3 ms·

Just because you don't understand the jargon does not make it incorrect/unclear, have you ever worked at NASA?

caconym_ 8y ago
If NASA is encoding safety-critical messages in "jargon" that can pass for misleadingly ambiguous plain English, that's a huge safety problem itself. What if it's somebody's first day on the job? Especially given the sorry state of the presentation in general, I really doubt this is the case, though.
- peteradio 8y ago
  Have you ever presented inside a collaboration?
  - caconym_ 8y ago
    Yes, and my experience doing so only cements the opinion(s) expressed in my previous comment—to which I'm inclined to say your reply is not terribly relevant. Ambiguous, poorly presented, and technically dense are three different things, though they can all be present in the same place. Only two of them are necessarily bad.
    - peteradio 8y ago
      So what exactly is technically dense/ambiguous in this summary presentation (remember this isn't the only information provided). Perhaps you'd like to review the full deck of slides rather than the single one picked by the asshole author, I'm particularly interested in the one titled "Damage Results From “Crater” Equations Show Significant Tile Damage" . https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/2203main_COL_debris_boeing_030123.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/2203main_COL_debris_boeing_030123.p...
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        Seconding your comment. The presentation isn't ambiguous, it's just written in a detached, conservative style typical to scientific papers.
      - caconym_ 8y ago
        The title, "Review of Test Data Indicates Conservatism for Tile Penetration" is completely ambiguous to the point of being nonsensical. It is impossible to know in which direction the author of the slides thinks we should be conservative. Ironically the slide you point out ("Damage Results From 'Crater' Equations Show Significant Tile Damage") seems to skew our interpretation of the next slide's title and content in the wrong direction. The former slide states that "'Crater' indicates that multiple tiles would be taken down to densified layer". That sounds bad. However, it also tells us that the "program" (assuming this means the Crater model) that generated this alarming prediction was "designed to be conservative". This would seem to downplay any concern generated by this result. Furthermore we are told that "Crater reports damage for test conditions that show no damage", further casting into doubt the predictions of the model. And then, on the next slide: "Review of Test Data Indicates Conservatism for Tile Penetration". On the previous slide the word "conservatism" was used to tell us that the results from the "Crater" model may be on the high side, i.e. showing a problem where there is none, and that the test data show a much smaller degree of damage. This slide is about test data ("Review of Test Data"). On both slides we are told that compared to test data, the Crater results are inflated: "Crater reports damage for test conditions that show no damage", and "Crater overpredicted penetration [...] significantly". Where does this leave us? The context of this additional slide makes the presentation even more misleading than the "asshole author", to use your delightful term, thinks it is. The title is not merely ambiguous; we are explicitly nudged toward the wrong interpretation of it. I have to thank you for bringing this additional context to my attention. The author may in fact be an asshole (though I think your language is inappropriate in context), and his analysis may lack depth (I think it does to some degree), but in the simple matter of this slide being egregiously awful he's totally right. I don't know why you'd choose this hill to die on.
        rayiner 8y ago
bumby 8y ago
Use of jargon is a huge impediment to communication in organizations like NASA and DoD. There's even a glib saying that you won't get your project funded unless you give it a cutesy/cool acronym. This ends up stifling communication because each group has its own pet vernacular that obfuscates meaning unless you are inside the circle. They could benefit from clear, concise communication that gets to the point
- peteradio 8y ago
  Read the full deck and tell me what is hard to understand: https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/2203main_COL_debris_boeing_030123.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/2203main_COL_debris_boeing_030123.p...
  - zipperhead 8y ago
    Indeed. The conclusion is: ```` Contingent on multiple tile loss thermal analysis showing no violation of M/OD criteria, safe return indicated even with significant tile damage ```` That's going to be difficult for management to push back against.
  - zaroth 8y ago
    Thank you for posting the full deck. The conclusion is pretty clearly stated that the engineers thought the shuttle would return safely, even with missing tiles. The focus on this one slide out of context seems totally wrong.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      "Contingent on multiple tile loss thermal analysis", i.e. "we're running that model now and until we're done we're not sure, but the tests we did so far suggest that a tile loss should not prevent safe return". It isn't really that unclear. There are formal words, but - unlike typical managerial presentations - there's also content behind them.
  - pjtr 8y ago
    So the real slide was actually quite different from the one presented in the article. The article shows various errors not present in the real slide (vaires, e.?g., Ln, hanrd). The real slide also use different font weights and bullet symbols. Was that intentional to give a bad impression, or just really sloppy? Or were those slides cleaned up?

