Shuttle Destroyed by... PowerPoint?

[Pangloss]

Catchy titles aside, nobody's actually suggesting that Microsoft or PowerPoint killed the shuttle. The idea here is that poor information management, perhaps spurred on by misplaced/inappropriate use of tools like PowerPoint, contributed to the loss of Columbia. This has come up before, but this particular op/ed piece (see link below) takes an interesting look at it.

 

I know a bit about this problem from first-hand experience (as I'm sure many of us do). I teach MCSE and other types of computer training courses, and I've "done the PowerPoint thing". Nothing puts students to sleep faster, quite frankly. Today I won't have anything to do with them. I walk the room, ask questions, try to get people involved. It's SO much better for everyone -- even me. Students (and me) not only stay awake, they're more responsive, more interested, more motivated, more entertained... clearly they're (gasp) learning!

 

But of course it's a little different here -- one would think that engineers charged with the responsibility of protecting astronaut's lives and billions of dollars worth of equipment would be able to stay awake. But I guess this just goes to show that human nature is human nature.

 

Here are a couple of interesting quotes:

 

"It is easy to understand how a senior manager might read this PowerPoint slide and not realize that it addresses a life-threatening situation," the Columbia Accident Investigation Board concluded, citing Tufte's work. The board devoted a full page of its 2003 report to the issue, criticizing a space agency culture in which, it said, "the endemic use of PowerPoint" substituted for rigorous technical analysis.

 

The soul-sapping essence of PowerPoint was captured perfectly in a spoof of the Gettysburg Address by computer whiz Peter Norvig of Google. It featured Abe Lincoln fumbling with his computer ("Just a second while I get this connection to work. Do I press this button here? Function-F7?") and collapsing his speech into six slides, complete with a bar chart depicting four score and seven years.

 

For example, Slide 4:

 

"Review of Key Objectives & Critical Success Factors

 

· What makes nation unique

-- Conceived in liberty

 

-- Men are equal

 

 

· Shared vision

 

-- New birth of freedom

 

-- Gov't of/by/for the people."

 

The most disturbing development in the world of PowerPoint is its migration to the schools -- like sex and drugs, at earlier and earlier ages. Now we have second-graders being tutored in PowerPoint. No matter that students who compose at the keyboard already spend more energy perfecting their fonts than polishing their sentences -- PowerPoint dispenses with the need to write any sentences at all. Perhaps the politicians who are so worked up about the ill effects of violent video games should turn their attention to PowerPoint instead.

 

 

Try this link to go around registration:

http://www.newsisfree.com/iclick/i,95353514,2093,f/

 

Official article link at the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/29/AR2005082901444.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

[Pangloss]

Just for giggles and grins, I made the slide:

 

 

We could really have some fun with that....

[Thomas Kirby]

People who can make clear statements can do so even with a ballpoint pen. Those who can't have to compensate for their inadequacies. Don't let it happen to you, Pangloss.

[Glider]

I think presentation software is handy if you're teaching to large groups (>100). However, I think it's too often 'overused' and so the information becomes buried in the 'whistle & bells' features; animation, sound effects etc..

 

I use powerpoint when teaching, but I use it mainly to present images that illustrate what I'm talking about. I use text simply as a 'place marker', i.e. simple headings to show 'This is what we're discussing now'.

 

I don't use powerpoint to present my whole lecture. That's my job. However, I do see others who have written their entire lectures in powerpoint and then they just (more or less) read from the screen. That's pointless. It's overload for the students (nobody can read and listen at the same time, and in this case, it's p[ointless anyway) and makes the lecturer redundant.

 

There are others who think using all the features powerpoint has to offer in the same lecture in some way keeps the students interested (again, that's supposed to be the lecturer's job). It doesn't. It confuses people and buries the information.

[Thomas Kirby]

People who are in authority often have the tendency to keep everyone underneath them operating at a lower mental level than they do. What is the use in hiring aeronautic experts if you intend to overrule their advice that no vehicle can safely re-enter the atmosphere with a hole in the leading edge of a wing? Or if you intend to land the damn thing without examining the wing, as if this were some kind of intelligent thing to do, when a huge chunk of foam hit it at 500 mph? Impact like that is like a cannonball, and it doesn't take a fancy degree to know that, or it shouldn't.

 

The shuttle was destroyed by sheer stupidity. It is almost like throwing that stupidity in our faces, too, telling us that they had video of that piece of foam hitting the wing, then telling us that they decided to take that chance.

