A news item involving Boeing Crew Flight Test was featured on Wikipedia'sMain Page in theIn the news section on7 June 2024.

This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

SpaceflightLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofspaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. United States:GovernmentLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited 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 Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported byWikiProject U.S. Government.

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 Bakhtiar103.60.175.28 (talk)09:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed for June 2021UnitedFarmingInc (talk)06:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ah thanks, I missed that. The previous edits didn't have any edit comment. --mfb (talk)22:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We forgive youUnitedFarmingInc (talk)06:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The addition of such flags is mostly counter toMOS: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)[reply]

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 asApollo 11,STS-125,STS-8, and other articles likeGemini 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, andSoyuz 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 GAMir EO-19, many of theShenzhou missions, and of course the SpaceXCrew Demo-2,Inspiration 4, and thePolaris 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Would update but kinda lazy -Links to myProfily,chat discussion, andediting history! This message was sent by TenGolfPedia at16:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Journalists aresecondary 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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, perReturn 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ijust made an edit pointing out that all five failed thrusters were aft-facing. 5 of 28 failures is lousy quality control; 5 of 8 aft-facing and 0 of 20 other-facing failures is a design problem. Also, this many failuresin the same direction caused loss of6DoF attitude control.[1]

I feel this is a significant point that a lot of reporting is missing, and NASA and Boeing are beingeconomical about the severity of, but of course I want to give it appropriate encyclopedicWP:WEIGHT. My personal reaction is "Holy[expletives deleted] people, this is a huge[expletive deleted] issue!", and I tried very hard to tone that down in my edit, but now I'm worried I overcompensated; the strong tension makes it difficult for me to judge the correct level. I hope other editors will look at the article and adjust the wording if I got it wrong.97.102.205.224 (talk)23:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A related issue that deserves mention (but isnot yet incorporated into the article) is reports of avery bad working relationship between Boeing and Rocketdyne, the maker of the thrusters. I can't imagine this latest expensive problem will abate the finger-pointing.97.102.205.224 (talk)01:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheCruise and docking section includes "flight controllers on the ground detected two more helium leaks in different parts of Starliner's propulsion system." This is confusing as the first leak, if there was one, is never mentioned. Should this be worded as "... two helium leaks ..." without the word "more" or was there a previous leak that needs to be added to the article? --Marc Kupper|talk00:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My assumption is that the “more” is in reference to the fact that helium leaks were first detected prior to launch, and received coverage in that section.RickyCourtney (talk)01:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marc Kupper: Like RickyCourtney said, the first leak was the one detected (but deliberately left unfixed) before launch.97.102.205.224 (talk)03:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, as the crew did not return with the craft, the mission is extended, until it merges into the next Expedition...--64.229.88.34 (talk)04:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASAsays the mission ended with Starliner's landing.PRRfan (talk)17:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Butch and Suni’s involvement with CFT is now over, it ended when the hatch closed. They’re now on ISS as part ofExpedition 71/72. Beyond the safety concerns, they’re staying up there for another 6 months because operationally that was what was cost effective for NASA. Coverage of their mission as astronauts moving forward can be covered on the expedition pages.RickyCourtney (talk)18:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This surprised me a lot, but crew launches use the older SRBs. I saw this on a forum and then found a really obscure reference in a reliable source. It's so strange that I asked the guy on the forum, who responded with pictures of the CFT LV and described how to distinguish the two SRB types. Yep, they are the old ones. I assume that these were the ones that form part of the human-rated LV. -Arch dude (talk)21:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct. Here's a good2021 article that explains it:

The strap-on boosters were supplied by Aerojet Rocketdyne. ULA is switching to Northrop Grumman-built solid rocket boosters for most future Atlas 5 launches, plus all missions using the company’s next-generation Vulcan Centaur rocket.

Aerojet Rocketdyne’s solid-fueled motors will continue launching Atlas 5 rockets carrying crew missions into orbit, but Monday’s mission is the last military-procured Atlas 5 flight to use the old booster design. The Aerojet Rocketdyne boosters were certified for astronaut launches.

So, yes, only the AJ-60 SRBs are human-rated. --RickyCourtney (talk)22:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is to let editors know thatFile:NASA’s Boeing_Crew_Flight_Test_Launch_(NHQ202406050029).jpg, afeatured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia'spicture of the day (POTD) for September 22, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited atTemplate:POTD/2024-09-22. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on theMain Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message atWikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk)09:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing Crew Flight Test was the first crewed mission of theBoeing Starliner capsule. Launched on 5 June 2024, the mission flew a crew of twoNASA astronauts,Barry E. Wilmore andSunita Williams, fromCape Canaveral Space Force Station to theInternational Space Station. The mission was intended to last eight days, ending on 14 June with a landing in theAmerican Southwest. However, the capsule's thrusters malfunctioned as Starliner approached the ISS. After more than two months of investigation, NASA decided it was too risky to return Wilmore and Williams to Earth aboard Starliner. Instead, the Boeing spacecraft returned uncrewed on 7 September 2024, and the astronauts will ride down on theSpaceX Crew-9 spacecraft in February 2025. This photograph shows the Crew Flight Test launch, with capsuleCalypso atop anAtlas V rocket. Photograph credit:NASA / Joel Kowsky Recently featured: Pomegranate Holothuria fuscogilva W. S. Gilbert Archive More featured pictures

• view
• talk
• edit
• history
• watch
• file page

An interview with an astronaut giving a point-by-point account of the failing of the thrusters (not all at the same time, and the restoration attempts occurred multiple times) and the astronaut’s exact thought processes can be found here:https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/04/the-harrowing-story-of-what-flying-starliner-was-like-when-its-thrusters-failed/ . I think it would be worth adding.Mrfoogles (talk)02:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds think alike! I was already in the process of adding some of the reporting from Berger.RickyCourtney (talk)06:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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