The Client Sent 47 Emails During The Mission. This Report Is Largely About The Emails.
ORC DISPATCH · MISSION REPORT · ORC-2025-344 · CLEARED FOR EXTERNAL PUBLICATION · 47 EMAILS RECEIVED · 0 ABOUT THE MISSION · A. KOWALSKI: STILL OPERATIONAL
MISSION REF / ORC-2025-344 · FILED 12 DEC 2025 · PUBLISHED 23 MAY 2026
The Client Sent 47 Emails During The Mission. This Report Is Largely About The Emails.
LEO Standard Retrieval · S-01 · ORC-V4 “Patience” · Nov–Dec 2025 · Mission duration: 24 days · Email duration: also 24 days
APPROVED: M. HARGREAVES · LEGAL: L. SANDHU · NOTE: THE CLIENT IS AWARE THIS REPORT IS BEING PUBLISHED. THE CLIENT LAUGHED. THE CLIENT THEN ASKED IF ORC COULD REMOVE EMAIL 23. WE HAVE NOT REMOVED EMAIL 23. EMAIL 23 IS IN THE LOG.
BACKGROUNDBRIEF
The mission was a standard S-01 retrieval. ORC-V4 “Patience” was deployed on 14 November 2025. The object was where the client said it would be. Capture was completed on day 19. Re-entry confirmed 07 December 2025. The mission was, operationally, unremarkable.
What was remarkable was the volume of email. The client had been briefed on ORC’s communication schedule: seven planned updates over the 24-day mission, at days 2, 5, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24. The client acknowledged the schedule. The client then sent 47 emails. All 47 were addressed to A. Kowalski. A. Kowalski is fine. A. Kowalski has asked that we note he is fine.
The emails are categorised below. Click each category to expand the log. None of the emails are about the mission. This is the point of the report.
CLIENT INBOX · ORC-2025-344 · 47 EMAILS · CATEGORISED · CLICK TO EXPAND
PERIOD: 14 NOV – 07 DEC 2025
Subject lines are reproduced verbatim. A. Kowalski’s response status is noted for each. The client has been informed that subject lines are being published. The client said “fair enough.” The client has since improved their subject line conventions.
CATEGORY A · GENERAL ENTHUSIASM / CHECK-INS
14
29.8%
DAY 1
“Hi! Just wanted to say we’re very excited about this”
A. Kowalski responded: “Thank you. We’ll send the first update on day 2.”
DAY 2
“Any news??”
Day 2 update was sent at 09:00 that morning. This email arrived at 09:04. A. Kowalski did not respond separately.
DAY 3
“How’s it going (no need to reply just curious!)”
A. Kowalski did not reply. The parenthetical was appreciated.
DAY 4
“Thinking of you all up there!”
The mission is automated. Nobody is physically “up there.” A. Kowalski did not correct this. It felt unkind.
DAY 6
“Hi again :)”
No body text. A. Kowalski did not respond. The smiley was noted.
DAY 7
“Just checking in (for real this time, is there anything to report)”
A. Kowalski responded: “Next update is day 8. Everything is on schedule.”
DAY 9
“We told the board it would be done by month end, are we still on track?”
This is a mission question. It is the only mission question in 47 emails. A. Kowalski confirmed month-end delivery. A. Kowalski did not note the irony.
DAY 11
“No news is good news right? Ha”
Correct. A. Kowalski did not respond.
DAY 13
“Morning!”
No body text. Sent at 07:44. A. Kowalski was not yet at his desk.
DAY 15
“Just popping in”
No body text. A. Kowalski filed this one without opening it and then felt guilty and opened it. There was no body text.
DAY 17
“Are we nearly there?”
A. Kowalski responded that day 20 update would confirm capture status. The client replied “brilliant thanks!” and then sent three more emails that day.
DAY 20
“SO EXCITING”
Sent four minutes after the day 20 update confirming capture. All caps. A. Kowalski showed this to M. Hargreaves. M. Hargreaves smiled briefly.
DAY 22
“Nearly done!! :D”
A. Kowalski responded with the re-entry schedule. The client replied with a thumbs-up emoji. A. Kowalski considers this a satisfactory exchange.
DAY 24
“WE DID IT!!!!”
Sent three minutes after re-entry confirmation. Five exclamation marks. Technically accurate. A. Kowalski replied: “Confirmed. Documentation to follow.” A. Kowalski considers this his finest response.
