NASA’s loo-nar comms launch jargon debate

I’m not the sort of columnist to be crude about how NASA’s toilet terminology and communications during the Artemis II mission caused a stink that may bog the organisation down in a debate over words.

However, it seems many people weren’t bowled over by the technical language used – even if the subject matter was literally over the moon.

Reports of toilet trouble on the spacecraft began creeping into many media reports last week, as four astronauts became the first human beings to travel the furtherest from the Earth when they journeyed to the dark side of the moon.

Cue the pun headlines, beginning with the BBC’s "To boldly go", The Guardian’s "Relief for astronauts", and many takes on “giant leak for mankind”.

But while NASA’s loo was eventually flushed with success, it was the technical communication used by the astronauts during the remainder of the mission that is now causing a stir.

An article by Pilita Clark in the Financial Times made the case that the terminology used by the four was the worst kind of jargon, and a big miss by NASA in the first trip around the moon in 50 years, given that the world was listening to everything that went on in the spacecraft. It calls out much of the discourse as business jargon, itself a word that derives from French, describing bird warbles and “other unintelligible prattling”.

It’s summarised here in the Irish Times, and includes choice phraseology such as “I have an LCC violation” and “transponder one had a demodulated SNR estimate”.

Sustainability consultant Emily Luscombe, profiled in this column a while back, took up the case against overuse of jargon this week on LinkedIn, making the point that while “there will always be value in using technical and scientific terms, particularly in an industry where accuracy is critical, and misinformation is rife”, the media coverage pickling up on the technical terminology has deflected from the messages NASA was trying to get across with what was undoubtedly a critical mission.

Bogged down by words

The issue has reopened a debate over where to draw the line with the use of technical terms. Where do they cross over into unhelpful jargon, and where do words seek to deflect or diffuse rather than communicate with clarity? And if the media is exposed to people with scientific backgrounds just doing their jobs, can we really expect plain English if this is how they normally have to converse?

And as this piece points out, there’s even the language of space exploration writ large to consider, given terms like “frontier” and “manifest destiny” can be construed as having colonial overtones.

Communicators in many sectors – technology and healthcare chief among them – have long been tasked with turning technical or scientific language into words that broader audiences and news desks can understand.

For those communicating sustainability topics, it’s arguably even more important to consider language, given the need to make profound topics relatable and make complex topics comprehendible – particularly in the area of climate science.

Equally, there needs to be room for authenticity, and for people to express their actions in technical ways if that’s what’s required, particularly for accuracy or safety purposes. In live interviews, presenters have the opportunity to ask technically-minded spokespeople to explain themselves in simpler terms, or bring in an expert (or more usually now, another journalist) who can clear things up.

But in corporate communication exercises destined for broad audiences – reports, live feeds, direct access, etc. – there isn’t that opportunity. The choice of words can be as important as their intent, as can the risk of them overshadowing the intended headlines.

Each case is different, but the ground rule of making words understandable to audiences remains. Though I’m not sure we’ve got to the bottom of this yet.