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...
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.
“ 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.
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.
> 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.