6 ms·
As a big SpaceX fan, I appreciate the innovation and success that SpaceX has brought to space exploration. However, it's crucial that we have multiple reliable
by firesteelrain 2y ago
As a big SpaceX fan, I appreciate the innovation and success that SpaceX has brought to space exploration. However, it's crucial that we have multiple reliable launch and crew providers to ensure the safety and sustainability of space missions. While SpaceX has been a game-changer, relying solely on one provider is risky. The ongoing issues with Boeing's Starliner highlight the importance of diversity in our space program. We need to support and develop multiple providers to maintain a robust and secure presence in space.
- bgirard 2y ago> 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.
- firesteelrain 2y agoIMHO, Starliner is too big of an MVP
- windexh8er 2y agoThat'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.
- firesteelrain 2y agoTo be clear, you can have multiple and iterative MVPs
- dotancohen 2y agoThen at least one of them isn't M or at least one of them isn't V.
- firesteelrain 2y agoMin Viable .. sure you can do that. I guess I am thinking of a different definition than you of viable
- dotancohen 2y agoI'm saying that if you do multiple MVPs, then at least one of them isn't Minimum or one of them isn't Viable.
- firesteelrain 2y agoA 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-wrong-about-minimum-viable-products-9de53ec6e6ea https://greg-satell.medium.com/heres-what-most-people-get-wr...
- dotancohen 2y ago> 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.
- firesteelrain 2y agoI 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
- flamedoge 2y agoso whats it good for. sending monkeys?
- ajcp 2y ago> 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.
- chrsig 2y agoI 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
- michaelcampbell 2y agoSo what do you call and MVP of transporting humans?
- mulmen 2y agoThe ability to return, alive.
- michaelcampbell 2y agoSo there IS an MVP of transporting humans. (Which is the point.)
- nordsieck 2y ago> 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-source-selection-statement-5083.pdf?emrc=8a4806 https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/cctcap-sourc...
- phkahler 2y ago>> 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.
- whatshisface 2y agoA cargo-only starliner still would have suffered the same problem and had the same risk of ramming the station.
- jfoster 2y agoSeems like it would be best to test approaching an imaginary or decoy space station when proving a new vehicle.
- firesteelrain 2y agoOr before trying to do it all including a bellyflop
- dotancohen 2y agoThat test was scraped as a cost saving measure. 2016 or 2018 if I recall correctly, after it had been delayed several times.
- option 2y agoYes, 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.
- zhaphod 2y agoGiven how vehemently the Senators were in forcing NASA to create a second award for HLS, I wonder why there is no backup for SLS+Orion.
- firesteelrain 2y agoStarliner /could/ be a backup however it does not have those Moon requirements
- dotancohen 2y agoStarliner is a completely different vehicle designed for completely different requirements. The only thing that they have in common is that they can both operate in a vacuum. That's like saying that a motorcycle could replace a semi, because both have wheels and a motor.
- imtringued 2y agoYeah, Orion is a huge bottleneck to future moon missions, because it is the only way to get off the moon back to earth. Everything else has multiple solutions. The entire idea behind the lunar gateway was to make it possible for CLPS companies to reach NRHO with underpowered rockets instead of only a hypothetical launch vehicle such as the lunar Starship, which does not even exist as of today. 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.
- P_I_Staker 2y ago[flagged]
- netbioserror 2y agoWas this written by an AI? Christ, this is the most empty diplomatic platitude-spewing I've seen all week. 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.
- fortylove 2y ago[flagged]
- Jevon23 2y agoChatGPT comment?
- maeil 2y agoIt is, and I'm curious what dang and HN's plan is wrt this issue going forward. On one hand, the "assume good faith" has been a core tenet of this community. At the same time, LLM-generated walls of text aren't good faith. And they're not going to get less common from here on out. 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.
- coldpie 2y ago>> ChatGPT comment? > It is What? Huh? How did you determine this?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- iwontberude 2y agoIt's truly a rorschach test of sorts. I agree with you that there isn't enough information to say, but reading through the comment history of the commenter in question does not make it seem more likely that they are GPT. Reminds me of Fallout 4 with everyone suspicious of each other being synths.
- maeil 2y agoOn the contrary, the comment history makes it very clear. 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.
- 1-6 2y agoUnfortunately, the demand for space missions is tough to justify starting a new company with that goal in mind. It will require heavy government funding to make it sustainable. 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?
- travisporter 2y agoI didn’t read the parent comment that way, who did give due deference to spacex. This is hard stuff, as I was reminded when the dragon capsule exploded during very early testing. But spacex is such a beast that it overcame that ridiculously fast.
- sandworm101 2y ago>> this is a Boeing problem and you’re just throwing SpaceX under the bus for the other company’s troubles. 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.
- firesteelrain 2y agoI am not throwing SpaceX under the bus. I am saying that we can’t rely only on SpaceX. We need to fix Boeing or fund another provider.
- imtringued 2y agoGive Dream Chaser another chance. It is already going to be necessary as an escape pod for large commercial space stations. If it does double duty as capsule backup, it will achieve greater amortization.
- xcv123 2y agoDid you copy and paste this from ChatGPT? 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41274200
- michaelcampbell 2y ago> Low IQ downvoters This is not necessary.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dev1ycan 2y ago"We need to support and develop multiple providers to maintain a robust and secure presence in space" ~by feeding boeing even more government cash and looking the other way when they get "rid" of whistleblowers, yeah.
- sidcool 2y agoWhat does SpaceX do differently than Boeing to be so reliable?