Why is Sea launch so anal with information?

What does Sea Launch think they are gaining by being so stingy with
information about why they had to scrub two launches?

For the first one, they said it was "due to an off-nominal indication
from the Ground Support System." Since there would be no reason to
scrub without an off-nominal indication, this press release contains
exactly one bit of information - that the problem is in the ground
equipment.

The second scrub notice had an even more pitiful information content.
"The Sea Launch team is currently working an issue at the launch site."
It does not even tell whether the problem is with the ground support
or the rocket. Since their would be no scrub without an issue, and
since the purpose of the team is to work on issues, this press release
has absolutely no information whatsoever.

I don't know about anyone else, but my immediate reaction is that they
must be covering up some extremely unprofessional behavior. Maybe the
off-nominal indication in the ground equipment was the blood alcohol
level of the launch director. Maybe on the second try the child
pornography was chewing up so much bandwidth that the telemetry
couldn't get through, and the issue they are working is increasing the
bandwidth enough to support both simultaneously.

More seriously, what can they hope to gain with such a closed-mouth
strategy? Clearly they will have to tell their existing customers what
the problem is. So all they can possibly accomplish is to irritate all
the people who are not yet customers - scarcely a great marketing
strategy. Unless the truth is actually so bad that a mere morbid
suspicion is actually an improvement, what's the point?

Lou Scheffer

wrote in news:1139897434.549117.245180
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

What does Sea Launch think they are gaining by being so stingy with
information about why they had to scrub two launches?

Are you the paying customer? Didn't think so.

--Damon

What does Sea Launch think they are gaining by being so stingy with
information about why they had to scrub two launches?

It would appear this is an accurate description of what they are
doing. http://spaceflightnow.com/sealaunch/...10/status.html
says

"We understand the ground support system issue we observed during
countdown last Wednesday and we are confident that our corrective
action will support a successful liftoff on Sunday," Jim Maser,
president and general manager of Sea Launch, said in a press statement
today.

I mean, I suppose it could just be that Maser isn't technical enough
to accurately relay what he was told or something, but it doesn't seem
to just be a matter of timing (in which there is an announcement at
the time of the initial scrub, and they only find out later).

Are they still doing a webcast as in
http://www.satellite.eu.org/seesat/Mar-2000/0159.html ?

As for why, I don't know. It could be something as simple as they
don't see a benefit in going out of their way to provide information.

wrote:
What does Sea Launch think they are gaining by being so stingy with
information about why they had to scrub two launches?

Strictly speaking, there is no reason that they have to
inform the public about what they are doing. Nevertheless,
they have been providing a continuously updated webcam
view from Odyssey, even during the downtime, etc.

Part of the problem too may have something to do with
the mutli-national makeup of the launch crew. This is
a Ukrainian rocket powered by Russian engines fitted
with a Russian upper stage with a U.S.-built satellite
on a Norwegian launch platform. Since the recent
"Orange Revolution" and the subsequent threat by
Russia to cut off Ukraine's natural gas supply, some
additional tension has undoubtedly been added to the
situation. What Sea-Launch dearly does not want is
to have Yuznoye and Energia issuing conflicting
statements or press releases blaming each other or
Boeing for any problems that crop up.

- Ed Kyle

The information's available, maybe just not fast enough for
panting non-paying voyeurists.

---

New Date Set For Launch Of U.S. Satellite With Russian-Ukrainian Rocket

Moscow Agentstvo Voyennykh Novostey WWW-Text in English 1045 GMT 14 Feb 06

KOROLYOV, Moscow Region. Feb 14 (Interfax-AVN) - The takeoff of the
Russian-Ukrainian Zenit-3SL launch vehicle from a floating platform in the
Pacific has been tentatively scheduled for 2:35 a.m. Moscow time on Thursday
(2335 GMT on Wednesday), Interfax-Military News Agency was told at Energia
Rocket and Space Corporation.
"Reports from the headquarters of the Sea Launch international
consortium indicate that Zenit, which together with the DM upper stage
should place the American EchoStar X telecommunication satellite in orbit,
will take off in the early hours of February 16," a spokesman for the
corporation said.
Initially the launch was scheduled for the night of February 9. However,
eight minutes before takeoff pre-launch operations were automatically
cancelled. Sea Launch reported no problems with the technical state of the
launch vehicle, upper stage or satellite.
According to the spokesman, the launch is delayed due to the sea swell
in the launch area in the Pacific Ocean, which engines of the sea platform
cannot cope with.

Ed Kyle wrote:
wrote:
What does Sea Launch think they are gaining by being so stingy with
information about why they had to scrub two launches?

Strictly speaking, there is no reason that they have to
inform the public about what they are doing.