CATEGORY B · ADMINISTRATIVE (UNRELATED TO MISSION)
11
23.4%
DAY 1
“Invoice query — the number doesn’t match our PO”
The invoice matched the quote which matched the PO. The PO had a typo. L. Sandhu resolved this. L. Sandhu has asked that we note she also resolved emails 2, 5, 8, and 14 in this category.
DAY 3
“Re: Invoice query — still outstanding”
It was not outstanding. L. Sandhu had replied the previous day. The client had not read L. Sandhu’s reply.
DAY 4
“Re: Re: Invoice query — got it, sorry!”
Resolved. Three emails.
DAY 6
“Can we get a W9 form? (Our finance team asks everyone)”
ORC is a UK company. A W9 is a US tax document. L. Sandhu explained this. The client said “oh sorry, we’ve just got a new finance system.”
DAY 8
“What’s ORC’s VAT number?”
It is on the invoice. It is on the quote. It is on the contract. L. Sandhu sent it again.
DAY 10
“Data processing agreement — our legal team needs one”
ORC has a standard DPA. L. Sandhu sent it. The client’s legal team requested three amendments. L. Sandhu reviewed the amendments. Two were standard. One was [REDACTED].
DAY 12
“Can you add us to your approved supplier list?”
The client is the client. ORC is the supplier. The question is directionally incorrect. A. Kowalski replied explaining which direction the approved supplier relationship ran. The client said “oh god yes of course, sorry.”
DAY 14
“Insurance certificate request from our facilities team (sorry, routine)”
ORC’s insurance certificate is publicly available on the ORS portal. L. Sandhu sent it anyway.
DAY 16
“Slight issue with the payment ref — finance used the wrong code”
The payment had not yet been due. L. Sandhu flagged this for future reference and filed the email under “proactive problems.”
DAY 21
“Payment sent! Let us know when received”
The payment terms are net-30 from invoice date. Invoice had not yet been issued. A. Kowalski thanked the client for their enthusiasm.
DAY 23
“Actually re: payment, finance used the wrong code again (sorry!)”
L. Sandhu resolved this. L. Sandhu has described the experience of being ORC’s finance contact for this client as “character-building.”
CATEGORY C · FORWARDED ITEMS OF POSSIBLE INTEREST
9
19.1%
DAY 2
“FYI — thought you might find this article interesting (space junk thing in the news)”
The article was about a different retrieval company. The article contained several technical inaccuracies. A. Kowalski did not reply.
DAY 5
“Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Amazing video of a meteor — is this what you do??”
The video was of a meteor. This is not what ORC does. A. Kowalski replied explaining the distinction. The client said “oh interesting!”
DAY 8
“Have you seen this? (ESA thing)”
It was an ESA press release about orbital debris that quoted ORC’s 2023 white paper. A. Kowalski was aware of the press release. ORC wrote the white paper.
DAY 10
“My nephew wants to work in space, any advice?”
A. Kowalski suggested the nephew look at aerospace engineering programmes. The client forwarded this reply to the nephew. The nephew replied to A. Kowalski directly with three follow-up questions. A. Kowalski answered all three.
DAY 13
“LinkedIn article you might like — ‘The future of space debris is everyone’s problem’”
ORC is aware of this problem. ORC is the solution to this problem. A. Kowalski did not reply.
DAY 15
“Podcast recommendation — have you heard Debris Talk? Episode 34 mentions you”
ORC was not aware of Debris Talk. A. Kowalski listened to episode 34. ORC is mentioned briefly. The description of how ORC works is [REDACTED].
DAY 17
“This is unrelated but did you know there’s a film about this? Called Gravity?”
ORC is aware of the film. ORC has opinions about the film. A. Kowalski said “yes, we’re familiar with it.” This was sufficient.
DAY 19
“FYI our CEO now wants to mention this mission at the all-hands, is that okay?”
A. Kowalski referred to L. Sandhu. L. Sandhu confirmed ORC standard confidentiality terms apply. The client confirmed the CEO would mention “a specialist retrieval partner” without naming ORC. ORC confirmed this was acceptable. The CEO mentioned ORC by name. L. Sandhu noted this.
DAY 22
“Can we put your logo on our website under ‘trusted partners’?”
A. Kowalski referred to M. Hargreaves. M. Hargreaves said yes. This is the only email in the 47 that ORC considers to have had a productive outcome beyond the mission itself.
CATEGORY D · ACCIDENTAL / MISDIRECTED
8
17.0%
DAY 3
“Lunch order — same as last week?”
