Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

fantasmoofrcc t1_ivwbzgk wrote

Reply to comment by marketrent in NASA leaders recently viewed footage of an underwater dive off the East coast of Florida, and they confirm it depicts an artifact from the space shuttle Challenger by marketrent

I'd use stronger language than "major malfunction"...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report

180

david4069 t1_ivwtzch wrote

The callout by the announcer when it happened was "We've had a major malfunction." It's probably a reference to that.

208

woodnwheel t1_ivzt8b8 wrote

Forgive me for nitpicking, but while I agree with you that Nelson the article was probably referencing that language, I just looked up and listened to the audio again because I remember the quote slightly differently. Here’s what he said:

>Flight controllers here looking very carefully at the situation. Obviously a major malfunction.

5

david4069 t1_ivzv7hd wrote

Weird how your memories of an event burned into your mind like that can be so clear and still be wrong. More proof about how eyewitness testimony is crap in many cases.

Thanks for the correction on the specific phrasing. I guess the most important part was the "major malfunction" part for the point I was trying to make, but I appreciate you finding the exact quote.

5

GArockcrawler t1_iw02ndy wrote

Most understatedly accurate statement in the history of mankind. That phrase was seared into my memory that day.

2

raidriar889 t1_ivwzysr wrote

I don’t see why the phrase “major malfunction” doesn’t perfectly describe what happened to the o-rings. Those are the exact word they used on the live TV broadcast.

145

Pihkal1987 t1_ivx63au wrote

Because it was a known and reported on malfunction ahead of time. Probably why people take cause with the verbiage.

41

wolfie379 t1_ivxi1gp wrote

Although if the person making the callout was looking at a screen of data from the telemetry, rather than a video (or Mark 1 eyeball$ of the launch, they might have assumed that the sudden stop in data was due to a major malfunction of the telemetry rather than a catastrophic failure of the craft.

29

prob_wont_respond t1_ivz04t9 wrote

Ok, still sounds like a major malfunction. A known and reported major malfunction.

18

PoopDeScoopDeWoop t1_ivzuoql wrote

We all know and understand the literal meaning, I think it's the semantics and sentiment behind what was said though.

If I told you that the next time you drive your car there's a very high likelihood one of the wheels comes off, and it does, you're not gonna be all surprised like "whoa there's been a malfunction!!". You would probably be more like "oh that thing happened that he said was going to happen".

4

DaoFerret t1_ivwhrta wrote

As someone who got to witness the launch from the visitor peninsula (car to the visitors center, bus from there) and as a lifelong fan of Richard Feynman, I would use much stronger language and douse whoever used those words in a glass of ice-water.

34

pinotandsugar t1_ivxuvdj wrote

Feynman's addendum to the Challenger Report and "Truth, Lies and "O" Rings should be mandatory reading for young engineering, and MBA students.

""For a successful technology," Feynman concluded, "reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."[6]"

34

gaunt79 t1_ivybwzm wrote

I made it mandatory reading when I was the supervisor of a flight safety engineering team.

10

KingTut747 t1_ivy01ta wrote

Major malfunction is literally the strongest language NASA uses to describe an incident… The rocket blowing up is considered a major malfunction by NASA. They use very technical verbiage.

I am really not sure why you think you should be the one creating verbiage for NASA?

31

craigiest t1_ivy9i9y wrote

This isn’t true. In this NASA account of NASA history they call it an accident, an explosion, and a “fiery crash.” “Major malfunction” is just the phrase the announcer used when it became apparent that something had gone wrong. Besides, this is a news article. There would be no obligation that the writer hew to technical language even if NASA did. This isn’t a technical report.

13

punkinfacebooklegpie t1_ivydny3 wrote

>I am really not sure why you think you should be the one creating verbiage for NASA?

Don't you know who I am? I'm Mr. Nasa.

7

piper_at_the_gates_ t1_ivyzl4k wrote

>I am really not sure why you think you should be the one creating verbiage for NASA?

What a ridiculous standard. We're allowed to criticize NASA, especially when it comes to Challenger.

'Malfunction' is a weak word to describe their poor management and cowardice that killed 7 astronauts.

−5

thinthehoople t1_ivzhj8c wrote

The guy was calling out telemetry in real time, “major malfunction” in that context is not just defensible but desired.

These are engineers and technical people confronted with a technical problem in real time. They need accurate, not emotional or pr-based language to work the problem.

It wasn’t this guy’s place nor function to encapsulate the entire situation while doing his job in the moment.

You can criticize NASA plenty, and at your pleasure, but this is a dumb one to pick.

6

piper_at_the_gates_ t1_iw108xh wrote

OPs quote, and the usage of the word "malfunction" here, is from an article by NASA's history department aimed at the general public.

0

thinthehoople t1_iw10ehj wrote

I watched it in real time, too. Your analysis is wrong.

2

piper_at_the_gates_ t1_iw1dtol wrote

That's not what this post or thread is talking about. See what OP submitted, it's a press article not a quotation. The use of "malfunction" isn't part of Bill Nelson's speech.

0