Agreed. I'm just curious, and they have no need to tell me anything.
But if they want their business to grow, they will need to explain to
the folks who have real satellites to launch, and the money to do it.
Given the limited number of satellites, this is primarily existing
customers of competitor's rockets. But this is exactly the people who
could and would take advantage of any weakness you expose, so there is
no chance of a long term coverup. So the choice is explain the problem
now, and suffer embarrassment, or explain the problem later, and suffer
embarassment AND a reputation for coverup and obstructionism.

Also, being unwilling to admit problems to others can rapidly turn into
being unwilling to admit problems internally, which is disastrous. So
even giving this impression might hurt their business.

Nevertheless, they have been providing a continuously updated webcam
view from Odyssey, even during the downtime, etc.

This is part of what I find odd. Why bother to create a fancy web
site, with a large, bold, "latest information" button, then have it
deliver no information? Why have an 800 number that gives the same
lack of information, then says "please call back frequently"?

Part of the problem too may have something to do with
the mutli-national makeup of the launch crew.

Yeah, it's like Boeing is building the web site and the Russian navy is
writing the contents

What Sea-Launch dearly does not want is
to have Yuznoye and Energia issuing conflicting
statements or press releases blaming each other or
Boeing for any problems that crop up.

Infighting and finger pointing among the launch crew does indeed seem
like a likely explanation. Presumably everyone has to agree to a
press release, and maybe the current uninformative ones are all they
can get agreement on.

Lou Scheffer

In article .com,
wrote:
What does Sea Launch think they are gaining by being so stingy with
information about why they had to scrub two launches?

In addition to the problems of a multinational effort, which others have
already mentioned, bear in mind that Sea Launch has already been soaked
$10M once by the US State Dept. for revealing unclassified technical
details of (gasp) rocket technology to the Wrong People (the guys who
build their rockets) without filling out the proper paperwork first.
People tend to have long memories for being fined amounts like that.

It's doubly awkward to get consensus on information release when you have
to fill out US government paperwork before you can even *discuss* the
issue with the people who have to agree on it.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

wrote in news:1139939345.742857.276920
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Ed Kyle wrote:
wrote:
What does Sea Launch think they are gaining by being so stingy with
information about why they had to scrub two launches?

Strictly speaking, there is no reason that they have to
inform the public about what they are doing.

Agreed. I'm just curious, and they have no need to tell me anything.
But if they want their business to grow, they will need to explain to
the folks who have real satellites to launch, and the money to do it.

Oh, I imagine the number of such customers is low enough that Sea Launch
can use more direct methods to keep them up-to-date without issuing press
releases...

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"Jorge R. Frank" jrfrank wrote:

wrote in news:1139939345.742857.276920
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Ed Kyle wrote:

wrote:

What does Sea Launch think they are gaining by being so stingy with
information about why they had to scrub two launches?

Strictly speaking, there is no reason that they have to
inform the public about what they are doing.

Agreed. I'm just curious, and they have no need to tell me anything.
But if they want their business to grow, they will need to explain to
the folks who have real satellites to launch, and the money to do it.

Oh, I imagine the number of such customers is low enough that Sea Launch
can use more direct methods to keep them up-to-date without issuing press
releases...

Very true. But I've watched quite a few launches by NASA, Boeing, and
Lockheed Martin, and I watched Sea Launch's first EchoStar X launch
attempt live on DISH network. To say they were stingy with the scrub
details was an understatement. They came back from a pre-taped piece
on the payload with about two sentences that the payload and rocket were
fine and that they'd launch at a later date. Goodbye. Cut to still
graphic. Never even mentioned the word "scrub."

It may have been completely innocent, but it *looked* like they were
hiding something.

Mike

-----
Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
St. Peters, MO

think ITAR.


"Michael Kent" wrote in message
...
"Jorge R. Frank" jrfrank wrote:

wrote in news:1139939345.742857.276920
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Ed Kyle wrote:

wrote:

What does Sea Launch think they are gaining by being so stingy with
information about why they had to scrub two launches?

Strictly speaking, there is no reason that they have to
inform the public about what they are doing.

Agreed. I'm just curious, and they have no need to tell me anything.
But if they want their business to grow, they will need to explain to
the folks who have real satellites to launch, and the money to do it.

Oh, I imagine the number of such customers is low enough that Sea Launch
can use more direct methods to keep them up-to-date without issuing press
releases...

Very true. But I've watched quite a few launches by NASA, Boeing, and
Lockheed Martin, and I watched Sea Launch's first EchoStar X launch
attempt live on DISH network. To say they were stingy with the scrub
details was an understatement. They came back from a pre-taped piece
on the payload with about two sentences that the payload and rocket were
fine and that they'd launch at a later date. Goodbye. Cut to still
graphic. Never even mentioned the word "scrub."

It may have been completely innocent, but it *looked* like they were
hiding something.

Mike

-----
Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
St. Peters, MO