Easiest Person to Fool

So great to see Mr. Feynman’s idea get some air time on a popular show about the brain, also that it has been studied and expanded upon. Lots of good examples from the high tech world and further back in world history. I can so relate to this problem of bosses that won’t listen to their employees. It’s also a challenge to get other employees to present themselves in the ways recommended by this guy, ways that get someone who thinks they have a brilliant idea to rethink.

https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/the-easiest-person-to-fool/?fbclid=IwAR1Jh7tCswA46LrN6fU-wWroL1TLgzbVnTsY1_DAbuxjEaxH4SF0KDASctQ

 

That’s why we need to be willing to be tough on ourselves.

Accepting the slings and arrows that our own foolishness inflicts upon ourselves, try to learn and move forward.

{Rather than constantly finding the blame in anything and everything outside of one self.}

Richard Feynman
Feynman admitted he had been led into forming wrong conclusions about the o-rings being the cause of the Challenger disaster. He was badly troubled by the knowledge that he had fooled himself. One of my all-time favorite people.

Feynman admitted he had been led into forming wrong conclusions about the o-rings – IBL

citation please

You want citations? Easy peasy:

 

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRPT-99hrpt1016/pdf/GPO-CRPT-99hrpt1016.pdf

INVESTIGATION OF THE CHALLENGER ACCIDENT REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION


Do a search for o-ring, 130 hits, all the details at your finger-tips to paint a complete picture of what happened. Now, of course, if Rush and Hannity said something stupid on their shows, I’m sure it’s accepted as gospel by the faithful.

Yet, yet, nothing of substance has been presented. Empty rumors, sans origins. Guess that’s how a third of our country swings these days, promises a very a rough future for everyone.

 

Engineering Ethics Case Study: The Challenger Disaster

Course No: LE3-001 Credit: 3 PDH

www_cedengineering_com/userfiles/Engineering%20Ethics%20Case%20Study%20The%20Challenger%20Disaster%20R1_pdf

Preface

On January 28, 1986, the Space Shuttle Challenger was destroyed in a disastrous fire shortly after liftoff. All passengers aboard the vehicle were killed. A presidential commission was formed to investigate the cause of the accident and found that the O-ring seals had failed, and, furthermore, that the seals had been recognized as a potential hazard for several years prior to the disaster. The commission’s report, Report to the President by the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, stated that because managers and engineers had known in advance of the O-ring danger, the accident was principally caused by a lack of communication between engineers and management and by poor management practices. This became the standard interpretation of the cause of the Challenger disaster and routinely appears in popular articles and books about engineering, management, and ethical issues. …

What can I say I was curious so I did a little more searching: “Feynman was badly troubled by the knowledge that he had fooled himself.”

Near the top of the list:

FEYNMAN'S OWN FINDINGS: THEY 'FOOLED THEMSELVES'
Guess it's easy enough to misunderstand that headline.
By Sandra Blakeslee, Special To the New York Times June 11, 1986

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/11/us/feynman-s-own-findings-they-fooled-themselves.html

citation please
I saw David Frost interview Feynman. Feynman recounted how he was invited to supper at a co-worker and friend's house and asked to examine the malfunctioning carburetor on the friend's car. It turned out it was a bad o-ring, damaged by freezing temperatures. It was a set-up. Feynman made the desired connection. It was only later that Feynman realized how he had been led into fooling himself. I have searched for a copy of that interview, but never found it. Disappeared. Feynman also discussed how his attempts to visit Tuva were blocked

That Reagan was a “star wars” junkie was well known. He was aggressive towards the “evil empire”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007. Flight was held up for US Senator Larry McDonald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_McDonald to board in Anchorage. Get the James Bond connection? The US commonly then, as now, had spy planes “hide” just under and behind commercial airliners to avoid radar detection. Suspected cause of Malaysia Airlines flight 370 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 was collision with US spy plane operating out of Australian base operating a fake 370 transponder code after collision. Note reported flight path.

Congress had ordered Reagan specifically to not put weapons in space. Challenger’s cargo was/is classified. Suspected cargo was anti-satellite missiles. All recovered pieces of the craft were put under cover and buried in a silo filled with concrete. Downrange film of flames took either 3 days or 5 days (I can’t remember which) to be delivered. Should have been available that same day. Time to photoshop? Note flames shown were on outside, not impinging on tank. Note rockets worked well after explosion.

