4 ms·
Interesting. I'm curious, do you find the technical content to be the 'thickening agent' or the style? I work in a related field, and am vaguely familiar with
by dtparr 11y ago
Interesting. I'm curious, do you find the technical content to be the 'thickening agent' or the style?
I work in a related field, and am vaguely familiar with both the general makeup of this type of rocket and this accident in general. I also tend to write longer, more complex sentences.
I did not find it to be particularly 'thick', and I'm curious whether it's because I'm more familiar with the technical details and so avoided the glossy-eyed stare from that aspect or from the fact that a few dozen words in a sentence doesn't faze me.
The former would mean this shouldn't bother anyone practiced in the arts of spaceflight (such as the VP of engineering), but the latter would have been a problem.
Edit: stupid homophones.
- frandroid 11y agoBoth. But the problem is not the thickness per se, it's that the lede is buried beneath the technical specifications. The "thickness" compounds the problem. "we stand in jeopardy of losing a flight along with all the launch pad facilities" should be in the first sentence of the whole letter, not the final one.