Why is Sea launch so anal with information?

wrote:
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." [...]

The second scrub notice had an even more pitiful information content.
"The Sea Launch team is currently working an issue at the launch site."

A little bit of info is finally trickling out. Av Week, in the 20 Feb
2006, issue, says that it launched "overcoming a mechanical problem
with the Russian-built erector on its floating launch pad". This
hardly seems embarassing enough to require a news blackout, nor
something that ITAR would be concerned with.

Lou Scheffer

In article . com,
wrote:
...says that it launched "overcoming a mechanical problem
with the Russian-built erector on its floating launch pad". This
hardly seems embarassing enough to require a news blackout, nor
something that ITAR would be concerned with.

There is basically no such thing as an issue too trivial for ITAR to be
concerned with. The folks who enforce the ITAR rules make no pretense
of being rational.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

(Henry Spencer) wrote in :

In article . com,
wrote:
...says that it launched "overcoming a mechanical problem
with the Russian-built erector on its floating launch pad". This
hardly seems embarassing enough to require a news blackout, nor
something that ITAR would be concerned with.

There is basically no such thing as an issue too trivial for ITAR to be
concerned with. The folks who enforce the ITAR rules make no pretense
of being rational.

With the complexity of ITAR and the onerous penalties levied for
violations, they can't afford to be. It is always safer to say "no" than to
say "yes", and from *that* point of view, their actions are perfectly
rational. The problem is that ITAR itself, as written, is irrational. The
solution is not to replace the people enforcing ITAR with rational people
(as they will inevitably gravitate back toward the stance of the people
enforcing it now), but to reform ITAR itself.

--
JRF

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