The keyword here is reliable and I would add the word competitive. Having an expensive, late, unreliable provider may in fact be a net negative. I think Starliner in it's current form isn't helping the industry. I hope they get their act together, or that we fund a reliable and competitive alternative to SpaceX.
Maybe.
But it's a lot simpler than NASA's previous vehicle, the Shuttle.
If you read the selection statement[1], it seems clear in retrospect that NASA put too much weight on Boeing's Shuttle experience (via Rockwell), and not enough emphasis on SpaceX's Dragon 1 experience. But I think, at the time, it was difficult to know which factor was more important.
---
1. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/cctcap-sourc...
Keep in mind that Starliner is NOT the entire launch system. It is only the crew capsule. It rides on top of an existing rocket. The same is true of SpaceX Dragon which rides on top of Falcon 9 that already existed.
To your point, Starliner could have started as cargo-only to prove out as much as possible. That's what Dragon did.
> You don't send humans to space in an MVP.
You are technically correct given that minimum viability for Starliner is sending humans to space AND returning them to earth.
At this point I'm not sure anyone at NASA would agree that Starliner should have been used to send humans to space even.
“ Yet what is often missed is that a minimum viable product isn’t merely a stripped down version of a prototype. It is a method to test assumptions and that’s something very different. A single product often has multiple MVPs, because any product development effort is based on multiple assumptions.”
Article on the topic: https://greg-satell.medium.com/heres-what-most-people-get-wr...
> It is a method to test assumptions and that’s something very different.
Products shouldn't test assumptions, that's what the PoC is for. Proving (or disproving) a concept.MVP focuses on developing a product with just enough features to satisfy early users and provide feedback for future iterations. This means that the full vision of the product is sacrificed in favor of speed and minimalism. Key word: sacrificed. You don't sacrifice in a system humans are reliant on to live.
You can find this described on Wikipedia in a similar manner [0].
Compare this to a Waterfall approach - an approach that has been used in developing rigor in critical systems for decades. Waterfall emphasizes a complete and well-documented design upfront, ensuring that the final product aligns with the original vision and objectives. The end result is a fully-featured product, even if (and it will) take longer to develop.
Again... Wikipedia [1].
So, no. You don't build a mission critical system by stacking MVPs like Lego block on top of each other and then calling them "objectives". It's clear you've never built or been involved with building systems that are classified as "Safety of Life Critical System". Feel free to go review some relevant standards (e.g., ISO 26262, IEC 61508, DO-178C) and then feel free to re-justify how MVPs could be used for space vehicles that transport humans.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_product [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model
That couldn’t be farther from the truth. I have worked on safety critical aircraft systems for the past 10 years. We incrementally have built MVPs and have been very successful. I won’t say which but it’s one of the most successful aircraft projects in development today.
I'm also surprised by how many human replies these comments get, seemingly unaware what they're responding to, given that it's HN and how long it's been since the release of GPT-3, I thought a larger percentage of readers would notice.
> It is
What? Huh? How did you determine this?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41274200 and then his later reply in the same thread, also written by ChatGPT https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41277573
Pages and pages of relatively short comments, not a single one written in a remotely LLM-reminiscent style. Then, within a very short period, multiple very long comments in exactly the default style that GPT writes in.
The chances of someone waking up some day and entirely changing their writing style might as well be zero, I've never seen it. It would be a gradual process if everyone.
I read HN every day and I think this is only the 2nd time I've come across clearly generated content. If suspicion is the issue, that should be much more frequent. On Reddit it's already more common, and I've already had multiple people admit to it when pointed out, asking "How did you know?".
It does help that I've spent the last 1.5 years building LLM-based products every day.
The problem is dosage. GPT and cram school students use such patterns in the majority of their sentences. Fluent speakers/humans only use them once every while. The temperature is much higher! English is a huge language grammatically, super dynamic - there's a massive variety of sentence structures to choose from. But by default, LLMs just choose whichever one is the most likely given the dataset it has been trained on (and RLHF etc), that's the whole idea. In real life, everyone's dataset and feedback are different. My most likely grammar pattern is not yours. Yet with LLMs, by default, its always the same.
