The Mission Was Successful. C. Morrison Wrote This Report Four Times.

ByThe ORC Team
ORC DISPATCH · MISSION REPORT · ORC-2026-042 · FILED BY C. MORRISON · FOURTH DRAFT · ANNOTATIONS VISIBLE · C. MORRISON IS AWARE ANNOTATIONS ARE VISIBLE · C. MORRISON HAS ACCEPTED THIS
MISSION REF / ORC-2026-042 · FILED 28 FEB 2026 · PUBLISHED 23 MAY 2026 · DRAFT 4 OF 4
The Mission Was Successful. C. Morrison Wrote This Report Four Times.
LEO Standard Retrieval · S-01 · ORC-V2 “Reg” · Jan–Feb 2026
Mission outcome
Success
Duration
18 days
Draft number
4 (final)
C. Morrison: fine
Yes. Now.
APPROVED: M. HARGREAVES (DRAFT 4) · DRAFT 1: NOT APPROVED · DRAFT 2: “CLOSER” · DRAFT 3: “ALMOST” · ANNOTATIONS FROM ALL DRAFTS RETAINED AND VISIBLE BELOW · C. MORRISON HAS CONSENTED TO THEIR PUBLICATION · C. MORRISON SAID “IF IT HELPS SOMEONE”
01 / THE MISSIONAPPROVED D4

ORC-V2 “Reg” completed a standard S-01 LEO retrieval at 499 km on behalf of a commercial operator. NOTE D1 The object was at the stated altitude and mass. Attitude state was as characterised. Capture was completed on day 14. Re-entry was confirmed on 18 February 2026 over the South Pacific uninhabited zone. NOTE D2 Full chain-of-custody documentation was issued within 14 working days. The mission was successful in all respects.

C. MORRISON · DRAFT 1I’ve written this opening eleven times now. Draft 1 started with “On a bright January morning, ORC-V2 ‘Reg’ lifted off—” and M. Hargreaves crossed it out and wrote “we launch from Hangar 7 at night for thermal reasons and this is not a novel.” Fair point.
C. MORRISON · DRAFT 2I originally wrote “re-entry was confirmed triumphantly.” A. Kowalski read draft 2 and said “re-entry isn’t really triumphant, it’s just confirmed.” I asked what the difference was. A. Kowalski said “about six adjectives.” I removed the adjective.

The client received post-mission confirmation at 14:32 on 18 February. NOTE D1 The client acknowledged receipt and noted the documentation was “comprehensive.” ORC considers this the correct outcome.

C. MORRISON · DRAFT 1The client actually said “yes thanks very much.” I asked M. Hargreaves how to characterise that in the report. M. Hargreaves said “professionally.” I tried seven versions. “Acknowledged receipt” is the seventh.

The object was located at the stated position within the approach window. NOTE D3 P. Patel confirmed nominal approach parameters. Capture was achieved on the first attempt, which P. Patel noted was “as expected.” The deorbit burn was calculated by Dr. Chen and executed without anomaly. Reg returned to Hangar 7 on 20 February following mission completion. NOTE D2

C. MORRISON · DRAFT 3I spent an entire afternoon on this paragraph. I wanted to write something about how finding a specific object in the enormity of space is remarkable, actually, even if we do it regularly. M. Hargreaves said “the paragraph is twice as long as the paragraph needs to be.” Dr. Chen read draft 3 and said “the object was at the stated position, this is not remarkable, this is the client doing their job correctly.” I took both notes.
C. MORRISON · DRAFT 2I originally included a sentence about Reg being “welcomed back” to the hangar. S. Okafor sent me an email that read only: “Reg is a vehicle.” I removed the sentence. I stand by the sentiment.

No anomalies were recorded during the mission. NOTE D1 Mission log entries were filed as standard. The client contact called once during the mission, on day 8, to confirm the update schedule was still active. A. Kowalski confirmed the schedule was active. The call lasted three minutes. NOTE D4

C. MORRISON · DRAFT 1Draft 1 had six paragraphs here explaining the significance of a no-anomaly mission and what it says about ORC’s operational excellence. M. Hargreaves said “you’ve written this before, it was ORC-2023-212, and C. Morrison found it difficult to write about then too.” I had forgotten I wrote ORC-2023-212. I reread ORC-2023-212. M. Hargreaves is right that it is the same problem. ORC-2023-212 was also four drafts.
C. MORRISON · DRAFT 4I left this detail in specifically because after ORC-2024-177 (29 calls) and ORC-2025-267 (uninvited visit), one call on day 8 to confirm the schedule is active is almost moving. A. Kowalski read draft 4 and said “it’s not moving, it’s normal.” I said I was leaving it in. A. Kowalski said fine. It is in.

This section was not in drafts 1, 2, or 3. It was added at M. Hargreaves’ suggestion following a conversation about why ORC-2026-042 had taken four drafts when the mission was, operationally, unremarkable. NOTE MH

M. HARGREAVES · EDITORIAL NOTEC. Morrison asked me why I wanted this section included. I said because the four drafts are part of the story, even if the mission isn’t. C. Morrison said “the mission is the story.” I said “not always.” C. Morrison thought about this for a moment and then went and wrote section 03. It took one draft. I think this is significant.

The difficulty with a successful, uneventful mission is that there is nothing to describe except the success and the absence of events. The object was there. We retrieved it. It is no longer there. The client is satisfied. There are 1,847 entries in ORC’s operational records, and some of them look like this one, and some of them look like ORC-2024-338, and writing them requires different things. NOTE D3

C. MORRISON · DRAFT 3I wrote this paragraph in draft 3 and M. Hargreaves said it was “the right direction.” This is the most positive feedback M. Hargreaves has given me since I joined ORC. I have kept the note. The note says “right direction.” I am going in the right direction.

I have written 23 mission reports for ORC since joining in 2022. Fourteen of them were successful and uneventful. I found all fourteen difficult to write. I do not find the others easy to write, but they are easier to write than the fourteen. I am not sure what this says about anything. NOTE D4 I think it is probably fine. The mission was successful. That is the report.

C. MORRISON · DRAFT 4M. Hargreaves read this paragraph and said “leave it in.” A. Kowalski read this paragraph and said “hm.” Dr. Chen read this paragraph and said nothing, which I have learned to interpret as neither positive nor negative, which is itself a kind of positive. L. Sandhu read this paragraph and said “I feel the same way about regulatory filings.” I think about L. Sandhu’s comment a lot.
04 / MISSION STATISTICSUNCONTESTED
Service tierS-01 Standard Retrieval
VehicleORC-V2 “Reg”
AltitudeLEO · 499 km
Mission duration18 days
Anomalies0
Client contacts during mission1 · day 8 · 3 minutes · schedule confirmation
Report drafts4
Drafts approved1 (draft 4)
Draft 1 fateNot approved. The word “triumphantly” featured.
C. Morrison: currentlyFiling ORC-2026-061. Draft 2. Going well, he says.
C. MORRISON C. Morrison has filed 23 mission reports for ORC. Twenty-three have been approved. The average draft count is 2.4. ORC-2026-042 is an outlier. ORC-2023-212 is also an outlier, and for the same reason. C. Morrison is aware that nothing happening is, in its own way, something happening. He is working on this.
ORC-2023-212 (similar problem) Dispatch archive
END OF REPORT · ORC-2026-042 · MISSION: SUCCESS · DRAFTS: 4 · C. MORRISON: GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION

Similar Posts