Death by PowerPoint: the slide that killed seven people (2019)
Another NASA screw-up that they're trying to pin on the vendor engineers, just like Challenger.<p>The title is <i>not</i> 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, but that they didn't know the extent.<p>"NASA felt the engineers didn’t know what would happen but that all data pointed to there not being enough damage to put the lives of the crew in danger."<p>If you thought they didn't know, then ask them what they do know! It's right on the slide that flight conditions are outside of test parameters and that the mass of the projectile was much higher. How the F do you work at NASA and not understand the basic principles of mass, velocity, and energy well enough for that to stand out enough to ask questions or run your own calculations...<p>The reason the slide is laid out the way it is, is because it's describing the thought process and creates a deductive argument for how they got to their concern. This is a presentation for a <i>briefing for other engineers</i>, not a conference or sales pitch. It's supposed to be formal and contain the synopsis of technical points. Using projectors for technical briefings predates the use of PowerPoint. I see nothing wrong with the layout in that context.<p>Edit: why downvote without a reply? NASA has a history of blaming vendors when they screw up. This looks like another example to me. The presentation format does not have any issues given the setting and target audience.