If it were found out that school teacher Christa McAuliffe was killed by a botched attempt to put missiles into space Reagan would have been impeached. Couldn’t let that happen to the granddaddy of the Republican party, now could they? Notice that not one person was fired or payed any penalty as a result of the disaster, neither at NASA or at any of the contractors. Things just went on with the same people and the same companies.

I suppose it really doesn’t matter now, to most people. Sometimes we’d just rather be fooled.

 

That was quite the ramble, not sure how those threads tie together, but in your head guess it makes sense.

Back to the O-ring.

How did Feynman supposedly fool himself?

With what did he fool him.

You haven’t explained it at all.

Did an old memory of frozen cracked carburetor trigger his synapses to make connections?

Who knows?

How would that be fooling himself?

Please try to make sense out of your (that) story.

 

Tossing more wack-a-moles at us ain’t the way to do that.

 

Are you claiming something else brought down the Challenger.

 

Not sure how old you are, but I damned well remember the news camera seeing icicles handing off of that spacecraft and wonder who the hell would launch after such a cold night. I mean it doesn’t take much imagination to think about the extreme temp shock the craft was going to endure. But then at the time I was living at 9,300’ elevation and we had a respect for cold. Something those Gulf Coast people still can’t seem to wrap their heads around.

Yes, I do know Cape Kennedy is not on the Gulf.

just say’n

I also know some vindictive Republican low-lifes changed the name, that doesn’t mean I don’t get to keep calling it Cape Kennedy

Wow. I missed “IBelieveInLogic” post of conspiracy theories, but noticed CC’s reply. BTW, IBL is the worst name for that guy.]

We uncovered the archaeological evidence for Republican support of wiping out a little town in Guatemala just a few years after Reagan left office. How can anyone believe that putting weapons in space could be covered up for 40 years?

Back to the O-ring.

How did Feynman supposedly fool himself?

With what did he fool him.

You haven’t explained it at all.

Did an old memory of frozen cracked carburetor trigger his synapses to make connections?


The invitation to supper and the look into the carburetor’s o-ring problem after supper were contemporary with Feynman’s investigations into the causes of the explosion. You might want to re-read the details in my post.

Not sure how old you are, but I damned well remember ...
I watched the disaster happen live on TV. You can still find video of it on-line. Watch carefully and see the booster rockets intact and functioning normally for several seconds after the tank exploded. Try and figure out just how the flames shown in the down range film cut into the tank - they didn't - they were on the opposite side of the rocket, not on the tank side.
How can anyone believe that putting weapons in space could be covered up for 40 years?
Consequences. Reagan would have been impeached. Absolute disaster for the Republican party. NASA would have been seen as complicit and probably shut down; the space program was/is not universally popular. Additional probes into other covert activities could have been embarrassing, or worse. Any questions were killed immediately. The entire episode was buried.
@ibelieveinlogic: The invitation to supper and the look into the carburetor’s o-ring problem after supper were contemporary with Feynman’s investigations into the causes of the explosion. You might want to re-read the details in my post.
That has nothing to do with it.
@ibelieveinlogic: Feynman admitted he had been led into forming wrong conclusions about the o-rings being the cause of the Challenger disaster. He was badly troubled by the knowledge that he had fooled himself. One of my all-time favorite people.
I'm wondering where, how, did Feynman "fool himself" about the o-ring cause ?

Can you explain that?

Are you saying the o-ring failure was not the cause?

@ibelieveinlogic: I watched the disaster happen live on TV. You can still find video of it on-line. Watch carefully and see the booster rockets intact and functioning normally for several seconds after the tank exploded.
So did I, I remember it well, in fact my wife got a little peeved with me spending all morning watching repeats over and over, trying to be sure I was seeing that spark, I thought I'd spotted.

Seems to me you are talking about after the o-ring leak first became a torch? Okay, hard to tell but that initial leak spread in a hurry. Then the explosion pretty much obliterated the image for a few seconds.

@ibelieveinlogic: Try and figure out just how the flames shown in the down range film cut into the tank – they didn’t – they were on the opposite side of the rocket, not on the tank side.
I tried seeing what you are seeing, after 1:45 min, but it doesn't work. There was a flame, on one side, then the other, then a band of flame the main fuel tank side, then an explosion. It's pretty easy to visualize as a seam seal issue, and that seam was supposed to be sealed with a fully intact O-ring. And subsequent testing proved the material handled poorly in low temperatures. What else are thinking?

