Challenger: A case of financial daredevils?

[ar81]

The math of people who cheat in the exam is:

Outcome = Probability of success  * Reward - Probability of failure * Punishment

where

Probability of success + Probability of failure = 100%

If you are optimistic and Probability of success is 100% then failure is irrelevant.
Most of fraudsters are optimistic, but truth is that if I am a teacher and I make 6 differnt exams, probability will be
biased and unreal.

I saw a documentary where there were some leads about the risk of low temperatures causing leaks of fire from
chemical reaction for rockets and that could happen to SRBs too.  Engineers oposed, but lack of "facts" (destroyed
rockets) went against them.  The final decision seemed to be based on:

-Lack of facts that point out to a risk of leak of fire
-Cost of not launching

The cost of not launching is lower than the cost of losing an orbiter and its crew.
So it seems that those who made that decision thought that since "it did not happen before, it will not happen and
there is no risk", so Probability of success is 100%.

Under such a logic, a virgin is unlikely to be a mother, for she was not a mother in the past.
It is obviously wrong for it does not consider any cause-effect.

Daredevils think Probability of success is 100% and that's why they risk their lives.
From my point of view, those who decided to launch the Challenger neded "facts" (a destroyed Orbiter) to realize
about the risk.  So they were daredevils.

It is curious to notice how asians fear failure, so they become disciplined so they don't fail.
This is the "conservative" thought in Asia.

In USA financial risk goes for the "cheaper" option, and decisions "based on facts", and it is called "conservative".
No destroyed orbiters, means no risk.
Then the risk of failure is non existent.
Since reality does not respond to these odds, then conservative thinking in the financial arena, leads to be optimistic
daredevils that will make right decisions once all other options have been tested.

Daredevils who ordered to launch Challenger, challenged fate.
And the real odds say that they were wrong.
If you expose yourself to danger, danger will catch you sooner or later.

What do you think?

[Urwumpe]

I think you should read Feynman's evaluation of the situation. He was in the Rogers commission and was responsible for
pointing out the misconceptions in NASAs safety culture (Eg, engineers calculated safety as the chance that nothing fails
which threatens the mission. Managers calculated the safety as the chance of not everything failing at once) .

He was also more eloquent in his examples and brought his arguments faster to the point...

[ar81]

So managers were more optimistic...
Safety culture as the chance of not everything failing at once...
Daredevil Evel Knievel could have made a better stunt... he died after nearly a three-year battle with his lung
condition.