It also makes perfect sense in a different way; at this point in time LLMs are still largely developed to beat very simplistic benchmarks using their "default" output. And English language exams are super similar to those benchmarks; I wouldn't be surprised if they were actually already included. So the optimal strategy to do well at those without actually understanding what's going on, but pretending to do so, ends up being the same. Just in this case it's LLM's pretending instead of students.
I should probably write a blog post about this at some point. Some might be curious: Does this mean that it's not possible to make LLMs write in a natural way? No, it's already very possible, and it doesn't take too much effort to make it do so. I'm currently developing a pico-SaaS that does just that, inspired by seeing these comments on Reddit, and now HN. Don't worry, I absolutely won't be offering API access and will be limiting usage to ensure it's only usable for humans, so no contributing to robotic AI spam from me.
I'd give you concrete examples, but in the comment in question literally every single sentence is a good example. Literally after the second sentence, the deal is sealed.
There's other strong indicators besides the structure - phrasings, cadence, sentence lengths and just content in general, but you don't even really need those. If you don't see it, instead of looking at it as a paragraph, split them up and put each sentence on a newline. If you still don't see it, you could try searching for something like "English writing test essay template".
I remember that there were "leaks" out of OpenAI that they had an LLM detector which was 99.9% accurate but they didn't want to release it. No idea about the veracity, but I very much believe it, though it's 100% going to be limited to those using very basic prompts like "write me a comment/essay/post about ___". I'm pretty sure I could build one of these myself quite easily, but it'll be pointless very soon anyway, as LLM UIs improve and LLM platforms will start providing "natural" personas as the norm.
I dunno. I believe you see that in it, but to me it just reads like any other Internet comment. Nothing at all stands out about it, to me. Hence my surprise at the strong assertions by two separate commenters.
You're also free to confirm in my HN history that in hundreds of comments (and tens of thousands read), this is the single one time I've pointed it out. I did do a cross-check of their profile to confirm it, just in case it was a false positive - don't want to accuse anyone if I'm not 100% sure, because it's indeed technically possible that someone simply has the exact same writing style as the default ChatGPT assistant.
Here's the entire comment, dissected to make the structure and patterns clearer.
> As a __, __.
> However, it's crucial that ___.
> While __, ___ is risky.
> ___ highlight the importance of __ in __.
> We need to ___ to __.
Any single one of these sentences on their own wouldn't be enough. It's the combination, the dosage that I mentioned.
If you're interested in hard data that explores this phenomenon (although outdated/an older version of GPT), here's an article [1]. In a year or so, if you do the same analysis on "However, it's crucial that", you'll discover the same trend as the article showed for "a complex and multifaceted concept". Maybe the author would be open to sharing the code, or rerunning the experiment.
> It does help that I've spent the last 1.5 years building LLM-based products every day.
it could be an exposure thing. I don't interface with this AI stuff at all, much less every day. So I'm not going to pick up on patterns like that.
That's like saying that a motorcycle could replace a semi, because both have wheels and a motor.
Lockheed Martin is building a cislunar transporter for getting fuel to NRHO. What is needed is a cislunar crew transporter in addition to the fuel transporter.
And to your comment about SpaceX, this is a Boeing problem and you’re just throwing SpaceX under the bus for the other company’s troubles. SpaceX is the alternative provider. How many more do you think is feasible?
That is what happens. If a company wants to play in this sort of arena, it will not be treated "fairly" and will suffer for the mistakes of others. In a narrow two-company industry, the mistakes of either party will always impact the industry as a whole.
Think of that company that lost a submersible at the Titanic. Undersea tourism is also very narrow industry. All companies involved are dealing with the repercussions of that accident from diminished demand to potentially stricter regulations, not to mention increased insurance costs. That isn't fair, but that is how such industries work.
I'll say what you hopefully mean: SpaceX needs solid competition but the old-school contractors are broken. Pending an analysis of their impotence, they may need thorough fumigation before we rely on them for anything.
Edit: Low IQ downvoters are too stupid to recognise obvious ChatGPT replies. I checked his comment history and found that he uses ChatGPT here regularly https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41274200
This is not necessary.
~by feeding boeing even more government cash and looking the other way when they get "rid" of whistleblowers, yeah.