Interview scorecard template

Space Tourism Experience Designer interview scorecard

Evaluate Space Tourism Experience Designer candidates across 4 weighted areas: portfolio, craft and rationale, feedback and iteration, and working with the brief. Portfolio leads at 35%, so review end-to-end journey work: cabin interior concepts, pre-flight training arcs, microgravity moment storyboards, viewport choreography. Ask for service blueprints, CAD or Figma artefacts, and mockup. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationexperience designhuman factorsservice blueprintspaceflight participant
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate shows named suborbital or analogue projects with blueprints, cabin mockups and journey maps they authored, plus evidence flown or built. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate explains design decisions against launch loads, suit ergonomics and habitability standards, not just aesthetics or brand mood boards. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.

01
Evaluation factor

Portfolio

35% weight

Review end-to-end journey work: cabin interior concepts, pre-flight training arcs, microgravity moment storyboards, viewport choreography. Ask for service blueprints, CAD or Figma artefacts, and mockup builds they personally shipped.

Evidence to listen for

  • Work exists and can be looked at, not just described
  • States what they made versus what the team or a template made
  • Shows range rather than one repeated style
  • Can walk through a piece from brief to final

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No portfolio, or work that is unattributable or clearly templated.

2
Needs Improvement

Thin portfolio; unclear what they personally made.

3
Satisfactory

Real work with adequate range; contribution mostly clear.

4
Very Good

Strong varied portfolio with clear personal ownership.

5
Excellent

Shows named suborbital or analogue projects with blueprints, cabin mockups and journey maps they authored, plus evidence flown or built.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Probe human factors literacy: anthropometrics in pressure suits, restraint and handhold placement, motion sickness mitigation, NASA-STD-3001 or equivalent, and how those constraints shaped their design choices.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains why a layout, type choice, or colour decision serves the brief
  • Knows typography and hierarchy as craft, not decoration
  • Works to a brand system without either breaking it or hiding behind it
  • Names the tools they are genuinely fast in

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot explain any decision; work is arbitrary.

2
Needs Improvement

Talks in taste terms only; no link between choice and brief.

3
Satisfactory

Sound craft with some ability to justify decisions.

4
Very Good

Articulate about why each choice serves the brief.

5
Excellent

Explains design decisions against launch loads, suit ergonomics and habitability standards, not just aesthetics or brand mood boards.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Test how they handled critique from flight safety, life support engineers and test participants; look for iterations driven by parabolic flight trials, VR walkthroughs or crew debriefs.

Evidence to listen for

  • Takes critique without treating it as an attack
  • Distinguishes a subjective preference from a real problem, and says so politely
  • Iterates fast rather than defending version one
  • Delivers files correctly and on time

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Defensive about critique; will not revise.

2
Needs Improvement

Accepts feedback passively; iterations do not improve the work.

3
Satisfactory

Revises willingly; struggles to push back on weak feedback.

4
Very Good

Iterates quickly and can argue for the work when the feedback is wrong.

5
Excellent

Cites specific redesigns after analogue trials or safety review, naming what failed and the measured improvement afterwards.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Assess work with mission timelines, mass and volume budgets, certification gates and marketing promises to ticket holders; ask how they scoped within a launch provider's fixed constraints.

Evidence to listen for

  • Asks about audience and goal before opening the design tool
  • Works with marketing, product, or clients rather than in isolation
  • Flags an impossible brief early
  • Hands over files and assets others can actually use

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Designs in isolation; ignores the brief's purpose.

2
Needs Improvement

Starts designing before understanding the goal.

3
Satisfactory

Asks the right questions when prompted.

4
Very Good

Interrogates the brief up front and hands over cleanly.

5
Excellent

Translates mass, volume and mission profile limits into a scoped brief, negotiating trade-offs with engineering and crew ops early.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Space Tourism Experience Designer

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    Can you describe a project where you turned a complex vision into a real experience?

  2. 02

    What experience do you have with immersive technologies?

  3. 03

    How have you tailored an experience for a varied audience?

  4. 04

    How do you approach storytelling within an experience like this?

  5. 05

    How do you build educational content into an experience?

See the complete Space Tourism Experience Designer question set
Put this rubric to work

Score every candidate against the same standard

Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.

Explore AI Scorecards