this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2025
653 points (97.7% liked)

Memes

51531 readers
1572 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] candyman337@lemmy.world 93 points 2 days ago (4 children)

The engineers knew! They begged them to stop the launch, but of course, no one makes the wheels not capitalism stop rolling! ~~profit~~ progress at all costs!

[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 33 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.’”

[–] Zink@programming.dev 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

What you call gut instinct, I call the output of an immensely complex yet efficient organic neural network that has been trained on years to decades of relevant experience.

If business leaders think AI is so great, they need to get in on this shit while they can still afford it!

[–] john_lemmy@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 day ago

Yes! We accept output from a model as data for another model or to make a decision. Expert intuition is still data

[–] kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

no one makes the wheels not capitalism stop rolling! ~~profit~~ progress at all costs!

I am honestly not sure what you're trying to say here but I'm curious what NASA is selling that you threw capitalism in there.

[–] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

It's the system that affects people's clear thinking that is the issue. Not everything is about money or efficiency. Hence the use of capitalism in their sentence.

[–] folaht@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Merchandise. Toys.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Yep, the soviet space program took fewer lives overall.

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I've got this goober tagged as "tankie" in my app, they're quite steadily pro Russian.

[–] Diva@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago

I’ve got this goober tagged as “tankie” in my app

lmao

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I'm a Marxist, sure, very openly so. I don't really think anyone cares about who you've sniffed out to be a commie or not, especially considering I have it plastered all over my profile and frequently outright state it. I wouldn't say "pro-Russian," either, the Russian Federation is deeply flawed and has tragically fallen from their far more progressive Soviet heritage.

I'm very anti-NATO, like the vast majority of Marxists, and I don't fall for the hysteria around the Russian Federation as some ultimate evil, though, so if that's all it takes to be "pro-Russian" for you then that's funny.

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So, you're pro Russian, but smart enough to not outright say it. Because they certainly do a lot of evil stuff.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Being anti-NATO and not falling for the current hysteria that overplays the negative aspects of the RF and underplays the negative aspects of NATO-aligned countries is being "pro-Russian?" I'm far more willing to say I'm pro-PRC, or pro-Cuba, than I would be to say I'm pro-Russian, but I do understand that a lot of countries I support, like Burkina Faso, do rely quite a bit on the RF, and if the RF fell, the west would have a much stronger position in terrorizing the global south.

[–] Diva@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

they already hit the independent thought alarm years ago https://lemmy.nz/post/1227237 i-cant

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

Incredible, lmao.

[–] reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I haven’t forgiven them for sending up a dog and a monkey though

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

And the first ones sent by NASA BTW

[–] reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 9 points 2 days ago

I don’t forgive the nazis or the americans either

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The Nedelin disaster claimed more lives than NASA did over its entire existence.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Nedelin was a part of the millitary rocketry program, not the space program. If you want to include Nedelin, then the ICBM disasters in the US should also be included. The space programs and ICBM programs were very closely related on both sides, but if we strictly keep it to the space program the soviets were safer.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

ICBMs are spaceflight rockets, imo it's best to count them. The US hasn't had such large accidents with ICBMs, mostly minor ones.

Even if we exclude those it's not true. The US has sent significantly more people into space than the Soviets did, so NASAs accident rate was lower (hence safer), even if the absolute number of deaths was higher.

[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

They wouldn't even get there without Russian engines.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 days ago

Spaceflight rockets are ICBMs, if we are being pedantic. The space program was the civilian-facing part of the broader rocketry programs.

Either way, if we exclude them, it is still true, but you can also measure by ratio. It just goes to show that you can manipulate real data to be presented in any way you want, and add or subtract context as needed for your angle.

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Did they have a comparable number of people sent to space?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 days ago

During the space race, sure, from what I can find.

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world -3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Fewer human lives—sure, if you only include verified deaths—but the Soviet space program had considerably more deaths overall once you factor in other animals.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Not actually true, both sides used animal testing.

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Both sides sent animals into space, and many didn't return. Animal testing in particular isn't something unknown to science, nor was it done out of intentional cruelty nor for the purpose of profits, like the cosmetics industry. I feel like you're narrowing in on something that ultimately isn't an equivalent comparison, especially when compared to the scale of the food industry and its systematized mass brutality every second of every day.