> although they were moving they were getting shoved deeper into the joint,

Why would they be "shoved deeper," when the problem is that the joint opens wider under load?

No. The whole assembly --joint, sealant and O-rings, -- failed.

"They were not adequate" - yet, after the redesign, they kept those same O-rings and declared that boosters are safe to fly, in manifest contradiction to your assertion. So your reasoning is clearly flawed.

That assertion requires some reasoning and evidence to back it.

> but when it became clear that gasses were escaping and the o-rings were being

> damaged, there was a push to suggest that it's an acceptable level.

Interestingly, the article<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ddi792xdfNXcBwF8qpDUxmZz...> by heat shield expert and Shuttle astronaut Charles Camarda, the former Director of Engineering at Johnson Space Center, asserts that it was *not* the O-rings:

"The Challenger accident was not caused by O-rings or temperature on the day of launch; it was caused by a deviant joint design which opened instead of closed when loaded. It was caused by mistaking analytical adequacy of a simplified test for physical understanding of the system. The solution, post Challenger, was the structural redesign of the SRB field joint and the use of the exact same O-rings."

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.

Is that the Mikado method?

A big selling point for me. Needless reworking of familiar interfaces plagues MS Windows ecosystem and I'm glad LibreOffice is displaying healthy conservatism by not fixing what isn't broken.

I'd hazard a guess and say "money"

When computers become disposable, their programmers soon become disposable as well. Maybe, you shouldn't love it.

"Gauss wanted to interpolate the orbits from sample observations; his method was very similar to the one that would be published in 1965 by James Cooley and John Tukey, who are generally credited for the invention of the modern generic FFT algorithm."

> Freaking out about naming and attribution isn't really very informative.

It matters who gets the credit for an original idea. Cooley and Tukey are lionized as pioneers, but they are not.