Why is Sea launch so anal with information?

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

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