# Does the bad engineering in "The Cold Equations" ruin the story for you? (open spoilers) **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Tags:** books-writing-myths\ **Created:** [March 20, 2011, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bad-engineering-in-the-cold-equations-ruin-the-story-for-you-open-spoilers/575384 "2011-03-20T19:00:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bad-engineering-in-the-cold-equations-ruin-the-story-for-you-open-spoilers/575384/81 "2011-03-23T22:17:34Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > The point of this story is that the only error was the girl’s error, and her bad decision was deadly - because that’s the way the universe rolls. That hits the nail on the head right there. Thinking about it, I think a second built in seat would make the story more plausible. Girl sneaks in, sees second seat, makes the deadly assumption that “hey, this craft CAN carry two! Maybe I’ll just get in big trouble later” and then runs and hides in the onboard bowling alley or sumptin. Yeah, it can carry two and make it IFF they drop two of you off at 1.4 gigaparsecs away from the planet. But, they thought only one was onboard and they dropped what they thought was one guy at 1.6 gigaparsecs because one guy onboard could make that distance. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bad-engineering-in-the-cold-equations-ruin-the-story-for-you-open-spoilers/575384/82 "2011-03-23T22:41:06Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > I’ve never read the story, but it’s already bugging me just from your description. Come on, they couldn’t find something of equal mass to the girl to jettison? If only I had linked to the story in the OP so you could judge it on its own merits. Wait, I did that. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bad-engineering-in-the-cold-equations-ruin-the-story-for-you-open-spoilers/575384/83 "2011-03-23T22:56:09Z")
I feel like I’m belaboring points here, but the situation described is very different from Apollo 11, Titanic, etc. Apollo 11 didn’t almost run out of fuel because the engineers calculated exactly how much fuel they would need and were like “ok, we’ll give you exactly that much fuel”. Apollo 11 was facing zillions of unknowns and trying to solve massive and brand new engineering issues, and did a bunch of tradeoffs, but you can bet your ass they gave as much margin for error as they possibly could in fuel, etc. Whereas in the story, the whole situation is all completely established and understood technology. The know exactly how much fuel will be required to land the ship if nothing unforeseen happens… and they allocate precisely that much fuel, no more. The reason that’s stupid even from a purely greedy bottom line economic standpoint is that even in the most well understood and mastered human endeavors, the unexpected DOES happen. So with their scheme, all sorts of minor annoyances that might pop up – a comet gets in the way, one of the maneuvering thrusters is malfunctioning and they have to maneuver in a less efficient fashion, there’s a massive storm on the planet so they have to orbit a while before they can land, etc. – all those things turn from “well that’s a hassle, good thing we have an experienced trained pilot on board who can deal with it” into “pilot dead ship lost nothing can be done because of the mercilessness of physics”. If the story wanted to be about situations where human error and shortsightedness compound each other and things go horribly wrong, it could be… ie, Titanic in space. And someone stowing away on board a ship would be a good and interesting first step for such a story. But it doesn’t seem (at least based on the consensus view in this thread) to be about that, it seems to be about “sometimes there is no brilliant solution to the problem, you can’t cheat physics”, but it sets up that (arguably) interesting point in a distractingly implausible fashion. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2011, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bad-engineering-in-the-cold-equations-ruin-the-story-for-you-open-spoilers/575384/84 "2011-03-23T23:56:24Z")
> [@Baal\_Houtham](#): > > Do we know what kind of speed the ship reaches? Again, IANAE, but if the ship accelerates to half of lightspeed and back, I’m guessing that could dwarf any other factors, such as showing up on the wrong side of the world. The critique I linked to cites calculations based on the thrust profile in the story, concluding that the EDS was dropped off at about 200 km/s relative to the destination planet and decelerated to landing from there. The mention of “the wrong side of the world” raises yet another plot hole – if the EDS can’t land immediately on arrival (maybe more of those pesky tornadoes in the target zone), it will either fly by (mission fail), land elsewhere (almost certain mission fail, given that either the pilot on foot or someone from the disease-ravaged outpost who may or may not have a vehicle must bridge the gap), or go into orbit and land later (requiring… wait for it… a significant fuel supply safety margin over and above the projected mission profile). ---
**Author:** ![Kim\_o\_the\_Concrete\_Jungle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ee7513/32.png) [@Kim\_o\_the\_Concrete\_Jungle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kim_o_the_Concrete_Jungle)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bad-engineering-in-the-cold-equations-ruin-the-story-for-you-open-spoilers/575384/85 "2011-03-24T12:16:04Z")
It strikes me that people are just looking for an excuse to pick holes in the story because they don’t like the premise – that sometimes you have many choices, but all of them are bad. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bad-engineering-in-the-cold-equations-ruin-the-story-for-you-open-spoilers/575384/86 "2011-03-24T12:37:05Z")
