Log In
Create Account
SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ
Login
Create Account
Search
Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...
RSS Feed
Hosting by DigitalOcean
Support ST on Ko-Fi
Links Only
50 Results
100 Results
250 Results
500 Results
1000 Results
5000 Results
2 Weeks
2 Months
6 Months
1 Year
2 Years
5 Years
All Time
Live
Down to Post
Backboards:
Live
________________
1: Dec 2, 08:21
2: Dec 1, 17:33
3: Dec 1, 11:23
4: Nov 30, 15:54
5: Nov 30, 09:41
6: Nov 29, 16:44
7: Nov 29, 08:01
8: Nov 28, 16:19
9: Nov 28, 09:42
10: Nov 27, 18:07
11: Nov 27, 12:04
12: Nov 27, 08:26
13: Nov 26, 18:06
14: Nov 26, 12:05
15: Nov 26, 08:29
16: Nov 25, 18:33
17: Nov 25, 11:12
18: Nov 25, 07:08
19: Nov 24, 13:17
20: Nov 23, 18:13
Posts: 151
In response to
"
Arstechnica on the Starship launch echoing what I was saying on the backboards -- (link)
"
by
TWuG
minimum viable product is a shitty design ethos. -- nm
Posted by
mafic
Apr 20 '23, 16:42
(No message)
Responses:
How is the process that built Falcon 9, the most reliable rocket flying and the only reusable one "minimum viable"? -- nm
-
TWuG
Apr 20, 16:56
2
what he's describing in the article is "make it good enough, launch it, and see what happens." that's almost the definition of minimum viable.
-
mafic
Apr 20, 17:26
1
As an iterative process, not as a final product. The goal with this launch was "clear the launch pad"
-
TWuG
Apr 20, 17:53
Post a message
top
Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.