|
|
|
|
|
|
by peteradio
2626 days ago
|
|
|
So what exactly is technically dense/ambiguous in this summary presentation (remember this isn't the only information provided). Perhaps you'd like to review the full deck of slides rather than the single one picked by the asshole author, I'm particularly interested in the one titled "Damage Results From “Crater” Equations Show
Significant Tile Damage" . https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/2203main_COL_debris_boeing_030123.p... |
|
|
Ironically the slide you point out ("Damage Results From 'Crater' Equations Show Significant Tile Damage") seems to skew our interpretation of the next slide's title and content in the wrong direction. The former slide states that "'Crater' indicates that multiple tiles would be taken down to densified layer". That sounds bad. However, it also tells us that the "program" (assuming this means the Crater model) that generated this alarming prediction was "designed to be conservative". This would seem to downplay any concern generated by this result. Furthermore we are told that "Crater reports damage for test conditions that show no damage", further casting into doubt the predictions of the model.
And then, on the next slide: "Review of Test Data Indicates Conservatism for Tile Penetration". On the previous slide the word "conservatism" was used to tell us that the results from the "Crater" model may be on the high side, i.e. showing a problem where there is none, and that the test data show a much smaller degree of damage. This slide is about test data ("Review of Test Data"). On both slides we are told that compared to test data, the Crater results are inflated: "Crater reports damage for test conditions that show no damage", and "Crater overpredicted penetration [...] significantly".
Where does this leave us? The context of this additional slide makes the presentation even more misleading than the "asshole author", to use your delightful term, thinks it is. The title is not merely ambiguous; we are explicitly nudged toward the wrong interpretation of it. I have to thank you for bringing this additional context to my attention.
The author may in fact be an asshole (though I think your language is inappropriate in context), and his analysis may lack depth (I think it does to some degree), but in the simple matter of this slide being egregiously awful he's totally right. I don't know why you'd choose this hill to die on.