A Retrieval Was Undertaken. This Report Has Been Written In The Passive Voice.
The requirement for passive voice in this report was issued by L. Sandhu on 12 November 2023. The reason given was that the client involved in ORC-2023-404 had submitted a legal request that ORC’s published account of the mission not identify specific individuals by name or by their actions. It was determined by L. Sandhu that the passive voice was the most elegant mechanism for complying with this requirement while still publishing a substantive report. C. Morrison was informed of the requirement. C. Morrison was asked to rewrite his draft accordingly. This was done. L. Sandhu told me on 12 November that I had to rewrite the entire report in the passive voice because the client had sent a legal letter asking us not to name anyone by their actions. I asked L. Sandhu if there was another way to handle this. L. Sandhu said the passive voice was the most elegant solution. I asked if “elegant” was the right word. L. Sandhu said it was her word and she was keeping it. I rewrote the report. The rewrite took three days. The original took four hours.
A commission was received on 02 October 2023. A Form 3-Q was submitted by the commissioning party. The object was characterised as a 290 kg LEO satellite at 498 km. A vehicle was deployed. The object was located at the characterised position. An approach was conducted. Capture was achieved. A re-entry was performed. The mission was completed on 07 November 2023. We received the commission on 02 October 2023. The client — who I cannot name because of L. Sandhu’s requirement, though you can probably work it out from context if you know the sector — submitted a clean Form 3-Q. The object was a 290 kg satellite at 498 km. Reg went up. P. Patel found it exactly where the client said it would be. We captured it. We deorbited it. Done, 07 November 2023. This could have been a very short report. NOTE
The approach was performed by the assigned vehicle. The target was located within the expected proximity zone. Proximity lock was achieved. The tumble arrest sequence was initiated. The tumble was arrested. Capture was confirmed. Bay seal integrity was verified. P. Patel flew the approach. It was clean. The object was stable. There was no tumble to arrest — it was just sitting there, perfectly oriented, as if it had been waiting. P. Patel said “nice.” P. Patel saying “nice” is the approach equivalent of a standing ovation. I know I can’t say P. Patel did this in the passive version. This is why the passive version is worse. NOTE
A deorbit burn was calculated and executed. Re-entry was confirmed on 07 November 2023. The re-entry occurred over the South Pacific uninhabited zone. The mission was concluded. Dr. Chen calculated the deorbit burn. I am specifically not allowed to say Dr. Chen calculated it in the published version, because “a person at ORC performed a calculation” apparently reveals less about our internal structure. I find this logic debatable. Dr. Chen has reviewed this annotation. Dr. Chen said “your logic is not wrong.” Dr. Chen is, privately, on my side about the passive voice. He has not said this publicly. I am saying it for him. NOTE
During the approach phase, an anomalous reading was registered on proximity sensors. The reading was reviewed. The reading was determined to be consistent with a thermal reflection artefact from the target object’s surface. No operational action was required. The mission continued. On day 14, P. Patel got a weird reading on the proximity sensors. She looked at it for about thirty seconds and then said it was a thermal reflection artefact from the object’s surface. She was right. It took her thirty seconds. The passive version says “the reading was reviewed” as if by some anonymous reviewing process. P. Patel reviewed it. With her eyes. In thirty seconds. I think that’s worth saying. NOTE
The client was informed of the anomalous reading and its resolution. The client acknowledged receipt of this information. No further queries were received from the client regarding the anomaly. A. Kowalski called the client. The client said “oh right, is that a problem?” A. Kowalski said no. The client said “good.” The call lasted forty seconds. The passive version implies a formal notification process. It was a forty-second phone call. These are both true. I want you to know they are both true. NOTE
This section exists only in the active voice version. Toggle above to read it. The passive voice removes the people. That’s what it does. “The anomaly was reviewed” instead of “P. Patel reviewed the anomaly.” Both sentences describe the same event. One of them tells you something about how ORC works. One of them doesn’t. L. Sandhu’s requirement was legally reasonable and I complied with it and I would comply with it again. I am also noting, here, that the passive version is worse as a document. These two things can both be true. M. Hargreaves has read this annotation. M. Hargreaves said “yes.” That’s all she said. I think “yes” was agreeing with me. I am choosing to believe “yes” was agreeing with me. NOTE
— L. Sandhu has read this section. L. Sandhu said “the passive version is legally appropriate.” I said I agreed with that. I asked if she agreed that the active version was better as a report. L. Sandhu said “that’s a different question.” I have taken this as a yes.