They don’t believe in the no-win scenario (bites apple) ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bad-engineering-in-the-cold-equations-ruin-the-story-for-you-open-spoilers/575384/87 "2011-03-24T12:49:34Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > The point of this story is that the only error was the girl’s error, and her bad decision was deadly - because that’s the way the universe rolls. The problem with the story is precisely that it implicitly depends on too many other people making errors – the pilot failing to do even the most cursory pre-flight check, the crew failing to secure the restricted area – to set up the situation. > [@Kim\_o\_the\_Concrete\_Jungle](#): > > It strikes me that people are just looking for an excuse to pick holes in the story because they don’t like the premise – that sometimes you have many choices, but all of them are bad. Not at all. I cited one example of a story with exactly that situation (“Breaking Strain”) which sets it up without requiring everybody involved in getting the characters into their dilemma to be a moron. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bad-engineering-in-the-cold-equations-ruin-the-story-for-you-open-spoilers/575384/88 "2011-03-24T16:07:22Z")
> [@Kim\_o\_the\_Concrete\_Jungle](#): > > It strikes me that people are just looking for an excuse to pick holes in the story because they don’t like the premise – that sometimes you have many choices, but all of them are bad. No, I get the premise, and have no problem with a story trying to make that point. Skald’s question in the OP is about the execution of this story, and how the way the author wrote the details breaks the plausibility for the reader. It’s like watching a movie set on Earth in the 20th century, and suddenly, for no reason, things start falling up, but the characters act as if everything is normal. Okay, that’s probably overstating it. > [@Steve\_MB](#): > > The problem with the story is precisely that it implicitly depends on too many other people making errors – the pilot failing to do even the most cursory pre-flight check, the crew failing to secure the restricted area – to set up the situation. Yes, the intent of the story is not supported by the details of the execution. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I feel like I’m belaboring points here, but the situation described is very different from Apollo 11, Titanic, etc. Apollo 11 didn’t almost run out of fuel because the engineers calculated exactly how much fuel they would need and were like “ok, we’ll give you exactly that much fuel”. Yeah, that’s very true. The situations are not parallels. For instance, you know what would have happened if Armstrong hadn’t gotten Eagle on the ground before running out of fuel? He would have hit a button, and they would have triggered the ascent stage of the rocket and returned to lunar orbit. Yeah, they would have missed the historic touchdown, but they would have survived and come home. For Apollo 11 to have been even remotely similar, it would have been the situation where Neil observed they were coming in on their precise trajectory to land in a crater with house-sized boulders, and would have had to land there anyway or abort because he didn’t have fuel to manuever at all. But he did have fuel, enough to get over the boulder field and land on the far side with 20 seconds to spare. > [@](#): > > The reason that’s stupid even from a purely greedy bottom line economic standpoint is that even in the most well understood and mastered human endeavors, the unexpected DOES happen. So with their scheme, all sorts of minor annoyances that might pop up – a comet gets in the way, one of the maneuvering thrusters is malfunctioning and they have to maneuver in a less efficient fashion, there’s a massive storm on the planet so they have to orbit a while before they can land, etc. – all those things turn from “well that’s a hassle, good thing we have an experienced trained pilot on board who can deal with it” into “pilot dead ship lost nothing can be done because of the mercilessness of physics”. Exactly - the real world is messy, and good engineering allows for messy. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bad-engineering-in-the-cold-equations-ruin-the-story-for-you-open-spoilers/575384/89 "2011-03-24T16:15:09Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Yeah, that’s very true. The situations are not parallels. For instance, you know what would have happened if Armstrong hadn’t gotten Eagle on the ground before running out of fuel? He would have hit a button, and they would have triggered the ascent stage of the rocket and returned to lunar orbit. . Bzzztt. Analogy fail. Apollo 11 was designed to land AND takeoff, giving a margin of error of about 2 roughly speaking. If it had only been designed to land (because maybe the were going to, I don’t know, a colony or sumptin), they woulda been fucked when they ran outa fuel before finding a safe landing spot. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bad-engineering-in-the-cold-equations-ruin-the-story-for-you-open-spoilers/575384/90 "2011-03-24T20:55:44Z")
