7 ms·

In many ways, this is an update of the Titanic story of technological hubris, with the twist that the man who was right, who fought hard to prevent what he fore

In many ways, this is an update of the Titanic story of technological hubris, with the twist that the man who was right, who fought hard to prevent what he foresaw, who was briefly relieved when his dire predictions seemed to be wrong, was still dogged by the event for the rest of his life. We don't know how those who were on the wrong side of the issue coped, and they should not be pressured to make public anything beyond what the inquiry required, but it seems plausible to me that those who could persuade themselves that they made the right decision, given the circumstances and despite the outcome, probably fared best. That is usually the case. Edward Tufte tried to suggest that Boisjoly could have presented his case more effectively. Tufte may have been thinking purely pedagogically, but regardless, the implied criticism was unjustified, as Boisjoly's point should have been clear to anyone familiar with the issue, and in fact it was clear to quite a few, though unfortunately not to the few who mattered, and I doubt that, for them, a different presentation would have made a difference. We can't always be right, and we can't all be heroes, but I hope we can all avoid being the person who said to Boisjoly, when it appeared that Boisjoly's testimony might be fatal to Morton Thiokol, that he would leave his children for Boisjoly to raise if he lost his job.

Aloha 8y ago
What do you consider the primary technological hubris of Titanic? To be clearer - the hubris of Titanic wasn't technological, it was operational - it was going too fast, in an ice field, with a lack of lookouts - beyond this, it didnt reduce speed after ice was spotted. Yes, there were issues, damage to such a small portion of the ship (less than 1/3) shouldn't have caused it to sink (I'll note, many other ships had similar or worse flaws than Titanic did). The lifeboats on the other hand (as most commonly cited) are not a real issue - Titanic started launching boats about 25 min after it struck the iceberg, which is about how long a damage survey would take. It had not launched all 20 boats by the time the forward list became so great that they were unable to launch more - this doesn't even touch the multitudes below decks, many of whom didnt speak english, or were unable to be moved up to the boat deck in a timely enough fashion. I'd also like to share something I dug up from the internet[1]: "As far as I can determine, Titanic is the single example of a passenger ship that sank with decks level. It was probably the only time in history when lifeboats could be launched from both sides simultaneously. The Andrea Doria sinking is a more typical event. In that case, half of the lifeboats were rendered useless by the cant of the decks. Given the testimony that Titanic was "lolling" as it foundered (listing from side to side), it is highly probable that carrying sufficient lifeboats would have raised the center of gravity sufficiently to have caused a permanent list early in the evening. In other words, the weight of those extra boats might have created a situation in which they could not have been used, anyway. And, it is conveniently overlooked that from the moment when launching boats became necessary until the moment when it became impossible was not long enough to launch the 24 boats the ship carried. If it had carried more boats, they could not have been filled and launched properly. This is not to say that some people might not have used the un-launched boats to survive--just to point out that more lifeboats was not the answer to saving everyone aboard Titanic. The only way to save everyone on any passenger ship is to not let it sink. That's the key, not lifeboats. White Star and the British Board of Trade had an embarassing situation on their hands. They had lost the world's largest ship...not to mention some 1,500 irreplaceable souls. They needed an issue to divert public attention from the real problems behind Titanic's foundering. For instance the lack of lookout, the speed, and the fact that the ship was already well into the ice when it struck. Why wasn't the conduct of the voyage changed at 10:00 p.m. instead of after the accident? Or, what was wrong with the design of the ship that allowed damage to the bow to ultimately claim the whole ship? These issues go to the heart of the matter, but public attention was easily diverted by the lifeboat issue. It was a diversion that worked so well that the lack of lifeboats has become almost the only safety issue ever discussed." [1]: https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/community/threads/board-of-trade-and-lifeboats.1799/ https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/community/threads/boar...
- jacobush 8y ago
  They also likely would not want to draw attention to this: https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/01/06/coal-fire-sink-the-titanic/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/01/06/coal-fire-sink-the-ti...
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Why? Bunker fires were common on coal fired ships, as was dealing with them by shovelling coal into the furnace, or venting steam. It's an interesting snippet, but doesn't seem very compelling that it was a cause. I didn't watch the actual documentary, so only have the piece you linked to go on.
    - afiori 8y ago
      high speed in an ice patch -> disaster burning more coal than necessary -> high speed coal fire -> burning more coal
      - kwhitefoot 8y ago
        They could have gone further south.
        afiori 8y ago
        probably they underestimated the risk
      - gambiting 8y ago
        Even on a ship like the Titanic, it's not like the only way to slow down is to stop burning coal. They could have vented steam instead of using it for propulsion - that is always an option.
        jacobush 8y ago
        And incur more cost. The captain likely was under pressure to perform and get to harbor as fast and cheaply as possible.
cm2187 8y ago
Though if all space missions had been postponed until we reached certainty of a risk zero, we would still be talking about walking on the moon one day today.
- shinigami 8y ago
  Yes, that's exactly what everyone is suggesting.
- mcv 8y ago
  You cannot eliminate unknown risks, but this was a risk that would have been easy to manage, if only it had been acknowledged by the higher-ups.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
AlphaWeaver 8y ago
In my technical writing class in university, we briefly analyzed the Challenger disaster. We came to the same conclusion, that the communication was ineffective and could have been done better. There were a lot of failures that led to the message not being conveyed appropriately. One in particular that sticks out in my mind is a conference call with one of NASA's subcontractors where an executive put NASA on hold, and polled all the engineers and asked if they thought the launch should continue, and every single one of them said no. The executive said yes to NASA.
- TremendousJudge 8y ago
  >every single one of them said no. The executive said yes to NASA. what was the communication issue here, besides the obvious "the executive is deaf"?
  - kamaal 8y ago
    The standard procedure invented by management(mostly as a 'cya' tactic) is this. They can never be wrong. Like never. Your bosses are never wrong. No matter how effectively you communicate with them to convince them to arrive at different decisions. From Shuttle disasters to Diesel scandals to Data breaches. The obvious solution to this is by blaming engineers. Engineers must try harder. If the management still doesn't agree, well then you are not trying hard enough. Remember the rule, they are never wrong, if you fail to convince them its your mistake because you didn't convince them otherwise. Hence a 'Communication problem'. Which implies management is mostly innocent, and engineering didn't do its job well enough. This absurd rule exists for a simple reason. Who is supposed to audit these disasters and arrive at a root cause? Answer: Management.
    - smacktoward 8y ago
      Which is where "managing up" comes in. Want your manager to change their mind and do the right thing? Find a way to package the right thing so they can do it without having to admit they were wrong. (Yes I know, it's awful that people have to do this, in a perfect world things like this would be unnecessary, etc. When you find a perfect world, call me, I would like to buy some real estate.)
kamaal 8y ago
>>I doubt that, for them, a different presentation would have made a difference. Indeed. From the article. "I am appalled," said NASA's George Hardy, according to Boisjoly and our other source in the room. "I am appalled by your recommendation." Another shuttle program manager, Lawrence Mulloy, didn't hide his disdain. "My God, Thiokol," he said. "When do you want me to launch — next April?" They told us that the NASA pressure caused Thiokol managers to "put their management hats on," as one source told us. They overruled Boisjoly and the other engineers and told NASA to go ahead and launch.
grappler 8y ago
> I hope we can all avoid being the person who said to Boisjoly, when it appeared that Boisjoly's testimony might be fatal to Morton Thiokol, that he would leave his children for Boisjoly to raise if he lost his job. That's the tribal impulse right there. The one that says: screw the rest of the world, what matters is us and our in-group. Circle the wagons. Be a team player. Prize loyalty. Maybe the type of person who bends this way has something valuable to contribute during their time on this earth, but often I struggle to see just what that might be.

