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

The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and the over-reliance on PowerPoint (2019)

mcdreeamiemusings.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 185 posts

Re: The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and the over-reliance on PowerPoint (2019)

#11

Post by renewiltord »

Another example of "guy can't spell" => "he's retarded". If you can't get everything right, you probably got lots of things wrong.

It also shows why software engineers are superior engineers. The history of software engineering has some single-digit kills, at most 20 in total. Meanwhile, shuttle engineers are supposed to be the best in the aerospace business and they've lost some 13 or so? All aerospace would be put in the thousands.

An old saying is "Any fool can build a bridge. It takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands". But these are fools who built bridges that didn't stand.

One day, I will teach them real engineering: It is Rails backend with React frontend. Zero kills. Life above all.

BTW: Here's is the original content with Tufte review https://www.edwardtufte.com/wp-content/uploads/bboard/images...

Re: The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and the over-reliance on PowerPoint (2019)

#12

Post by bpt3 »

gjejcjekdnfnwja wrote: post #10

As an engineer, that slide looks completely reasonable to me. Its purpose was to communicate technical info, which it did adequately. Keep in mind that the subject matter is highly technical, given that we're literally talking about the Space Shuttle, and more than a high school level of reading comprehension is heavily implied. If the NASA personnel weren't competent enough to review technical data without a pithy s…

They should have made it abundantly clear that they had no idea what was going to happen and that loss of the crew and shuttle was a real possibility, but I agree with you.

This slide was presented with a verbal talk track, and anyone who can't handle focusing on the topic because the slide is boring shouldn't be in a position of responsibility.

Re: The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and the over-reliance on PowerPoint (2019)

#13

Post by ahazred8ta »

kg wrote: post #2

I've been slowly refining a pitch deck over the past couple years and the feedback from reviews and test pitches has strongly reinforced for me just how important it is for slides to be short and laid out precisely. You want the most important information in the right places, communicated with as few words as possible, using the most accurate words possible. You want the key takeaways to be the things that people are…

"Kings, heroes, and gods use a short and direct form of speech." -- theater maxim

Re: The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and the over-reliance on PowerPoint (2019)

#14

Post by tekla »

suzzer99 wrote: post #7

How realistic was the idea of sending another shuttle up to rescue them? Would they have had enough oxygen? If they did a spacewalk and found the damage, what were their options?

They did a bunch of studies. While it was POSSIBLE to get a rescue shuttle up to them if they ignored a bunch of safety and refurbishment procedures, the sheer amount of complexities probably meant they would lose 2 shuttles and 2 crew.

Re: The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and the over-reliance on PowerPoint (2019)

#15

Post by socalgal2 »

This was an interesting article but it doesn't really provide solutions. I watched a few tech talks teaching a new API. Most slides were split, left side bullet poitns, right side either code or an image. As I was watching I was thinking "isn't this supposed to be almost the worst style"? but I was also thinking "I can't think of any way to do this better". It's an API. It requires examples. And it requires something describing what to concentrate on, what the example or image is showing.

I've been the plenty of great talks with just images, no words. But they fit the type of talk. I'm not sure an API talk would be better without bullet points. If you know of some to reference, please post links.

Re: The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and the over-reliance on PowerPoint (2019)

#16

Post by js2 »

suzzer99 wrote: post #7

How realistic was the idea of sending another shuttle up to rescue them? Would they have had enough oxygen? If they did a spacewalk and found the damage, what were their options?

> There was actually an exercise done to work this out, at the direction of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB). [...] In the CAIB’s scenario, Atlantis would have launched with a four-person crew: two pilots, and two EVA mission specialists. [...]

> A Columbia rescue mission would have been the most monumentally difficult and epic space mission in history, and it would have required absolutely everything going right to bring the crew home safely. But NASA has shown time and again its ability to rise to the occasion and bring its formidable engineering and piloting expertise to bear. Instead, the worst instincts of the agency - to micromanage and engage in wishful thinking instead of clear-eyed analysis - doomed the crew.

https://www.quora.com/If-NASA-had-known-ahead-of-time-Columb...

A much more deeply researched article here:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/the-audacious-rescue...

Re: The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and the over-reliance on PowerPoint (2019)

#17

Post by klaff »

socalgal2 wrote: post #15

This was an interesting article but it doesn't really provide solutions. I watched a few tech talks teaching a new API. Most slides were split, left side bullet poitns, right side either code or an image. As I was watching I was thinking "isn't this supposed to be almost the worst style"? but I was also thinking "I can't think of any way to do this better". It's an API. It requires examples. And it requires something…

Tufte did make specific recommendations that one should prepare a real document that your audience can and should read, and that they would have in front of them during the meeting. I'm not sure how best to translate that to your API example.

Re: The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and the over-reliance on PowerPoint (2019)

#18

Post by Full_Clark »

kg wrote: post #2

I've been slowly refining a pitch deck over the past couple years and the feedback from reviews and test pitches has strongly reinforced for me just how important it is for slides to be short and laid out precisely. You want the most important information in the right places, communicated with as few words as possible, using the most accurate words possible. You want the key takeaways to be the things that people are…

it's also important to know your audience. If they've spent their career reading technical papers or dense prose, that's one thing.

If they've largely grown up in the social media era and click away from reels/shorts that don't have animated captions, you'd design a very different deck.

Re: The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and the over-reliance on PowerPoint (2019)

#19

Post by cntainer »

gjejcjekdnfnwja wrote: post #10

As an engineer, that slide looks completely reasonable to me. Its purpose was to communicate technical info, which it did adequately. Keep in mind that the subject matter is highly technical, given that we're literally talking about the Space Shuttle, and more than a high school level of reading comprehension is heavily implied. If the NASA personnel weren't competent enough to review technical data without a pithy s…

I can't remember the last time I saw a slide as mangled as the one in the article. It hurts my brain just reading it.

But you are right, most engineers would consider that reasonable, while complaining about the "muggles" that just don't get it.

As a Software Architect, one of my main responsibilities has been to take information presented like above and turn it into something that non-technical people can digest.

Being able to express a complex concept in simple terms is an invaluable skill.

Re: The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and the over-reliance on PowerPoint (2019)

#20

Post by firesteelrain »

renewiltord wrote: post #11

Another example of "guy can't spell" => "he's retarded". If you can't get everything right, you probably got lots of things wrong. It also shows why software engineers are superior engineers. The history of software engineering has some single-digit kills, at most 20 in total. Meanwhile, shuttle engineers are supposed to be the best in the aerospace business and they've lost some 13 or so? All aerospace would be put…

One could argue otherwise such as the Boeing 787 MAX MCAS Software Design.
Post reply on HN