Most active commenters
  • cntainer(3)

←back to thread

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

(mcdreeamiemusings.com)
210 points scapecast | 16 comments | 28 Aug 25 21:44 UTC | HN request time: 0.443s | source | bottom
Show context
gjejcjekdnfnwja ◴[29 Aug 25 00:46 UTC] No.45058702[source]▶
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 summary, that's on them.
replies(12): >>45058746 #>>45058884 #>>45058926 #>>45058940 #>>45058950 #>>45058984 #>>45059072 #>>45059150 #>>45059232 #>>45061181 #>>45061650 #>>45069334 #
1. cntainer ◴[29 Aug 25 01:11 UTC] No.45058884[source]▶
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.

replies(4): >>45058917 #>>45058962 #>>45059098 #>>45061237 #
2. gjejcjekdnfnwja ◴[29 Aug 25 01:17 UTC] No.45058917[source]▶
We're talking about something a lot more technically sophisticated than a B2B SAAS CRUD web app. PhD level education is considered a prerequisite.
replies(6): >>45059080 #>>45059085 #>>45059777 #>>45061197 #>>45061247 #>>45062041 #
3. wat10000 ◴[29 Aug 25 01:23 UTC] No.45058962[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>45059083 #
4. hinkley ◴[29 Aug 25 01:41 UTC] No.45059080[source]▶
PhD in what though?
5. hinkley ◴[29 Aug 25 01:42 UTC] No.45059083[source]▶
Someone didn’t learn about anchoring in business 101.
6. scrlk ◴[29 Aug 25 01:42 UTC] No.45059085[source]▶
Isn't this a stronger argument for making sure that things are communicated clearly?
7. GarnetFloride ◴[29 Aug 25 01:44 UTC] No.45059098[source]▶
If you want a slide to really hurt your brain search for “Iraq war PowerPoint slide”

The principles of that slide apply to a lot of other circumstances.

replies(1): >>45060041 #
8. ◴[29 Aug 25 03:19 UTC] No.45059777[source]▶
9. phonon ◴[29 Aug 25 04:02 UTC] No.45060041[source]▶
This?

https://armsandinfluence.typepad.com/photos/arms_and_influen...

replies(2): >>45060839 #>>45066983 #
10. Earw0rm ◴[29 Aug 25 06:24 UTC] No.45060839{3}[source]▶
If it weren't for the millions of lives ruined, that would be hilarious.

Has anyone checked in with Daesh about their Q3 OKRs?

11. ◴[29 Aug 25 07:22 UTC] No.45061197[source]▶
12. poulpy123 ◴[29 Aug 25 07:30 UTC] No.45061237[source]▶
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
replies(1): >>45062079 #
13. poulpy123 ◴[29 Aug 25 07:32 UTC] No.45061247[source]▶
No PhD I know (several hundreds, in physics) would ever consider this slide remotely acceptable
14. cntainer ◴[29 Aug 25 09:39 UTC] No.45062041[source]▶
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.

15. cntainer ◴[29 Aug 25 09:45 UTC] No.45062079[source]▶
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.
16. GarnetFloride ◴[29 Aug 25 17:29 UTC] No.45066983{3}[source]▶
I misremembered it’s the Afghanistan slide https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/apr/29/mcchry...