Umm was not there a launch failure in the 1980's that the shroud came off exposing for all to see the super duper secret spy payload before smashing it to bits? The one thing both the Delta II and the Titan III have in common is they have both blown a solid shortly after clearing the tower. Maybe that is the fear. It has happened, a live feed could show the whole world what is behind the curtian ... eeer shroud.
An audio line for media to listen to the countdown will also not be provided.
ULA PAO Mike:1) Due to the classified nature of this launch, an external TV and internet broadcast will not be provided. An audio line for media to listen to the countdown will also not be provided. ... 2) Media remote camera set up is set for May 4.
If this launch isn't broadcast because it is classified, then how many more might soon be pulled into the dark? This is a policy that, after all, hasn't been used in many years. When you think about it, classified payloads constitute a major percentage of all U.S. launches. This policy could end coverage of many more ULA launches, including Delta IV and Atlas V.
But they don't have to lift a finger for our viewing pleasure.
This isn't about "viewing pleasure". We, the taxpayers, ultimately decide whether such missions are funded. If there's not going to be an F-22, why should anyone expect that there has to be an MDA? It is in their interest to *communicate*, and there is no better event than a launch for communicating program progress to the public. For a mission that likely costs many, many tens of millions of dollars at least, a 15 minute webcast shouldn't be a problem. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 05/02/2009 01:56 pmThis isn't about "viewing pleasure". We, the taxpayers, ultimately decide whether such missions are funded. If there's not going to be an F-22, why should anyone expect that there has to be an MDA? It is in their interest to *communicate*, and there is no better event than a launch for communicating program progress to the public. For a mission that likely costs many, many tens of millions of dollars at least, a 15 minute webcast shouldn't be a problem. - Ed KyleWe, the taxpayers, do not decide. Our representatives do. And they are given a lot more information about the need for the mission. The actual launch is almost irrelevant - certainly it must be successful, but that success does not depend upon anyone being able to watch it. But I'd bet that if any of them cared, they'd be given access to the live launch feed. Ed, everything in your argument except the first sentence says that it is about viewing pleasure.
It isn't about "viewing pleasure". Not for me personally. (I can't remember the last time I watched a Delta II webcast.) This is about keeping the public informed about what its government is up to. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 05/02/2009 02:54 pmIt isn't about "viewing pleasure". Not for me personally. (I can't remember the last time I watched a Delta II webcast.) This is about keeping the public informed about what its government is up to. - Ed KyleThen I suppose the real question is whether you believe a government is entitled to classify certain information in the interest of national security. In this situation, we know exactly what the government is "up to." They are launching a satellite which will help monitor for ballistic missile launches. What difference does it make if there is a webcast of the launch or not?
In this situation, we know exactly what the government is "up to."
If it isn't on the news, it won't exist as far as the general public is concerned - and not just the "spectacular" launch, but the entire program. Does the public know that MDA's budget is nearly $10 billion per year, and has been for years, but that it has only deployed about 24 long-range missile interceptors designed to protect only against a "limited" attack from only one country (North Korea) - a country that has yet to demonstrate an ICBM capability? Does the public understand that follow-on plans to expand missile defense to Europe have more than seriously damaged U.S. relations with Russia - a country equipped, BTW, with far more than 24 ICBMs? Etc.? Has the public asked if this is a worthwhile allocation of defense money when its military is losing ground in a foreign war?I want this launch to be on the news. I want people to ask what it is, and why, and how much it costs. I want independent experts to be called upon to analyze it, question it, and praise or criticize it. I want the public to be informed, to decide for itself whether this program, and others like it, are worth the money. I don't want MDA to hide something that doesn't need to be hidden (a video of a launch), leaving natural skeptics like me to wonder what is really being hidden. - Ed Kyle
Your argument that this launch is going to change the public's mind is pretty weak.
Quote from: WHAP on 05/03/2009 12:56 am Your argument that this launch is going to change the public's mind is pretty weak.We'll never know, will we?
Quote from: edkyle99 on 05/03/2009 04:51 amQuote from: WHAP on 05/03/2009 12:56 am Your argument that this launch is going to change the public's mind is pretty weak.We'll never know, will we? One might look at how many other launch webcasts have spurred public investigations into national security programs. The answer is: none of them.
Are there any media kits posted on-line?Any images of the mission logo? Tried to do an Internet search but didn't turn any up with the search criteria I used.