Misdirected. A. Kowalski replied to say this appeared to be for a different recipient. The client said “oh no, sorry!! Please ignore!!” A. Kowalski would like it noted that he has wondered, occasionally, what the lunch order was.
DAY 7
“Re: Team away day — Lake District or Peak District?”
Misdirected. A. Kowalski replied. The client was mortified. A. Kowalski, unprompted, said Lake District. The client said they went with the Peak District. A. Kowalski has no opinion on this outcome.
DAY 9
“Did you see what Sarah said in the meeting?? Call me”
Misdirected. A. Kowalski did not call. A. Kowalski replied to say the email appeared to be for someone else. The client said “oh my god I am so sorry” and also “please forget you saw that.” A. Kowalski forgot he saw that. We have not forgotten we saw that. Email 23 is in the report.
DAY 11
“Fwd: Fwd: Cat video (this is incredible)”
Misdirected. A. Kowalski watched the video. A. Kowalski agrees it was incredible. A. Kowalski did not say this to the client.
DAY 14
“URGENT — can someone cover Thursday?”
Misdirected. ORC could not cover Thursday. A. Kowalski replied. The client said “I really need to sort out my contacts list.”
DAY 16
“Re: Birthday drinks for Marcus — are you coming?”
Misdirected. A. Kowalski is not Marcus’s colleague. A. Kowalski replied to clarify. The client apologised. A. Kowalski was not invited to Marcus’s birthday drinks. A. Kowalski did not expect to be.
DAY 19
“Quick vent — ignore if busy (just needed to tell someone)”
Misdirected. The vent concerned a situation at the client’s office. A. Kowalski replied with three words: “Sounds very frustrating.” The client replied: “Thank you, that helps.” A. Kowalski considers this one of the more useful emails he has handled.
DAY 23
“Re: Christmas party — dietary requirements?”
Misdirected. A. Kowalski replied. The client apologised for the seventh time. The client asked, as an aside, if A. Kowalski had any dietary requirements. A. Kowalski said no. A. Kowalski was not at the Christmas party. This has been confirmed.
CATEGORY E · ADDITIONAL SERVICES / FUTURE WORK
5
10.6%
DAY 4
“Do you do launches? (asking for a friend)”
ORC does not do launches. ORC retrieves things. A. Kowalski explained. The client said “the clue was in the name, wasn’t it, sorry.”
DAY 12
“We have two more satellites coming up for decommission — can we talk?”
A. Kowalski confirmed ORC would be happy to quote. These became ORC-2026-088 and ORC-2026-053. Both are in the Dispatch archive. Both missions went well. Neither generated 47 emails.
DAY 18
“Could ORC do a talk at our company conference? (Space Day in March)”
A. Kowalski referred to M. Hargreaves. M. Hargreaves said she would consider it. M. Hargreaves has not yet confirmed. The conference is in March 2026. This report was filed in December 2025. This is still pending.
DAY 20
“Can ORC do monitoring? Like, watch our satellites and tell us if anything’s wrong?”
A. Kowalski referred to M. Hargreaves. This is a question ORC is currently considering adding as a service. The client may have accelerated this conversation.
DAY 24
“We’d like to put ORC on retainer if that’s a thing you do?”
It is a thing ORC does. A. Kowalski referred to M. Hargreaves. The client is now on a framework agreement. M. Hargreaves considers this the correct conclusion to a 47-email mission relationship.
TOTAL: 47 EMAILS · 0 ABOUT THE MISSION · 2 REQUIRING SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSE · 7 MISDIRECTED · 1 CAT VIDEO (INCREDIBLE)
A. KOWALSKI: FINE
ORC-V4 “Patience” completed a standard S-01 LEO retrieval at 618 km. The object was at the stated position. The characterisation data was accurate. Capture was completed on day 19. Re-entry was confirmed on 07 December 2025. Seven mission updates were sent on the scheduled days. All seven were acknowledged promptly. Some acknowledgements contained additional emails.
A. KOWALSKI
A. Kowalski handled 47 inbound emails during ORC-2025-344 in addition to standard mission operations. A. Kowalski has been assigned a dedicated client liaison inbox for future high-volume client relationships. The inbox has an auto-response. The auto-response was written by A. Kowalski. It is polite. It mentions the update schedule three times.
END OF REPORT · ORC-2025-344 · 47 EMAILS · 0 ABOUT THE MISSION · 1 CAT VIDEO · 1 FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT · A. KOWALSKI: FINE