Hacker News Reader

Comment by bgirard | Hacker News Reader

> However, it's crucial that we have multiple reliable launch and crew providers to ensure the safety and sustainability of space missions.

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.

View on HN

Yes, we need multiple providers and the proper way to do that is not by bailing out poor designs by incumbents. Instead, we should be setting lucrative incentives for new entrants.

IMHO, Starliner is too big of an MVP

That's because Starliner isn't an MVP. It's a vehicle designed to transport humans. You don't send humans to space in an MVP.

To be clear, you can have multiple and iterative MVPs

Then at least one of them isn't M or at least one of them isn't V.

Min Viable .. sure you can do that. I guess I am thinking of a different definition than you of viable

I'm saying that if you do multiple MVPs, then at least one of them isn't Minimum or one of them isn't Viable.

A lot of people get that wrong. It’s certainly not how we treat MVPs in my particular industry.

“ 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.

I will disagree. You are building a product and you need to know if you are building the right thing. So you build it using a set of MVPs. Another way to call it is Objectives

You still get it very wrong.

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

“ It's clear you've never built or been involved with building systems that are classified as "Safety of Life Critical System".”

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.

Wow. The comments don't align. This is absolutely terrifying to me.

I suppose that he was working on MCAS on the 737 Max.

so whats it good for. sending monkeys?

> That's because Starliner isn't an MVP.

> 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.

I mean, I wish that didn't need to be said, but after the whole submarine-controlled-by-an-xbox-going-to-the-titantic thing, who am I to say what bucket of bolts people might jump into entirely on their own accord

So what do you call and MVP of transporting humans?

The ability to return, alive.

So there IS an MVP of transporting humans. (Which is the point.)

> IMHO, Starliner is too big of an MVP

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...

>> IMHO, Starliner is too big of an MVP

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.

A cargo-only starliner still would have suffered the same problem and had the same risk of ramming the station.

Seems like it would be best to test approaching an imaginary or decoy space station when proving a new vehicle.

Or before trying to do it all including a bellyflop

That test was scraped as a cost saving measure. 2016 or 2018 if I recall correctly, after it had been delayed several times.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com