Today, there's no way I could get away with writing an entire page of context before getting to the impact. I wonder how much context the recipient had and what reading expectations were like back then...
Are you having serious engineering-related discussions with your management where they can't read 150 words before getting to the hook? (serious question, not snark)
Is everyone communicating via twitter or something? (sorry, that was a bit of snark)
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.
"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.
For example the author takes this sentence:
Pelicans may also be vulnerable to direct oiling, but the lack of mortality data despite numerous spills in areas frequented by the species suggests that it practices avoidance.
... and turns it into this:
Pelicans seem to avoid oil spills by avoiding the oil.
[1] "Revising Prose", Richard Lanham. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321441699/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_d...
It's easy to trim sentences when you take away data.
Before: Perception is the process of extracting information from stimulation emanating from objects, places, and events in the world around us.
After: Perception extracts information from the outside world.
Yes, the first is more specific and more detailed, but the "outside world" includes things like objects and places and doesn't add much to the gist. The second one is certainly more readable.
I often see writing (especally from engineers) that is meant to be informative that is overwhelmed with irrelevant information. That is difficult to parse. Sometimes you want to pick out just a few relevant facts and leave out anything that isn't strictly needed so your audience understands the point.
It depends on your audience and you reason for writing what sort of information is needed and what is not needed. Its not an easy skill.
Ya it's a bad situation.
An ultra-executive summary is what your memo/email subject and first line should be. Then expand out with more and more detail as necessary.
The total loss of a future shuttle mission and the death of its crew is a near certainty with our current booster o-ring design.
Then I would omit everything else in the original letter except the request for staffing.
Let's hope the management reading the letter wasn't so fickle. Oh wait, hmmmmmm.
> The total loss of a future shuttle mission and the death of its crew is a near certainty with our current booster o-ring design.
From the point of view of the engineer, that would be a misrepresentation of the facts. An exaggeration.
You're basically outlining the difference between engineers and marketers. I don't mean that as a sleight - perhaps the situation called for a bit of "marketing".
In most organizations I've worked in (generally large ones), the rank-and-file engineers/scientists are below-average communicators (a stereotype, I know, but it's been true). They choose the wrong level of technical detail for their audience (or send it to such a large cross-section of people that there is no appropriate level for everyone). They certainly make grammatical mistakes. It's up to engineering management (who are generally better communicators) to pull the salient bits out of the communication and then pass that up the chain in a more clear manner. I certainly can't imagine a manager going "well, Darren's letter that warned me of a likely loss of human life used 'insure' instead of 'ensure', so I'm just going to assume that the rest of it is drivel and go on about my day".
Your way would certainly have been better. Related note, one of the best writing classes I ever took with regard to its effect on my current work was actually a journalism class. The notion not to bury the lede has been key as attention spans wane (apparently more than I'd realized).
- But how would you call it? Memo? If yes, isn't it a memo about an technical problem? Or an another way to ask: How to describe a technical problem without using tech jargon?
When I read it, it seems like a banal procedural artifact. No urgency.
He was better as an engineer than a communicator.
At a meeting, if the organizer chooses to move on to another topic after you present an issue, you have no choice but to go along. Here's a Shuttle Flight Readiness Review at Kennedy Space Center:
http://appel.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2010/12/06p...
It's hard to stop a train like that.
Currently, the (large) meeting room at NASA JSC where flight decisions are made has many big red hand pieces at which anyone who has an issue can break in.
I'd bet that this letter was written longhand or dictated and handed to a typist. That may be part of the reason why.
Edit: Grammar
Don't forget this warning was to a VP of Engineering and was referencing previous issues that were being worked on. There seemed like plenty of context there to me.