What was buried?

Is there a different cause?

Is that visualization inaccurate?

What are the chances that flames cut through the thin tank (initiating explosion) before the “ET structural connection” holding the tanks together were torch-cut and disconnected that way, initiating explosion.

But other than that, what other scenarios are people imaging?

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plRkyxBL20U

 

0:25, that spark is near the fuel tank side and 1:45, cascades real fast.

okay, not spark, puff of smoke, the flame came later

Consequences. Reagan would have been impeached. -- Bob
Not following your logic. There were more than a few that wanted him impeached, so that's a reason why it would have leaked. Are you saying that everyone who built the payload space, loaded the shuttle, engineered whatever it took to get it there, all of them were Reagan fans?

There would have been a shakeup at NASA, but it wouldn’t have been shut down. Sometimes, you just wave a hand and dismiss any question, don’t you?

all of them were Reagan fans?
I doubt that, but I would be quite surprised if everyone working on a classified project was not properly vetted and totally understood his/her responsibility to keep any secrets. The "military industrial complex" that Ike described in his farewell address is real. Anyone wishing to remain in that industry knows better than to tell what he knows. Besides that, every scrap of evidence one might point to is buried under tons of concrete.

There were and still are many calls for NASA to be shut down, mostly by liberals who think the billions could have been, and still could be, spent on better projects. The only reason liberals have for wanting it to keep going is that they hope we will find evidence of life somewhere out there, and they will finally have evidence to squash the religious idea of creation. I guess that for them continuing that quest is worth us spending billions and putting weapons in space.

Here’s a bone for most here: Trump established our Space Force. Any question on what the “force” part of that name means? Our weapons in space program started at the deployment level at some time; if not under a President who was a “star wars” junkie, then when? Note that the term “star wars” at that time was a reference to the movie but was actually another name for the SDI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative ... By the late 1980s, the effort had been re-focused on the "Brilliant Pebbles" concept using small orbiting missiles not unlike a conventional air-to-air missile, which was expected to be much less expensive to develop and deploy. ... In the fall of 1979, at Reagan's request, Lieutenant General Daniel O. Graham, the former head of the DIA, briefed Reagan on an updated BAMBI he called High Frontier, a missile shield composed of multi-layered ground- and space-based weapons that could track, intercept, and destroy ballistic missiles, ...
And there is more. Those who did not follow it at the time should read and be aware.
The only reason liberals have for wanting it to keep going is that they hope we will find evidence of life somewhere out there, and they will finally have evidence to squash the religious idea of creation.
Talk about fooling yourself.

Religion is a product of your mind.

Creation, known as EVOLUTION is what happened in the physical plain of reality. Blinding yourself to the overwhelming physical evidence in favor of evolution, doesn’t make that evolution go away. It just makes the blinded believer, stupid. Oops I said a bad word and now you’ll never want to open your eyes and feed your mind with real facts based on physical reality. I’m such a monster. ?

Creation is not an intentional act, it is a dynamic unfolding of inherent potentials. Even when man creates it is no more than drawing out (unfolding) of inherent potentials.

David Bohm addressed this as the Implicate (enfolded) and Explicate (unfolded) orders of universal physics.

As CCv3 observed this creative process is properly addressed as “evolution”.

ev·o·lu·tion, /ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/, noun

1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Similar: Darwinism, natural selection
2. the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form. "the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution" Similar: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, progression, expansion, extension, unfolding, transformation, adaptation, modification, revision, reworking, reconstruction, recasting, change, transmogrification, evolvement.
Are you saying the o-ring failure was not the cause?
http://meteorologytraining.tpub.com/14269/css/14269_75.htm

Temperature at 16-17,00 ft is about zero F. Temp at 36,000 ft and up is minus 69 F. Would you use o-rings that couldn’t take those temps and might fail at just below freezing? I don’t think so.

Temperature at 16-17,00 ft is about zero F. Temp at 36,000 ft and up is minus 69 F. Would you use o-rings that couldn’t take those temps and might fail at just below freezing? I don’t think so.
That is not quite correct. You are ignoring heat generated by speed. If we reverse the direction and follow a reentry, the spacecraft becomes a glowing ball of heated parts. Hence the development of heat resistant ceramics, but how does one make a heat resistant sealant?

There is a relative difference between escape speed and reentry speed, but in both cases heat is generated, albeit considerable less at escape than at reentry speed.