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
The is if they want the public at large to pay for it.

>>ZiiS+un
I am more interested in them working efficiently than wasting time writing a 50 page report every time someone drops a pen.

>>josefx+UN
Ignoring the “pen dropping” strawman, how far does that trust go within the government?

Do you want the military to “work efficiently” if that means little to no oversight? How about Congress?

Oversight and accountability to the citizenry is a foundational principle in a functioning democracy.

>>bumby+nS
> Ignoring the “pen dropping” strawman

Saying that and then countering with your own.

Yeah, the pen dropping is a bit over the top, but as of now the claim is that this situation is planed for and will resolve itself. A report now wont tell us anything of significance. It will get interesting if the realignment fails.

> Oversight and accountability to the citizenry is a foundational principle in a functioning democracy.

I don't see micromanagement in that list.

>>josefx+DZ
>I don't see micromanagement in that list.

Is micromanaging what you're claiming is a strawman in my position? I'm not claiming you are saying the military doesn't need oversight, I'm probing with a concrete example where you draw the line on what constitutes a reasonable threshold of accountability. Note my statements were framed as questions to get clarification; that's not a strawman.

Your micromanaging claim is however another strawman statement. I guess I could use clarification on your point. Your equating to micromanaging is misapplied IMO. "Micromanaging" would be a direct democratic vote on most or all issues, IMO. That's not what's being asked for here here. What seems to be asked for is transparency. Access to information is not the same as having authority to make all decisions. But it is paramount in a government when people elect representatives who make decisions (or appoint those who do). The big issue I'm asking is: where is the reasonable 'trust, no need to verify' stance when it comes to public/govt work? Can we just trust tens of millions of dollars on construction projects, but not when it gets to hundreds of millions? What about aerospace? Do we say it's fine to go ahead with limited accountability when it comes to billion-dollar robotic missions, but not when there's a safety-critical application?

>A report now wont tell us anything of significance.

What makes you so confident? A report can tell us if processes were followed appropriately and, if not, if anyone was held accountable for not following them. I'd say that is pretty significant if you care about governmental fraud, waste, and abuse.