I’m not sure who you’re calling analogy fail on. _I’m_ calling analogy fail on whoever was saying Apollo 11 was a good example of a ship almost running out of fuel and leading to disaster, because it wouldn’t have lead to a disaster. And your proposed situation we cannot evaluate, because the design criteria would have been completely different for NASA in the '60s trying to land at a colony or something. Part of sizing the descent engines and fuel supply was based upon the design having a separate ascent engine and fuel supply. It was a designed-in backup that if the fuel ran out before touchdown, they would abort. If the ascent stack had not been separate, or had reused the descent engine, or if it was a one way trip to rendezvous with a supply cache, or any other situation would have called for a different design evaluation, and perhaps a different amount of fuel for the descent stage. If you don’t have a back up, then you make your fuel margin bigger. ---
**Author:** ![Rachellelogram](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rachellelogram/32/8689_2.png) [@Rachellelogram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachellelogram)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bad-engineering-in-the-cold-equations-ruin-the-story-for-you-open-spoilers/575384/91 "2011-03-25T16:27:23Z")
Clearly she should have just refrained from touching the floor or walls of the ship. If she had hovered motionlessly in the middle of it, she’d be weightless! (yes, this is a joke) ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bad-engineering-in-the-cold-equations-ruin-the-story-for-you-open-spoilers/575384/92 "2011-03-25T17:54:21Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Yes, the intent of the story is not supported by the details of the execution. That said, the fundamental problem isn’t the _engineering_ issues, it’s the _management_ issues. The former could have been mitigated by more careful writing (establish that this particular mission is right at the bleeding edge of the delta-v envelope and that dispensing with a safety margin is unusual\*, tweak the descriptions to make the EDS seem more realistically minimalist, have the pilot suit up before opening the _single_ door). It’s the carelessness that let things get to that point (no locks, nobody watching, no preflight check of the craft) that really reeks of contrivance. \*This would also eliminate the notion that spacing stowaways is SOP, which would actually sharpen the drama of the situation. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bad-engineering-in-the-cold-equations-ruin-the-story-for-you-open-spoilers/575384/93 "2011-03-25T23:26:23Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > That said, the fundamental problem isn’t the _engineering_ issues, it’s the _management_ issues. The former could have been mitigated by more careful writing (establish that this particular mission is right at the bleeding edge of the delta-v envelope and that dispensing with a safety margin is unusual\*, tweak the descriptions to make the EDS seem more realistically minimalist, have the pilot suit up before opening the _single_ door). It’s the carelessness that let things get to that point (no locks, nobody watching, no preflight check of the craft) that really reeks of contrivance. > > \*This would also eliminate the notion that spacing stowaways is SOP, which would actually sharpen the drama of the situation. Or alternatively have a bunch of other things go wrong, which would suddenly change a stowaway from a minor inconvenience to a straw-that-would-break-the-camel’s-back. I think it would also have been better if the limiting factor was life support, not fuel, since a stowaway more or less doubles the amount of air being breathed, but the weight of the stowaway (when compared to the weight of a spaceship) increases the fuel consumption by only a tiny amount. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2011, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bad-engineering-in-the-cold-equations-ruin-the-story-for-you-open-spoilers/575384/94 "2011-03-26T05:05:15Z")
[The inevitable TVTropes page.](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/JustBugsMe/TheColdEquations) ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bad-engineering-in-the-cold-equations-ruin-the-story-for-you-open-spoilers/575384/95 "2011-03-28T17:53:39Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Or alternatively have a bunch of other things go wrong, which would suddenly change a stowaway from a minor inconvenience to a straw-that-would-break-the-camel’s-back. But as I said before, that changes the point of the story. The point of the story is that one careless/uninformed action by one person puts everyone else in jeopardy, and the only solution is that someone has to die - probably the someone who caused the problem. Once you start adding other things going wrong, you have changed the story from “The Cold Equations” to “Life is a Bitch” or “Shit Happens, and The Low Man Get’s the Axe”. > [@](#): > > I think it would also have been better if the limiting factor was life support, not fuel, since a stowaway more or less doubles the amount of air being breathed, but the weight of the stowaway (when compared to the weight of a spaceship) increases the fuel consumption by only a tiny amount. I think life support would have been a better choice, too. Not only oxygen, but carbon dioxide build up, heat generation, and bodily wastes. With or without food resources (both during travel and on the colony world until next regular resupply ship arrives) being considered. As it is, the moral question and the lesson are lost in the situations that made the circumstances occur. