The main problem is they didn't use reusable rockets, so these couldn't be properly tested before putting a human crew in.
This problem seems mostly solved now.
The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and the over-reliance on PowerPoint (2019)
121–130 of 185 posts
Re: The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and the over-reliance on PowerPoint (2019)
#122This isn't a failure of PowerPoint. I work for NASA and we still use it all the time, and I'll assure anyone that the communication errors are rife regardless of what medium we're working in. The issue is differences in the way that in-the-weeds engineers and managers interpret technical information, which is alluded to in the article but the author still focuses on the bullets and the PowerPoint, as if rewriting sim…
If nothing else it's quite hard/uncommon to print out a PowerPoint and read it carefully in a quiet room by yourself, I do this with written stuff all the time.
The whole point of PowerPoint is to pander to people who can't or don't want to sit down and carefully read a report. They want to sit back and passively consume information like they were watching TV. The problem then isn't so much PowerPoint itself, but rather these quasi illiterate people being in decision making positions. That's the real problem, and PowerPoint is just a symptom.
Re: The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and the over-reliance on PowerPoint (2019)
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
One option would have been to place whatever high melting point metal tools they could spare into the hole, and freeze water around them to hold it in place. It also might have been possible to change the series of s-curves and other maneuvers done during re-entry, in order to lessen the heating on the left wing.
Frozen water would have exploded at reentry
Source? It would be solid water ice, mostly surrounded by shuttle wing structure, in a low-g reentry. Not an "ice & volatiles & etc." meteor in a high-g situation.
Re: The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and the over-reliance on PowerPoint (2019)
#124I don't see how this has anything to do with PowerPoint. There wasn't clear communication; the medium was completely incidental to that. They could have been writing on a chalkboard and had a communication failure, does that mean that chalkboards should be blamed in that case?
The medium is the message.
PowerPoint gets used because it requires less effort from the audience. They sit back and zone out like couch potatoes. Scrap the PowerPoint and throw the technical report at the managers. Any of them who complain or otherwise don't read it are incompetent and should be fired on the spot.
Re: The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and the over-reliance on PowerPoint (2019)
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's funny how the thankless jobs of quality assurance become so critical so quickly. And I mean that ironically of course. To folks out there: do the important work, not the glamorous work, and you'll not only sleep well, but you might actually matter as well.
Yes, but first it has to go horribly wrong. Same for security. After the breach there is plenty of budget.
Many years ago I had a fascination with security and fancied becoming the CISO for the multinational I was working for at the time - my boss at the time, the CIO, said the role would really have no power and would be there as a sacrificial lamb should there actually be a serious security breach. This rather put me off the idea.
Re: The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and the over-reliance on PowerPoint (2019)
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Be…
We're talking about something a lot more technically sophisticated than a B2B SAAS CRUD web app. PhD level education is considered a prerequisite.
Sure mate, because taking a messy list of confusing statements and turning it into something like: "High risk of failure on re-entry - foam strike more than 600 times bigger than test data - test data unfit to support decision as flight condition is significantly outside of test database" requires a PhD in Materials Science.
If you can't effectively communicate how the results (or lack of results) of your research will impact the outcome of a high-stakes space mission you have no business being in that room from the start.
Re: The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and the over-reliance on PowerPoint (2019)
#127The main problem is they didn't use reusable rockets, so these couldn't be properly tested before putting a human crew in. This problem seems mostly solved now.
What would "proper testing" look like, to have caught and corrected the fatal design flaw?
The shuttle was about as reusable as the Falcon 9 is now. Though at vastly higher expense.
Re: The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and the over-reliance on PowerPoint (2019)
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but first it has to go horribly wrong. Same for security. After the breach there is plenty of budget.
Many years ago I had a fascination with security and fancied becoming the CISO for the multinational I was working for at the time - my boss at the time, the CIO, said the role would really have no power and would be there as a sacrificial lamb should there actually be a serious security breach. This rather put me off the idea.
Your comment should be required reading for any CISO that finds themselves without mandate, budget or support from upper management.
Re: The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and the over-reliance on PowerPoint (2019)
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Be…
Actually most engineers would complain about the slides shown here. The issue is not the technicality or depth of the content but on the way it is presented and shown. I'm
it depends, I noticed that many engineers will input information on a slide following their thought process closely, they rarely think about the audience's perspective, especially if the audience is less technical or not familiar with the domain.
Re: The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and the over-reliance on PowerPoint (2019)
#130This isn't a failure of PowerPoint. I work for NASA and we still use it all the time, and I'll assure anyone that the communication errors are rife regardless of what medium we're working in. The issue is differences in the way that in-the-weeds engineers and managers interpret technical information, which is alluded to in the article but the author still focuses on the bullets and the PowerPoint, as if rewriting sim…
I feel that. I looked at the powerpoint from the post and I cringed because it looks just like the kind of thing I could have written, with half finished thoughts all over the place masquerading as something a decider could use...