Aloha 8y ago

What do you consider the primary technological hubris of Titanic? To be clearer - the hubris of Titanic wasn't technological, it was operational - it was going too fast, in an ice field, with a lack of lookouts - beyond this, it didnt reduce speed after ice was spotted. Yes, there were issues, damage to such a small portion of the ship (less than 1/3) shouldn't have caused it to sink (I'll note, many other ships had similar or worse flaws than Titanic did). The lifeboats on the other hand (as most commonly cited) are not a real issue - Titanic started launching boats about 25 min after it struck the iceberg, which is about how long a damage survey would take. It had not launched all 20 boats by the time the forward list became so great that they were unable to launch more - this doesn't even touch the multitudes below decks, many of whom didnt speak english, or were unable to be moved up to the boat deck in a timely enough fashion. I'd also like to share something I dug up from the internet[1]: "As far as I can determine, Titanic is the single example of a passenger ship that sank with decks level. It was probably the only time in history when lifeboats could be launched from both sides simultaneously. The Andrea Doria sinking is a more typical event. In that case, half of the lifeboats were rendered useless by the cant of the decks. Given the testimony that Titanic was "lolling" as it foundered (listing from side to side), it is highly probable that carrying sufficient lifeboats would have raised the center of gravity sufficiently to have caused a permanent list early in the evening. In other words, the weight of those extra boats might have created a situation in which they could not have been used, anyway. And, it is conveniently overlooked that from the moment when launching boats became necessary until the moment when it became impossible was not long enough to launch the 24 boats the ship carried. If it had carried more boats, they could not have been filled and launched properly. This is not to say that some people might not have used the un-launched boats to survive--just to point out that more lifeboats was not the answer to saving everyone aboard Titanic. The only way to save everyone on any passenger ship is to not let it sink. That's the key, not lifeboats. White Star and the British Board of Trade had an embarassing situation on their hands. They had lost the world's largest ship...not to mention some 1,500 irreplaceable souls. They needed an issue to divert public attention from the real problems behind Titanic's foundering. For instance the lack of lookout, the speed, and the fact that the ship was already well into the ice when it struck. Why wasn't the conduct of the voyage changed at 10:00 p.m. instead of after the accident? Or, what was wrong with the design of the ship that allowed damage to the bow to ultimately claim the whole ship? These issues go to the heart of the matter, but public attention was easily diverted by the lifeboat issue. It was a diversion that worked so well that the lack of lifeboats has become almost the only safety issue ever discussed." [1]: https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/community/threads/board-of-trade-and-lifeboats.1799/ https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/community/threads/boar...

