zlacker

>>belter+(OP)
That official statement seems incredibly light on detail, almost as if written for children, or worse, members of congress.

I wonder, is there a technical publication elsewhere that has more substantial coverage for interested people?

>>inopin+hb
What more is there to say? It seems like a pretty clear explanation to me.

>>michae+Ne
Well, congressman, I might be curious what the actual commands were, why they were issued, how it led to the unfavourable outcome, how they detected and measured the degree of misalignment, what a corrected command sequence might’ve been, and then cross-referenced to a hopefully existing article on how the spacecraft will eventually re-align itself, and perhaps some further reading on other commands that are routinely or not-so-routinely issued and how they are received, decoded, and executed on board the spacecraft. Basic stuff, y’know; after all, this isn’t rocket science.

If there is such an archive, or some approximation thereof, it would surely be fascinating to pore over it.

>>inopin+Hh
Why would they owe you such detailed explanations? You're asking for a full-on incident report. These take days to write and there's no reason for the public at large to need it.

>>hfkwer+km
> Why would they owe

> there's no reason for the public at large to need it

As a member of said public, I would be curious to know. There's no need for taxpayer-funded agencies to operate in a cloak of darkness.

Most everything done by government should by default be open to the public, with an exceedingly high bar that must be met to be otherwise. Otherwise, you run into nonsensical things like how some details around the assassination of a president 60 years ago are still classified on "national security" grounds.