The Client Had Very Specific Requirements. We Did Not Ask What They Were For.
ORC DISPATCH · MISSION REPORT · ORC-2025-188 · PARTIAL CLEARANCE · CLIENT IDENTITY: REDACTED · L. SANDHU: ADVISED CAUTION · WE HAVE EXERCISED CAUTION
MISSION REF / ORC-2025-188 · FILED 14 AUG 2025 · PUBLISHED 23 MAY 2026
The Client Had Very Specific Requirements. We Did Not Ask What They Were For.
MEO Specialist Retrieval · S-01 (amended) · ORC-V1 “Maud” · Jul–Aug 2025
APPROVED: M. HARGREAVES · LEGAL: L. SANDHU (EXTENSIVE REVIEW) · ORS: NOTIFIED · ORS RESPONSE: NOTED · NOTE: THE CLIENT REQUIREMENTS BELOW ARE PUBLISHED WITH THEIR KNOWLEDGE. THEY SAID “FINE.” THEY SAID IT VERY QUICKLY.
MISSION REQUIREMENTS · AS SUBMITTED BY CLIENT · CLICK EACH TO REVEAL
9 REQUIREMENTS · ALL UNUSUAL · ALL MET
The client submitted their requirements via a Form 3-Q addendum on 28 June 2025. The addendum contained nine specific requirements beyond ORC’s standard S-01 terms. ORC’s internal review of these requirements is documented alongside each one.
R-01
[ click to reveal ]
► REVEAL
The object must be retrieved intact and returned to a specified terrestrial location. It is not to be deorbited over the ocean.
ORC note: We asked where it was to be returned. The client provided coordinates. The coordinates are a [REDACTED]. Standard S-01 retrieval does not include terrestrial return logistics. We arranged terrestrial return logistics. This was not cheap. The client did not query the cost.
R-02
[ click to reveal ]
► REVEAL
No mission communications to be transmitted or received via standard commercial satellite links. All comms to be routed through a specified secure channel provided by the client.
ORC note: The secure channel provided by the client was [REDACTED]. We used the channel. The channel worked. We did not ask who owned it.
R-03
[ click to reveal ]
► REVEAL
Mission personnel with direct knowledge of the object’s designation or origin are to sign an additional non-disclosure agreement specific to this mission, separate from ORC’s standard confidentiality terms.
ORC note: L. Sandhu reviewed the NDA. L. Sandhu described it as [REDACTED].
R-04
[ click to reveal ]
► REVEAL
The object’s catalogue designation is not to be referenced in any ORC mission documentation, internal or external. All references to the object in ORC records are to use the code designation: ITEM-188.
ORC note: This is not unusual for classified payloads. It is slightly unusual for an object described by the client as a “decommissioned commercial telecommunications satellite.” We noted the discrepancy. We did not raise the discrepancy. M. Hargreaves said [REDACTED].
R-05
[ click to reveal ]
► REVEAL
ORC-V1 “Maud” is acceptable. ORC-V2 “Reg,” ORC-V3 “Marigold,” and ORC-V4 “Patience” are not acceptable for this mission. No reason provided.
ORC note: We asked why Maud specifically. The client said “Maud has the correct configuration.” We asked what configuration they meant. The client said they had reviewed ORC’s vehicle specifications and Maud was the appropriate choice. Dr. Chen reviewed ITEM-188’s — [REDACTED].
R-06
[ click to reveal ]
► REVEAL
A client representative is to be present at Hangar 7, Trevannick, for the duration of the approach and capture phase. The representative will not require accommodation, will not require access beyond the designated monitoring area, and will not need to be introduced to ORC staff.
ORC note: The representative arrived at Hangar 7 at 06:00 on 14 July 2025. S. Okafor was there to receive them. S. Okafor described the representative as [REDACTED]. The representative left Hangar 7 at 19:40 following capture confirmation. They thanked S. Okafor. S. Okafor said “of course.”
R-07
[ click to reveal ]
► REVEAL
All imagery captured by Maud’s external camera array during the approach, capture, and transfer phases is the exclusive property of the client and is to be transferred to the client immediately upon Maud’s return. No copies to be retained by ORC.
ORC note: P. Patel flagged this requirement during the pre-mission review. P. Patel said [REDACTED].
R-08
[ click to reveal ]
► REVEAL
Upon completion, ORC is to issue a mission completion certificate stating that the object was successfully deorbited and re-entered over the South Pacific uninhabited zone on [date]. This certificate is for internal client records only and does not need to reflect actual re-entry logistics.
ORC note: L. Sandhu read this requirement three times. L. Sandhu then called M. Hargreaves. M. Hargreaves read the requirement. M. Hargreaves called the client. The client clarified that the certificate was for their internal accounting and regulatory reporting purposes, and that the actual mission outcome — terrestrial return to Wiltshire — was handled under a separate framework that ORC did not need to concern itself with. L. Sandhu said [REDACTED].
R-09
[ click to reveal ]
► REVEAL
Payment will be made via bank transfer from an account registered in the Cayman Islands. The client confirms this is compliant with all applicable regulations. L. Sandhu is welcome to verify this independently.
ORC note: L. Sandhu verified it independently. It was compliant. L. Sandhu said [REDACTED]. The mission was paid for in full. ORC is a licensed orbital retrieval operator. We retrieved the object. We were paid. We have noted everything else.
ORC-V1 “Maud” was deployed to MEO 19,400 km on 08 July 2025. ITEM-188 was located at the specified position. The object matched the physical description provided — dimensions, mass, and attitude state were accurate. P. Patel conducted the approach. Capture was achieved on day 8. The object was transferred to the terrestrial logistics provider designated by the client on 16 July 2025. The client representative confirmed receipt. The mission was complete.
We will not be publishing further details of the mission. This is not because the mission was unsuccessful. It was successful. It is because the nine requirements above represent the full extent of what we are able to say about ORC-2025-188 in a public document. M. Hargreaves has reviewed this report. L. Sandhu has reviewed this report. The client has reviewed this report. The client said [REDACTED].
ORC NOTE
ORC accepts commissions from a range of clients operating within the legal and regulatory frameworks applicable to orbital operations under ORS licence ORS/L/2011/0042. All missions are conducted in compliance with applicable law. L. Sandhu reviews all client requirements before ORC accepts any commission. ORC-2025-188 was reviewed thoroughly. It was accepted.
END OF REPORT · ORC-2025-188 · MISSION: COMPLETE · REQUIREMENTS: 9 · MET: 9 · QUESTIONS ASKED: 0 · PAYMENT: CLEARED