"At the request of the Missile Defense Agency, an external TV and internet broadcast of this mission will not be provided."http://www.ulalaunch.com/
The orbital parameters are public and there are even artist impressions of the spacecraft.
Quote from: Jim on 04/29/2009 06:48 pmWhat spacecraft? There are none of the ATRR spacecraft. There are some of the Demo spacecraft.Pg. 1 and 5 of the mission overview show it - unless they're not it...
What spacecraft? There are none of the ATRR spacecraft. There are some of the Demo spacecraft.
Pg 5 looks like GLAST
Quote from: Stephan on 04/29/2009 05:44 pm"At the request of the Missile Defense Agency, an external TV and internet broadcast of this mission will not be provided."http://www.ulalaunch.com/More secretive than NRO? That's quite lame... I can understand -with a stretch of imagination- why they want to cut the webcast off once the fairing has dropped, but the whole launch? The orbital parameters are public and there are even artist impressions of the spacecraft.
A real shame, considering that if both this and its sister launch are restricted from broadcast, only seven or so additional Delta II launch viewing opportunities exist before the end.We got to see video of Iran's and North Korea's launches, after the fact. Perhaps MDA will at least meet that standard. - Ed Kyle
Neither MDA nor ULA needs to prove to you that they launched a rocket, so comparing this launch to those by Iran and NK isn't relevant.
Next time Spain holds some military maneuvers, let us know how much live footage you receive. What would you say if Hispasat asked Ariane not to broadcast a launch because something about the vehicle would give away competitive information? Would that really be a problem for your? Would that really be a black mark on Spain's policy of openness?
I'll restate my point. You have been privy to a huge amount of information available live for US launches, including, as a couple of you have stated, many NRO launches. The fact that MDA chooses to restrict live video for this launch does not significantly affect the openness of the US. For any of us to say that it doesn't offer advantages to MDA is totally presumptive on our part. If you believe it truly "invalidates" the US as a leader of the free world, I would say that's just a bit of exaggeration.
This isn't a military maneuver, it's a rocket launch with an enshrouded military payload than can remain, by and large, secret.
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.
Lift-off.
Quote from: Art LeBrun on 05/05/2009 08:46 pmYears ago SECO meant sustainer engine cut off..........what words are used for second stage cutoff in SECO?Second Engine Cut Off.Sustainer Engine Cut Off would've only applied to Atlas.
Years ago SECO meant sustainer engine cut off..........what words are used for second stage cutoff in SECO?
Quote from: Art LeBrun on 05/05/2009 08:46 pmYears ago SECO meant sustainer engine cut off..........what words are used for second stage cutoff in SECO?Second Engine Cut Off.
That place looks primitive in comparison to the cape.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.htmlThis is better