jacobush 8y ago
They also likely would not want to draw attention to this: https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/01/06/coal-fire-sink-the-titanic/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/01/06/coal-fire-sink-the-ti...
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Why? Bunker fires were common on coal fired ships, as was dealing with them by shovelling coal into the furnace, or venting steam. It's an interesting snippet, but doesn't seem very compelling that it was a cause. I didn't watch the actual documentary, so only have the piece you linked to go on.
  - afiori 8y ago
    high speed in an ice patch -> disaster burning more coal than necessary -> high speed coal fire -> burning more coal
    - kwhitefoot 8y ago
      They could have gone further south.
      - afiori 8y ago
        probably they underestimated the risk
    - gambiting 8y ago
      Even on a ship like the Titanic, it's not like the only way to slow down is to stop burning coal. They could have vented steam instead of using it for propulsion - that is always an option.
      - jacobush 8y ago
        And incur more cost. The captain likely was under pressure to perform and get to harbor as fast and cheaply as possible.

cm2187 8y ago

Though if all space missions had been postponed until we reached certainty of a risk zero, we would still be talking about walking on the moon one day today.

shinigami 8y ago
Yes, that's exactly what everyone is suggesting.
mcv 8y ago
You cannot eliminate unknown risks, but this was a risk that would have been easy to manage, if only it had been acknowledged by the higher-ups.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

AlphaWeaver 8y ago

In my technical writing class in university, we briefly analyzed the Challenger disaster. We came to the same conclusion, that the communication was ineffective and could have been done better. There were a lot of failures that led to the message not being conveyed appropriately. One in particular that sticks out in my mind is a conference call with one of NASA's subcontractors where an executive put NASA on hold, and polled all the engineers and asked if they thought the launch should continue, and every single one of them said no. The executive said yes to NASA.

TremendousJudge 8y ago
>every single one of them said no. The executive said yes to NASA. what was the communication issue here, besides the obvious "the executive is deaf"?
- kamaal 8y ago
  The standard procedure invented by management(mostly as a 'cya' tactic) is this. They can never be wrong. Like never. Your bosses are never wrong. No matter how effectively you communicate with them to convince them to arrive at different decisions. From Shuttle disasters to Diesel scandals to Data breaches. The obvious solution to this is by blaming engineers. Engineers must try harder. If the management still doesn't agree, well then you are not trying hard enough. Remember the rule, they are never wrong, if you fail to convince them its your mistake because you didn't convince them otherwise. Hence a 'Communication problem'. Which implies management is mostly innocent, and engineering didn't do its job well enough. This absurd rule exists for a simple reason. Who is supposed to audit these disasters and arrive at a root cause? Answer: Management.
  - smacktoward 8y ago
    Which is where "managing up" comes in. Want your manager to change their mind and do the right thing? Find a way to package the right thing so they can do it without having to admit they were wrong. (Yes I know, it's awful that people have to do this, in a perfect world things like this would be unnecessary, etc. When you find a perfect world, call me, I would like to buy some real estate.)

kamaal 8y ago

>>I doubt that, for them, a different presentation would have made a difference. Indeed. From the article. "I am appalled," said NASA's George Hardy, according to Boisjoly and our other source in the room. "I am appalled by your recommendation." Another shuttle program manager, Lawrence Mulloy, didn't hide his disdain. "My God, Thiokol," he said. "When do you want me to launch — next April?" They told us that the NASA pressure caused Thiokol managers to "put their management hats on," as one source told us. They overruled Boisjoly and the other engineers and told NASA to go ahead and launch.

grappler 8y ago

> I hope we can all avoid being the person who said to Boisjoly, when it appeared that Boisjoly's testimony might be fatal to Morton Thiokol, that he would leave his children for Boisjoly to raise if he lost his job. That's the tribal impulse right there. The one that says: screw the rest of the world, what matters is us and our in-group. Circle the wagons. Be a team player. Prize loyalty. Maybe the type of person who bends this way has something valuable to contribute during their time on this earth, but often I struggle to see just what that might be.