Talk:CST-100 Starliner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:CST-100)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

New picture[edit]

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 [1]. I also have another picture showing a mockup interior, which is at [2]. 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: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


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 (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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 18:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
And another one, this one in an interview with the Boeing project manager: Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Orion too prominent in this article?[edit]

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)

Infobox or other top-of-article summary[edit]

I note that the CST-100 article uses the {{Infobox_Spacecraft ...}} 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, {{Infobox_Spacecraft ...}} 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[edit]

Some new links to cull information from:

Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC) (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC) --Craigboy (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


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


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? (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)

Launch abort?[edit]

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 check.svg Done — 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[edit]

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:

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


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)