51–60 of 204 posts
Alternative title: death by ears, how failing to listen and communicate killed seven people.
My own personal experience is that it's easier to be concerned with the small things (we have to have naming conventions), than with big things (are we building the right thing). I think there is a tendency to think "it'll probably work out".
Another NASA screw-up that they're trying to pin on the vendor engineers, just like Challenger. The title is not reassuring. Conservatism in engineering is essentially about creating safety margins through conservative estimation. The title is saying we need to be careful because a tile was likely penetrated. Hell, if I remember correctly they were reporting that there was known tile damage on the news before reentry…
A quick and dirty re-writing of the title (and slide):
_______________
Review of Test data indicates incident is well outside of safety margins.
- Volume of ramp is 1920 cu in vs 3 cu in for test
- Once tile is penetrated SOFI can cause significant damage.
- Flight condition significantly outside of test database
_______________
Now that should get a reader's attention.
Another NASA screw-up that they're trying to pin on the vendor engineers, just like Challenger. The title is not reassuring. Conservatism in engineering is essentially about creating safety margins through conservative estimation. The title is saying we need to be careful because a tile was likely penetrated. Hell, if I remember correctly they were reporting that there was known tile damage on the news before reentry…
You're being downvoted because the entire process that lead to this decision has been massively analyzed and the root causes were determined.
Another NASA screw-up that they're trying to pin on the vendor engineers, just like Challenger. The title is not reassuring. Conservatism in engineering is essentially about creating safety margins through conservative estimation. The title is saying we need to be careful because a tile was likely penetrated. Hell, if I remember correctly they were reporting that there was known tile damage on the news before reentry…
And, for context, Edward Tufte, whose review of the slides is being referenced in this article, is the same one who misunderstood and misrepresented what the actual issue was during the briefing the night before the Challenger launch, in his paper reviewing the presentation the engineers made then.
Edit: previous HN discussions of Tufte's Challenger review here:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I came in knowing the outcome, and roughly the point being made, but still found the conclusion of the slide hard to suss out. There were other failures in the chain as well for sure, but I don't think this is just a hit job on NASA vendors.
The title of this post is claiming this slide killed 7 people. That's a pretty bold and accusatory claim that seems to leave out the other failures, right?
> This, however, is the story of a PowerPoint slide that actually _helped_ kill seven people.
> There were a number of options. The astronauts could perform a spacewalk and visually inspect the hull. NASA could launch another Space Shuttle to pick the crew up. Or they could risk re-entry. That's not how I remember it being presented to the public. The official word at the time was that there were no feasible rescue options. Yes, they could have done a spacewalk to inspect the damage but if it had been bad the…
Atlantis was already scheduled for launch 41 days after Columbia. Columbia had ~30 days of air. NASA believed that Atlantis prep could have been accelerated and launched in time to attempt a rescue.
I've seen presentations with Powerpoint that suck the life out of you and also ones that inspire and excite. It's not the tool, it's the presenter and how they wield the tool. Reading word for word off a text-heavy deck in a monotone with no images or diagrams is a recipe for disaster. I tend to have my decks (back when I was doing presentations) be relatively text-lite and involve images/diagrams that back up my tal…
PowerPoint decks for the upper tiers of an organization can take on a whole different character. I shit you not that it's common to pass them around in email as if they were a document format, even for information that is never intended or expected to be presented. As if they were PDFs or something. It's crazy. [EDIT] There's also a kind of horrendous, illegible house style some places, that's expected to be how thes…
Another NASA screw-up that they're trying to pin on the vendor engineers, just like Challenger. The title is not reassuring. Conservatism in engineering is essentially about creating safety margins through conservative estimation. The title is saying we need to be careful because a tile was likely penetrated. Hell, if I remember correctly they were reporting that there was known tile damage on the news before reentry…
(not the one that downvoted your comment btw)
Another NASA screw-up that they're trying to pin on the vendor engineers, just like Challenger. The title is not reassuring. Conservatism in engineering is essentially about creating safety margins through conservative estimation. The title is saying we need to be careful because a tile was likely penetrated. Hell, if I remember correctly they were reporting that there was known tile damage on the news before reentry…
I tried to read the powerpoint and it was not an easy task. The main point of the powerpoint is not supposed to be an answer to a riddle of fonts and words. A quick and dirty re-writing of the title (and slide): _______________ Review of Test data indicates incident is well outside of safety margins. - Volume of ramp is 1920 cu in vs 3 cu in for test - Once tile is penetrated SOFI can cause significant damage. - Flig…
"Given this, we strongly recommend against launch"