If NASA is encoding safety-critical messages in "jargon" that can pass for misleadingly ambiguous plain English, that's a huge safety problem itself. What if it's somebody's first day on the job? Especially given the sorry state of the presentation in general, I really doubt this is the case, though.

peteradio 8y ago
Have you ever presented inside a collaboration?
- caconym_ 8y ago
  Yes, and my experience doing so only cements the opinion(s) expressed in my previous comment—to which I'm inclined to say your reply is not terribly relevant. Ambiguous, poorly presented, and technically dense are three different things, though they can all be present in the same place. Only two of them are necessarily bad.
  - peteradio 8y ago
    So what exactly is technically dense/ambiguous in this summary presentation (remember this isn't the only information provided). Perhaps you'd like to review the full deck of slides rather than the single one picked by the asshole author, I'm particularly interested in the one titled "Damage Results From “Crater” Equations Show Significant Tile Damage" . https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/2203main_COL_debris_boeing_030123.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/2203main_COL_debris_boeing_030123.p...
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      Seconding your comment. The presentation isn't ambiguous, it's just written in a detached, conservative style typical to scientific papers.
    - caconym_ 8y ago
      The title, "Review of Test Data Indicates Conservatism for Tile Penetration" is completely ambiguous to the point of being nonsensical. It is impossible to know in which direction the author of the slides thinks we should be conservative. Ironically the slide you point out ("Damage Results From 'Crater' Equations Show Significant Tile Damage") seems to skew our interpretation of the next slide's title and content in the wrong direction. The former slide states that "'Crater' indicates that multiple tiles would be taken down to densified layer". That sounds bad. However, it also tells us that the "program" (assuming this means the Crater model) that generated this alarming prediction was "designed to be conservative". This would seem to downplay any concern generated by this result. Furthermore we are told that "Crater reports damage for test conditions that show no damage", further casting into doubt the predictions of the model. And then, on the next slide: "Review of Test Data Indicates Conservatism for Tile Penetration". On the previous slide the word "conservatism" was used to tell us that the results from the "Crater" model may be on the high side, i.e. showing a problem where there is none, and that the test data show a much smaller degree of damage. This slide is about test data ("Review of Test Data"). On both slides we are told that compared to test data, the Crater results are inflated: "Crater reports damage for test conditions that show no damage", and "Crater overpredicted penetration [...] significantly". Where does this leave us? The context of this additional slide makes the presentation even more misleading than the "asshole author", to use your delightful term, thinks it is. The title is not merely ambiguous; we are explicitly nudged toward the wrong interpretation of it. I have to thank you for bringing this additional context to my attention. The author may in fact be an asshole (though I think your language is inappropriate in context), and his analysis may lack depth (I think it does to some degree), but in the simple matter of this slide being egregiously awful he's totally right. I don't know why you'd choose this hill to die on.
      - rayiner 8y ago

bumby 8y ago

Use of jargon is a huge impediment to communication in organizations like NASA and DoD. There's even a glib saying that you won't get your project funded unless you give it a cutesy/cool acronym. This ends up stifling communication because each group has its own pet vernacular that obfuscates meaning unless you are inside the circle. They could benefit from clear, concise communication that gets to the point

peteradio 8y ago
Read the full deck and tell me what is hard to understand: https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/2203main_COL_debris_boeing_030123.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/2203main_COL_debris_boeing_030123.p...
- zipperhead 8y ago
  Indeed. The conclusion is: ```` Contingent on multiple tile loss thermal analysis showing no violation of M/OD criteria, safe return indicated even with significant tile damage ```` That's going to be difficult for management to push back against.
- zaroth 8y ago
  Thank you for posting the full deck. The conclusion is pretty clearly stated that the engineers thought the shuttle would return safely, even with missing tiles. The focus on this one slide out of context seems totally wrong.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    "Contingent on multiple tile loss thermal analysis", i.e. "we're running that model now and until we're done we're not sure, but the tests we did so far suggest that a tile loss should not prevent safe return". It isn't really that unclear. There are formal words, but - unlike typical managerial presentations - there's also content behind them.
- pjtr 8y ago
  So the real slide was actually quite different from the one presented in the article. The article shows various errors not present in the real slide (vaires, e.?g., Ln, hanrd). The real slide also use different font weights and bullet symbols. Was that intentional to give a bad impression, or just really sloppy? Or were those slides cleaned up?