Somebody has to tell the room the launch is delayed. Whoever does it will be remembered slightly differently than everyone who already knew and said nothing.
What the research found
Psychologists Abraham Tesser and Sidney Rosen documented what they called the MUM effect starting in the early 1970s, the reliable human tendency to delay or avoid transmitting bad news, driven partly by the discomfort of watching someone else's reaction to it. In one field study, the same office took measurably longer to inform applicants of a rejection than an approval. The reluctance is not laziness, it is a response to the real social cost of being the one who said it.
Why the cost is real but manageable
That cost is precisely why how the news is delivered matters more than whether it gets delivered. Stated plainly, with the relevant context attached, and paired with what happens next, bad news is received as information. Delivered vaguely, defensively, or with visible discomfort, the same news gets received as a verdict on the person saying it.
Where to start
Before delivering something difficult, separate the fact from your own reaction to delivering it. State what happened, state why, and state what comes next, in that order, without apologizing for being the one saying it.
The discomfort belongs to the news. It does not need to attach itself to you as well.
Reading how much context a specific piece of bad news actually needs, versus how much would just delay the point, is a judgment only you can make for the room you are in. What this gives you is the order that tends to keep the news separate from you as its messenger.
There is a specific way to deliver bad news that leaves the room focused on what happens next rather than on how you said it, and it is worth having ready before the next time you are the one who has to say it.