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

31–40 of 185 posts

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

#31

Post by nettlin »

Discussed at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19668161

I found it surprising that the slide in the article uses Calibri, a typeface that wasn’t publicly available at the time. The original discussion confirms that the slide in the article is a recreation of the original one:

> The slide in the article has the same text, but is a recreation of the original (The Calibri typeface used wasn't part of PowerPoint until 2007).

> The original slide can be seen in the full report linked in the article:

> https://www.edwardtufte.com

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

#32

Post by ceejayoz »

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…

There really should have been one large bold font slide saying “we have no test data for a piece of foam this size”.

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

#33

Post by gjejcjekdnfnwja »

wat10000 wrote: post #30
gjejcjekdnfnwja wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People with a high school level education should not have been making life and death decisions about the Space Shuttle.

First of all, is that actually their level of education or are you just making stuff up? Second, that's irrelevant to my point that the engineer is responsible for communicating, not just figuring stuff out. You cannot say "if you don't get it, that's your problem" when their not getting it means people die.

The slide in the OP is a completely standard way of commumicating information in the aerospace industry. If the NASA personnel had problems understanding this slide, then they also had problems understanding virtually every other piece of technical info that was ever communicated to them by a third party. College level reading comprehension means being able to understand nuance, which this slide conveys.

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

#34

Post by wat10000 »

gjejcjekdnfnwja wrote: post #33
wat10000 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, is that actually their level of education or are you just making stuff up? Second, that's irrelevant to my point that the engineer is responsible for communicating, not just figuring stuff out. You cannot say "if you don't get it, that's your problem" when their not getting it means people die.

The slide in the OP is a completely standard way of commumicating information in the aerospace industry. If the NASA personnel had problems understanding this slide, then they also had problems understanding virtually every other piece of technical info that was ever communicated to them by a third party. College level reading comprehension means being able to understand nuance, which this slide conveys.

All you're doing here is convincing me that this wasn't a one-off and the aerospace industry has a pervasive problem with communication.

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

#35

Post by renewiltord »

firesteelrain wrote: post #20
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.

That's a good counterexample. We can count that in software engineering. Can't say I expected Boeing software engineers to be any good. Dregs of the field but they still count as in the field. Aerospace software engineering quality substantially lacking, it's true.

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

#36

Post by hinkley »

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 spent too much if my early career dealing with the consequences of bad decisions made on “good data”. If the presentation was so good why did they come to the wrong conclusions? It became part of my overall thesis that good design invites you to use a thing the proper way even if you failed to read the instructions.

You can’t force someone to think but you can force a lot of people not to, or you can make it difficult to avoid. It’s worth investing the energy into stacking the deck the right way.

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

#37

Post by fhdbdnfnndnn »

wat10000 wrote: post #34
gjejcjekdnfnwja wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The slide in the OP is a completely standard way of commumicating information in the aerospace industry. If the NASA personnel had problems understanding this slide, then they also had problems understanding virtually every other piece of technical info that was ever communicated to them by a third party. College level reading comprehension means being able to understand nuance, which this slide conveys.

All you're doing here is convincing me that this wasn't a one-off and the aerospace industry has a pervasive problem with communication.

The average IQ and level of English proficiency is much higher in aerospace than it is building web apps.

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

#38

Post by hinkley »

gjejcjekdnfnwja wrote: post #21
cntainer wrote: post #19

Earlier 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.

PhD in what though?

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

#39

Post by hinkley »

wat10000 wrote: post #28
cntainer wrote: post #19

Earlier 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…

It's really terrible. It's basically: > Everything is fine. > Stuff is good. > There's no problem. > It's all going great. > Actually, everyone on board is likely to die.

Someone didn’t learn about anchoring in business 101.

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

#40

Post by scrlk »

gjejcjekdnfnwja wrote: post #21
cntainer wrote: post #19

Earlier 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.

Isn't this a stronger argument for making sure that things are communicated clearly?
Post reply on HN