them to return in the Starliner that brought them to the ISS. Yet, at the same time, no-one wants to take responsibility if that were to result in the loss of the capsule and crew. The prudent option would be for the crew to return via a SpaceX dragon and to attempt to return the Boeing Starliner autonomously - without also risking the lives of its crew.
- Enquire (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps you didn’t read it, but just today I spent a considerable amount of time adding new information to this article, based on reliable sources, addressing the issues with the thrusters, the uncertainty within NASA about the testing on the thrusters, the discomfort with flying Williams and Willmore home on Starliner, contingency planning, the delayed launch of Crew-9 and the potential downsides of an unmanned return to Earth for Starliner.
- I fully appreciate that this is, as you say, a life and death situation for the astronauts.
- However, as Wikipedia editors we also need to deal in facts. Facts as they are presented to us by reliable sources.
- When you first posted this, few reliable sources were discussing an autonomous return of Starliner. That changed Monday when Eric Berger at arstechnica first published his reporting. It all spilled out in the open today when NASA had a teleconference.
- Anyways, I’m sorry to be dismissive, but Wikipedia really isn’t the place for discussion per se. It’s a place to gather facts from many sources and present them in a neutral and accessible manner. RickyCourtney (talk) 06:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- @RickyCourtney I will be blunt. Reading your preceding comment, I would be forgiven for concluding that you are ignorant and arrogant. Certainly, you do not hide your contempt for other editors. Furthermore it would appear that you do not actually understand the purpose of Talk pages. If you troubled yourself to actually read the article, you would discover that there are over 360 words discussing the return of not only the spacecraft, but also its astronauts, per Return to Earth, much of it speculative. Furthermore, you do not seem to appreciate that this is, potentially, a life and death situation for the astronauts. Boeing, SpaceX and NASA would, understandably prefer them to return in the Starliner that brought them to the ISS. Yet, at the same time, no-one wants to take responsibility if that were to result in the loss of the capsule and crew. The prudent option would be for the crew to return via a SpaceX dragon and to attempt to return the Boeing Starliner autonomously - without also risking the lives of its crew.
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- C-Class spaceflight articles
- Low-importance spaceflight articles
- WikiProject Spaceflight articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- C-Class United States Government articles
- Unknown-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States articles