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bad-engineering-in-the-cold-equations-ruin-the-story-for-you-open-spoilers/575384/96 "2011-03-28T18:15:01Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > This was an emergency craft for short one-way trips. Presumably it was designed so that there wasn’t a hundred pounds of extraneous mass on board. I find it hard to believe that a craft could both be large enough for someone to stow away in successfully, and yet not large enough to have a hundred pounds of extraneous mass. 100 lbs isn’t much in a vessel designed to hold multiple human beings. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bad-engineering-in-the-cold-equations-ruin-the-story-for-you-open-spoilers/575384/97 "2011-03-28T18:28:10Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > If only I had linked to the story in the OP so you could judge it on its own merits. > > Wait, I did that. I posted a three sentence reply that I hadn’t read it but am bothered by the premise as described. What’s wrong with that? I’m not allowed to have a first impression based on your description, or to share that opinion? I’m certainly not going to read a story when the only thing I’ve heard about it is a description that makes me think I wouldn’t like it. If, given that fact, my very minimal participation in this thread bothers you, I’ll go somewhere else. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bad-engineering-in-the-cold-equations-ruin-the-story-for-you-open-spoilers/575384/98 "2011-03-28T19:18:39Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > I posted a three sentence reply that I hadn’t read it but am bothered by the premise as described. What’s wrong with that? I’m not allowed to have a first impression based on your description, or to share that opinion? > > I’m certainly not going to read a story when the only thing I’ve heard about it is a description that makes me think I wouldn’t like it. If, given that fact, my very minimal participation in this thread bothers you, I’ll go somewhere else. Seems to me that your judging the story based on my synopsis was as misguided as me deciding, years back, that the TV version of _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ must be stupid and exploitative because of the title. You haven’t really judged the story at all, only my very brief summary of it. And the question in the OP could easily be reworded “Is the writing quality in ‘The Cold Equations’ sufficient to overcome its logical flaws?” Answering the question seems to demand actually reading the story. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bad-engineering-in-the-cold-equations-ruin-the-story-for-you-open-spoilers/575384/99 "2011-03-28T20:00:10Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > That said, the fundamental problem isn’t the _engineering_ issues, it’s the _management_ issues. Agreed. I can easily imagine a situation where a craft has so little margin for error that a single stowaway cause the craft to fail. But in that case, I’d put a lock on the door. The explanation that “everyone knows there’s no margin for error, so there’s no point in putting a lock on the door because nobody would stow away because they know they’d be signing their death warrant” doesn’t fly. The idea that no one would interfere with critical equipment because it was common knowledge that the equipment was critical and shouldn’t be interfered with flies in the face of how actual human beings work. If your mission absolutely requires that idiots shouldn’t wander in and fuck it up, you don’t assume that nobody is a big enough idiot to wander in and fuck it up, because people are. But the problem is the story wants the stowaway to be morally blameless. She isn’t responsible for the mistake, how could she have known? The guys who didn’t lock the door aren’t responsible, because “everyone knows” nobody can successfully stow away. It’s the laws of physics that are responsible. Except, it’s irresponsible to behave as if human beings never do irresponsible things. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bad-engineering-in-the-cold-equations-ruin-the-story-for-you-open-spoilers/575384/100 "2011-03-28T20:19:56Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Agreed. I can easily imagine a situation where a craft has so little margin for error that a single stowaway cause the craft to fail. Yeah, I can imagine a scenario or two where the margin of error is too thin, but I’m hard pressed to accept this one. > [@](#): > > But the problem is the story wants the stowaway to be morally blameless. She isn’t responsible for the mistake, how could she have known? The guys who didn’t lock the door aren’t responsible, because “everyone knows” nobody can successfully stow away. It’s the laws of physics that are responsible. Except, it’s irresponsible to behave as if human beings never do irresponsible things. Exactly. The author is attempting to create a scenario where there is no moral fault that causes the situation, only a careless and uniformed decision that shows that life on the frontier is not nearly as safe as our protected little home environments. Except details of many decisions along the way in engineering and especially management provide plenty of ground for moral judgments. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bad-engineering-in-the-cold-equations-ruin-the-story-for-you-open-spoilers/575384.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-bad-engineering-in-the-cold-equations-ruin-the-story-for-you-open-spoilers/575384.md?page=6)