>> Using the same o-rings afterwards is surprising, I've heard that the manufacturer was surprised that they were being used for that purpose because they weren't rated for that.
>>I find that highly surprising, because "it was the O-rings" explanation seems universally believed and sanctified by no lesser authority than the Nobel prize laureate Richard Feynman.
Essentially you are mischaracterizing what Feynman did or say, although this is also Feynman fault :-), by doing the famous public demonstration, with the ice water in a glass [2], although even there he only said it has "significance to the problem...". In other words, we should not simplify, even for the general public, what are complex subtle engineering issues. This is also the reason why current AI, will fail spectacularly, but I digress...
Feynman documented the joint rotation problem in his written Appendix F, but his televised demonstration became the explanation...[3]
Camarda is correct here. There was a fundamentally flawed field joint design, meaning the tang-and-clevis joint opened under combustion pressure instead of closing. This meant the O-rings were being asked to chase a widening gap something the O-ring manufacturer explicitly told Thiokol O-rings were never designed to do. Joint rotation was known as early as 1977, a full nine years before the disaster.
The cold temperature made things worse by stiffening the rubber so it could not chase the gap as quickly, but O-ring erosion and blow-by were occurring on flights in warm weather too and nearly every flight in 1985 showed damage.
The proof is how they fixed. NASA redesigned the joint metal structure with a capture feature to prevent rotation, added a third O-ring for redundancy, and installed heaters but kept the exact same Viton rubber. If the O-rings were the real problem, you would change the O-rings. They did not need to.
The report [1] is public for everybody to read...but not from the NASA page... who funnily enough has a block on the link from their own page, so I had to find an alternative link...
Yeah--people don't get it that while it was the failure of the O-rings that doomed that flight that they failed because they were subjected to forces they were never designed to take. The fact that they got that many flights before it blew actually says they were doing an admirable job of covering up the design flaw.
A reminder Israel has both universal healthcare and tuition free university...and voted yesterday to give $255 million to ultra-Orthodox programs and institutions, including yeshivas...that actually refuse to engage in military conscription...
5k is almost free. And yes you pay tax to find universities. Makes sense. Paying full tuition in the USA is like paying a tax, only worse, it's a lot more.
Israel, the nation state, came into being in 1948, with the explicit financial and military aid of the United States to do so. It has had American support since within hours of its founding.
"At the end of 1948, 53% of Israel's Jewish population was insured, about 80% of them by Clalit, with a few small health funds insuring the remainder. In the following years, Israel's healthcare system was expanded, and within a decade, about 90% were insured."
Universal healthcare became a thing in 1995, it seems.
To be fair here, what people often overlook by using Israel's current government as a reference point is that during the Kibbutz era Israel was decidedly left-wing. So I wouldn't necessarily attribute the presence of 90% or later 100% health care to US money.
Ah yes...the criticizing Israel is antisemitic argument...
"I stand behind the Israeli soldiers; whether there are children or women, it doesn't matter to me if there is damage. There are no innocent civilians in Jenin" - https://www.instagram.com/reel/DWWUmuFDgqP/
It would have been a valid criticism if it mentioned US aid to Ukraine (which is far larger), or aid to Egypt or the aid by maintaining military bases in South Korea, Japan, Europe. But nothing of that was mentioned, only the Jewish state. Hence it is a good ol' antisemitism.
Ah, now I understand your question (and see others already answered). Yeah, I realized that possible confusion after writing it, but hoped it was clear enough after editing in the bit about this AWS problem being in a browser tab. You may have seen the initial version, or it may still have been too confusing. Whoops
The official name is the AWS management console. Or just the console.
The ‘dashboard’, the ‘interface’? Reminds me of coworkers who used to refer to desktop PC cases as the hard drive, or people who refer to the web as ‘Google’.
"Despite the apparent simplicity of the challenge, Gemini was the only LLM that was able to create a web site that rendered well on mobile. Grok came in second with a mobile rendering that featured odd spacing and horizontal lines placed seemingly randomly but at least kept the text legible. Both ChatGPT and Claude’s styling resulted in mobile rendering that can only be described as broken with multiple instances of overlapping text."
Not surprising if you understand what the real cause was: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47585889
reply