A little help

[albatross]

Sometime back someone posted on the subject of powerpoint presentations.
Specifically that the requirement to prepare and present a detailed powerpoint of his mission plan to brief his superior officers was taking up a lot of time that could have been better used in actual mission planning and crew briefings.
I have searched but can’t find it.
Any clues?

[ORAC]

Here?

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/413520-powerpoint-real-enemy-war-terror.html#post5662229

[Timelord]

Haddon -Cave had some wise words in the Nimrod Review about misuse of PowerPoint in MoD. From memory something like: “ Use of PowerPoint in MoD is endemic and has the effect of inhibiting or replacing thought”. A dodgy PP presentation was also a factor in the Columbia Shuttle loss.

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

I seem to recall that the Morten Thiokol reps - in trying to persuade NASA not to launch that fateful day - cobbled together (against a stupidly short timeframe) a presentation using good old - handwritten - OHP slides to get their point across. NASA Management seemed to focus on this less than elegant presentation medium as a reason to dismiss M-T's concerns. The rest is, unfortunate, history.

[[email protected]]

I seem to recall that the Morten Thiokol reps - in trying to persuade NASA not to launch that fateful day - cobbled together (against a stupidly short timeframe) a presentation using good old - handwritten - OHP slides to get their point across. NASA Management seemed to focus on this less than elegant presentation medium as a reason to dismiss M-T's concerns. The rest is, unfortunate, history. I wonder if that was because the OHPs could be quickly destroyed after the fact with no electronic evidence remaining? After Columbia, electronic evidence was quickly removed - hard drives etc

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

I wonder if that was because the OHPs could be quickly destroyed after the fact with no electronic evidence remaining? After Columbia, electronic evidence was quickly removed - hard drives etc

I don't think so, there simply wasn't time for M-T to create a PPT presentation. NASA wanted "Reasons in writing - NOW" as to why they should delay the launch. M-T engineers responded as best they could in the minimal time allocated and then were denigrated for an 'amateurish' presentation subsequently. The inference being the quality of the presentation was more important than the content.

[Bing]

I don't think so, there simply wasn't time for M-T to create a PPT presentation.

For one thing they'd have had to wait until the following year for PowerPoint to be released.

[falcon900]

The digital footprint everything leaves behind these days should make for a treasure trove for future investigators of everything and anything. With the advent of Zoom etc meetings, minutes need no longer be the definitive record of who said what, or how things came to be, it will all be there in glorious technicolour.
I trust nobody has deleted the files.....?

[Timelord]

Crab, DML and Bing; Wrong disaster. I was referring to Columbia 2003 (foam insulation punctured leading edge) not Challenger 1986 (o ring burn through) . As far as I know PP played no part in the 1986 accident. In 2003 NASA detected the foam strike on launch and, with the Orbiter still in space, contracted Boeing to analyse the risk. They presented their findings in the world’s worst pp slide( Google columbia, powerpoint) . Boeing thought they were telling NASA that there was a significant risk. NASA took away that there was little risk.

[Bing]

Timelord, just Googled, those are truly awful slides, they read like a stream of consciousnesses not an attempt to communicate anything.

[albatross]

Thanks fellows. That is what I was looking for.