Timeline for How did no other engineer see the design flaw of the Death Star?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 20, 2017 at 6:35 | comment | added | Moo | Very relevant to this question (regarding "how was the flaw missed by so many other intelligent people") is the current WPA2 flaw - its been in the spec for years, that spec has been implemented many times, reviewed many times, audited many times and still missed... | |
| May 3, 2017 at 14:03 | comment | added | 7heo.tk | The engineering was entirely outsourced. | |
| May 2, 2017 at 10:38 | comment | added | Gordon Coale | Think of the Death Star as a VW and the exhaust port as a defeat device. i.e. there was both a conspiracy to hide it and people wilfully ignoring it. | |
| May 1, 2017 at 5:34 | comment | added | Glen_b | I'm reminded of Earl Olsen pointing out a design defect in a system on a plane Joe Kennedy Jr was testing in WWII. He couldn't convince anyone of the problem; it had been okayed, A recent documentary showed that the very defect he complained about could have led in a matter of minutes to a fire in the solenoids in the detonator for the explosives the plane was loaded with. Now add a boss who kills people who bring him bad news and see who wants to push this up the chain of command... | |
| May 1, 2017 at 3:44 | comment | added | Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні | Did you want to be the guy who reported this? "Lord Vader - there appears to be a design flaw in the hypermatter annihilator unit" "I find your lack of faith in our little project...disturbing..." "GRRNNNKKKK! GLURRRNNNG! GNN...rmph... (klonk!)". | |
| Apr 29, 2017 at 21:32 | answer | added | Jerry Coffin | timeline score: 27 | |
| Apr 28, 2017 at 22:12 | answer | added | fectin | timeline score: 51 | |
| Apr 28, 2017 at 19:24 | comment | added | jamesdlin | The design flaw was critical but subtle. Meanwhile, the Death Star itself was massive; it's the size of a small moon; it would be rather difficult for most people to review something of that magnitude, especially if they didn't already know what to look for. Also, I expect that most of the engineering would be compartmentalized. | |
| Apr 28, 2017 at 19:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSciFi/status/858033311037493248 | ||
| Apr 28, 2017 at 18:38 | comment | added | DVK-on-Ahch-To | Have you ever seen people do code review on complicated legacy systems with *&(*ton of code? | |
| Apr 28, 2017 at 18:09 | comment | added | fyrepenguin | And any documentation that was made, no one wanted to read it | |
| Apr 28, 2017 at 16:04 | history | edited | Gallifreyan |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 28, 2017 at 14:54 | comment | added | LCIII | Nobody wanted to do the documentation | |
| Apr 28, 2017 at 14:25 | vote | accept | TerranGaming | ||
| Apr 28, 2017 at 14:20 | history | edited | Jason Baker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Apr 28, 2017 at 14:19 | answer | added | Jason Baker | timeline score: 139 | |
| Apr 28, 2017 at 14:15 | history | edited | T.J.L. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Corrected capitalization.
|
| Apr 28, 2017 at 14:12 | review | First posts | |||
| Apr 28, 2017 at 14:36 | |||||
| Apr 28, 2017 at 14:09 | history | asked | TerranGaming | CC BY-SA 3.0 |