Memes

nukes

Can't be 'ruined' in the sense that they were important for military purposes before they created the ridiculous space force.
Even Boeing, a private company that with all their failures and criminal behavior should definitely be bankrupt, gets massive help bcs they're a military contractor.

Imagine a space organization almost be>ng ruined by one explosion! NASA is obviously too weak to handle space.

You actually didn’t watch people get blown up live. The crew survived the fire blast—it was the crash into the water ~3 mins later that killed them.

It's the "not handling" part that gets us as kids. We knew better. Adults didn't. In my case, I was in high school, but it was on a "Teacher workday, student holiday" we had each semester. I watched it live on NASA TV, which we had on channel UHF 55 in the DC area. Even the voice of mission control delayed about a minute or two. I remember thinking, "THAT didn't look good..." but then they said nothing but normal speed and temp readings, so I thought it was just the angle of the chase plane. Only when the famous "forked cloud" appeared that the announcer said, "we have an apparent major malfunction," or something.

Maybe it's because it's because I just finished reading this section in Range, but I think it's more than the engineers knew.

When sociologist Diane Vaughan interviewed NASA and Thiokol engineers who had worked on the rocket boosters, she found that NASA’s own famous can-do culture manifested as a belief that everything would be fine because “we followed every procedure”; because “the [flight readiness review] process is aggressive and adversarial”; because “we went by the book.” NASA’s tools were its familiar procedures. The rules had always worked before. But with Challenger they were outside their usual bounds, where “can do” should have been swapped for what Weick calls a “make do” culture. They needed to improvise rather than throw out information that did not fit the established rubric.

Roger Boisjoly’s unquantifiable argument that the cold weather was “away from goodness” was considered an emotional argument in NASA culture. It was based on interpretation of a photograph. It did not conform to the usual quantitative standards, so it was deemed inadmissible evidence and disregarded. The can-do attitude among the rocket-booster group, Vaughan observed, “was grounded in conformity.” After the tragedy, it emerged that other engineers on the teleconference agreed with Boisjoly, but knew they could not muster quantitative arguments, so they remained silent. Their silence was taken as consent. As one engineer who was on the Challenger conference call later said, “If I feel like I don’t have data to back me up, the boss’s opinion is better than mine.”

I think most of us believe decisions should be data driven, but in some edge cases gut instinct is valuable.

It is easy to say in retrospect. A group of managers accustomed to dispositive technical information did not have any; engineers felt like they should not speak up without it. Decades later, an astronaut who flew on the space shuttle, both before and after Challenger, and then became NASA’s chief of safety and mission assurance, recounted what the “In God We Trust, All Others Bring Data” plaque had meant to him: “Between the lines it suggested that, ‘We’re not interested in your opinion on things. If you have data, we’ll listen, but your opinion is not requested here.’”

LOL
Perfect time for some biblethumping

🤣...the teacher chose threatening with hellfire and brimstone. OMG.