Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The red warning light on Richard Branson’s space flight

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–269 of 269 posts

Re: The red warning light on Richard Branson’s space flight

#261

Post by bumby »

lamontcg wrote: post #259
bumby wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Safety regulations aren't just written in blood, that's all they effectively can be written in. I think I may disagree with this. Safety regulations can be written in bloodless terms like probability but, due to all sorts of cognitive biases, people tend to not take them seriously until there is actual physical consequences for ignoring them. E.g., reliability engineers can use real data to show the probability of…

Foam strikes happen all the time and we've never lost a craft, please stop making hyperbolic worst-case assessments about a non-issue, it won't help your career path (or mine).

>we've never lost a craft

Can you explain? My comment was in the context of Columbia.

“An investigation board determined that a large piece of foam fell from the shuttle's external tank and breached the spacecraft wing.”[1]

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt with your definition of “we”. But your tone seems to point directly to the types of biases I referred to. It’s worthwhile to research the history of the industry as an whole.[2] Prior to the disaster, do you know NASAs response? “Foam shedding happens all the time…it’s ‘in family’ and not a problem.” It was still out of spec for a good reason. The term from the investigation report is “normalization of deviance”.

It seems even as technology progresses, we’ll still be anchored by faults in human psychology.

[1] https://www.space.com/amp/19436-columbia-disaster.html

[2]https://www.nasa.gov/columbia/home/CAIB_Vol1.html

Re: The red warning light on Richard Branson’s space flight

#262

Post by jlawson »

achenet wrote: post #85
jlawson wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems humans need a sense of competition to make progress towards any goal beyond the day-to-day. If I have to choose between this and nuclear-armed superpowers intimidating each other with super-accurate rockets - I'll take the billionaires. To be honest I think it's awesome. We need people who are able and willing to push for something beyond the everyday, and it doesn't really matter why they're doing it.

> It seems humans need a sense of competition to make progress towards any goal beyond the day-to-day. No, you're overgeneralizing. As counter-examples: - fitness goals - financial freedom goals (eg the FIRE communities) - altruistic goals - romantic goals (impress a potential partner) are all proof that humans can be motivated by health/desire for physical well-being, kindness, compassion and personal comfort to pro…

Fitness goals are generally related to romatic goals.

Romantic goals are inherently competitive - if you succeed, you're taking the partner from whoever else would have gotten her had you never existed.

Financial freedom isn't competitive really, you're right.

Altruism is borderline, given how much of "altruistic" activity is really about social signaling and competitive status games through conspicuous giving. Even if subconsciously.

All the above are day-to-day goals though, except perhaps altruism. By not day-to-day I mean something beyond satisfying the desires of your physical body to feel good, fuck, eat well, be safe, be admired, etc. Goals about species, deep time, eternal questions, the fate of the environment or the planet.

Re: The red warning light on Richard Branson’s space flight

#263

Post by randomswede »

bumby wrote: post #261
lamontcg wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Foam strikes happen all the time and we've never lost a craft, please stop making hyperbolic worst-case assessments about a non-issue, it won't help your career path (or mine).

> we've never lost a craft Can you explain? My comment was in the context of Columbia . “An investigation board determined that a large piece of foam fell from the shuttle's external tank and breached the spacecraft wing.”[1] I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt with your definition of “we”. But your tone seems to point directly to the types of biases I referred to. It’s worthwhile to research the history of the in…

I think it was an attempt to illustrate the biases that play in and cause safety regulation to be written in blood. Either an attempt at a quote from within NASA, or actually one (I am insufficiently familiar with the entire background of the broken tile to say).

Re: The red warning light on Richard Branson’s space flight

#265

Post by bumby »

randomswede wrote: post #263
bumby wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we've never lost a craft Can you explain? My comment was in the context of Columbia . “An investigation board determined that a large piece of foam fell from the shuttle's external tank and breached the spacecraft wing.”[1] I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt with your definition of “we”. But your tone seems to point directly to the types of biases I referred to. It’s worthwhile to research the history of the in…

I think it was an attempt to illustrate the biases that play in and cause safety regulation to be written in blood. Either an attempt at a quote from within NASA, or actually one (I am insufficiently familiar with the entire background of the broken tile to say).

Ah, ok. That makes complete sense and I just misinterpreted because of the lack of quotes. Thanks for clarifying

Re: The red warning light on Richard Branson’s space flight

#266

Post by NikolaNovak »

greedo wrote: post #244
theelous3 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically warning lights appear when the thing they warn about is impending, not that you've past the point. Otherwise they would be useless, except for existential mockery.

Depends on the UI/UX. An oil indicator light doesn't warn about impending low oil, it tells you your oil is too low. An RPM dial does the same. Other indicators warn of impending issues; stall warnings, wear indicators on tires etc. For an aircraft/spacecraft, red indicators should be used to inform the user to the most critical factors; stall warnings, fuel state warnings etc. And most importantly, the user should b…

Hmm somewhat of an interpretation

Low oil doesn't tell you engine is dead, it tells you of an impending danger that engine may be damaged. There are any number of actions driver can take.

Same for tachometer - red says you are outside design optimal parameters and you should take an action (slow down) rather than risk possible impending engine damage.

Neither is "bad thing happened, it's done, there are no actions you can take any more" in my interpretation.

Re: The red warning light on Richard Branson’s space flight

#267

Post by lamontcg »

bumby wrote: post #265
randomswede wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it was an attempt to illustrate the biases that play in and cause safety regulation to be written in blood. Either an attempt at a quote from within NASA, or actually one (I am insufficiently familiar with the entire background of the broken tile to say).

Ah, ok. That makes complete sense and I just misinterpreted because of the lack of quotes. Thanks for clarifying

Yes that was a hypothetical quote from a NASA manager to an engineer prior to the disaster.

Re: The red warning light on Richard Branson’s space flight

#268

Post by bonestamp2 »

dylan604 wrote: post #107
bonestamp2 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talk Shows are the worst for this. Many of them have a rehearsal with the guests. It's no surprise that all of the guests have amazingly funny or interesting stories about every topic the host brings up. Once you know this is how they work, it's impossible to unsee it when you're watching them. I'm sorry I ruined talk shows for anyone here who may like them.

Whether it is the preshow pre-interview or the post editing decisions, interviews are hard to trust as well now. I say this as someone that has been involved in all of it. However, the pre-interview is actually less about necessarily leading the interview but about helping the interview avoiding the dead air, blank stares, um, uhs, wells, type of stuff. Also, it is a great way to calm the nerves of those being interv…

> Trust me, you should be thankful for them.

Yes, I actually don't mind the pre-interview. It is a sensible thing to do for a variety of reasons. The thing that makes me cringe is more the late night talk shows (not all of them mind you) where the guest provides the questions to the host because they (or their PR people) have written some anecdotes for those questions/topics.

Re: The red warning light on Richard Branson’s space flight

#269

Post by anotheryou »

mabbo wrote: post #62
anotheryou wrote: post #48

I didn't get why the orange or red light is scary. Because it could mean landing in the desert when you are a glider?

You don't 'land in the desert'. It has to come down on a runway. Any risk to that means very high likelihood of injuries or death. Was that the case here? Maybe, maybe not. But the flight plan was built with safety in mind, and the pilots should have aborted.

Makes sense :)

I forgot the space shuttle was also dubbed a flying/gliding brick

Post reply on HN