[Pangloss]

That's a little harsh. It's clear now that nothing could have saved the astronauts, for example. But I agree that management screwed the pooch, as they say.

 

The engineering teams said little for 20+ years while foam was hitting the shuttle the entire time. What changed was the addition of high resolution photography at the launch site. Columbia's ill-fated launch was the first time they'd ever seen anything that big falling off the tank on takeoff, and engineers were SPLIT about what it meant. Most of them agreed that further investigation and testing should be initiated, and management supported that decision, but of course that could not help Columbia.

 

As far as investigating the damage, that was not possible on that mission. The manned maneuvering unit (jet pack) was not on board, and there was nothing for the EVA astronauts to fasten themselves on to in order to take a look at the underside of the shuttle. They don't carry ropes/tethers/etc. Had any damage been found, no tools existed on board the shuttle or the space station to carry out a repair. And insufficient supplies were on board to wait the weeks-to-months it would have taken to launch another shuttle.

 

Worst of all, it was not possible for the shuttle to reach the International Space Station. The calculations are pretty straightfoward (though certainly beyond my reach) and if I remember correctly it couldn't have made it even with a full fuel load, because of the particular inclination of this launch.

 

Even if it had been able to make it to the space station, it did not carry the docking mechanism. All crew members would have had to transfer via EVA, and only two EVA suits were on board (and only two of the crew members were trained on EVA). But it's possible they could have worked all that out.

 

But getting back to management's error, there are literally millions of decisions they have to make for each launch, MANY of which have similar, KNOWN probabilities of disaster. I agree that they made a poor choice, and so did the accident investigation board (agree), but I don't think it's a case of sheer stupidity. More like a case of institutional blindness.

 

As Dr. Richard Feynman put it after his participation in the Challenger accident review board:

 

"It appears that there are enormous differences of opinion as to the probability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life. The estimates range from roughly 1 in 100 to 1 in 100,000. The higher figures come from the working engineers, and the very low figures from management. What are the causes and consequences of this lack of agreement? ... we could properly ask "What is the cause of management's fantastic faith in the machinery?"

 

One of his more eloquent statements, IMO. RIP, Doc.

 

 

Incidentally, the facility which manufactures the external fuel tank was heavily damaged by Hurricane Katrina.

 

 

Good Resources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Accident_Investigation_Board

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Shuttle_accident

http://www.io.com/~o_m/clfaq/clfaq.htm

 

The last link is NASA's now-famous Columbia accident FAQ. Quite an interesting read. I believe the link to section eight is broken, but if you look closely at the URLs under your hovering mouse you can probably figure it out.

[Thomas Kirby]

Yes, of course, "institutional blindness" is a much better excuse. I'm all better now.

[Pangloss]

Yes, of course, scorn accomplishes so much more than hard analysis and fact. I'm so sorry for bothering you with science on the Science Forums.

[Thomas Kirby]

The scorn is for people who have made space travel the way it is now. The last shuttle disaster occured more than 35 years after the first moon landing. You think it was unavoidable for all those reasons which add up to lack of preparedness. You are the one who used "institutional blindness" as an excuse. What was it that you were thinking could have been learned that would have prevented the disaster if someone had made the right slide show? And what is missing in our technology if the shuttle can't match orbits with the space station when it needs to?

 

How it can be excusable to not be prepared for obvious problems is beyond me. "Institutional blindness" is another word for incompetence. So is "we just didn't bring the right equipment." It's a very basic kind of incompetence.

[Pangloss]

I didn't say it was unavoidable.

 

I agree there was a lack of preparedness, and my position is that it's based on institutional blindness. That's NOT an excuse, Thomas, that's an assessment based on facts. I'm not removing blame or suggesting that NASA is in any way less culpable or responsible for the loss of those lives.

 

See, that's the difference between you and me, Thomas. I look for answers. You look for people to BLAME. One of us improves society. The other one does not. All you can do with that little rant of yours is make people feel bad. By shedding the light of TRUTH on the subject, on the other hand, we can move forward and build a future where such things do not happen. If it were up to you, we would never have gone to the moon, much less built a space shuttle, because you'd be too busy crucifying people for the deaths of Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee. (Look it up.)

 

Science is about getting at the truth. Not about blaming people based on faith. That's why you can't sell your hateful, scorn-filled message here, Thomas. This isn't a church, and your faith-based message counts for very little here.