[eagle] Re: ITAR BS

Robert McGwier rwmcgwier at gmail.com
Tue Sep 9 17:42:44 PDT 2008


There is a lot overlooked here.  Let me give you an example to
illustrate for you the mine field.

Suppose I were as a US AMSAT loving ham,  to ask my favorite UK ham
experimenter,  to work on the digital signal processing apparatus and
code for the software defined transponder.  Suppose I help this
volunteer in a number of ways, consulting if you will, answering
questions, etc.

This is, in my opinion, a deemed export.  It does not matter that I
intend it to be used on a US satellite taken up on a US launcher.  I
violated the deemed export rules by transferring information about a
device intended to be used in a satellite to a non-US national.

This fairy tale is not intended to resemble any individuals that may
or may not be associated with any of our projects.



On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Bill Ress <bill at hsmicrowave.com> wrote:
> Bob, et al.
> I have been looking into ITAR issues, as you know, and one of the things I
> found (through asking questions - but admittedly not the one who had the
> problem) was that the individual who it seems was actually "guilty" of
> violating ITAR (while consulting with a foreign satellite maker - not AMSAT
> related) started to spread fear throughout our ranks. Was this appropriate
> on his part? Was it sour grapes? Should he have known better?
> Let's put this ITAR stuff on hold for bit. I have volunteered to off load
> from Rick his efforts to resolve ITAR. Rick has briefed me on the recent
> AMSAT activities, offered to assist my efforts, and has agreed on a plan
> which will start by getting a reading from State, using their "commodity
> jurisdiction determination" procedure on the IHU-3, which is the long pole
> in the tent right now. I'm certain that effort will flush out a lot of
> information from State and hopefully start some meaningful dialog. We won't
> know until we try.
> Then I'll be preparing series of articles about ITAR and its implications or
> lack thereof, using all the resources I can gather to provide guidance,
> counsel and editing, for what could become the basis for our formal ITAR
> guideline.
> But I can tell you this fact right now. ITAR _DOES NOT_ apply to an AMSAT
> satellite launched by a USA company. Additionally, ITAR DOES NOT apply to
> material, hardware or software, we receive from outside the USA for
> inclusion into our USA company launched satellite. The big key here is USA
> company launch. Hence the attractiveness of the Intelsat rideshare. ITAR
> doesn't apply.
> So until AMSAT plans for a launch by a foreign government - forget ITAR. And
> if we must consider a foreign country launch in the future, I'm hoping we'll
> have a better understanding of our ITAR do's and don'ts.
> Just remember - 4 years ago we launched AO-51 from Russia and I didn't see
> any of the AMSAT team get hauled off to jail. With all its publicity you'd
> have thought it would have caught the eye of someone at State if they really
> felt we were "bad guys." I actually take that as a tacit approval by them
> (by using the concept of precedents - viewing our over thirty year satellite
> building and launching history) that we're the "good guys" but they don't
> want to go to Congress to have us formally excluded from a their confusing
> ITAR document...............But then I'm a glass half full guy!!
> So Matt, yes - I see ITAR as just _one_ reason, of which there are several,
> for our lack of progress and concerns by some key volunteers.
> Regards...Bill - N6GHz
> Bob McGwier wrote:
>> I think this misses the point of these discussions.  Some of our most
>> valuable, long term, productive volunteers, people who have been producing
>> real results for a long time,  have been sitting on the sideline because
>> of
>> the fear of ITAR and its implications.  Shortly after our first major
>> meeting where ACP was really introduced,  they almost completely pulled
>> back
>> from us.  They have a specific example they can point to, in a person we
>> all
>> know who was caught up in it, pursued by the authorities, and ate a real
>> cost that pushed them to the edge financially.
>> It just isn't worth taking the risk to them and thus it is very costly to
>> us.
>> I don't think anyone blames ITAR for all that happened here since June.
>> Bob
>> ARRL SDR Working Group Chair
>> Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats,
>> "Trample the slow ....  Hurdle the dead"
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: eagle-bounces at amsat.org [mailto:eagle-bounces at amsat.org] On Behalf
>> Of
>> Matt Ettus
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 3:59 PM
>> To: 'EAGLE'
>> Subject: [eagle] ITAR BS
>> Saying that the reason there is no progress on Eagle is because of ITAR is
>> like saying that the reason my dog hasn't read "The Complete Works of
>> William Shakespeare" is because he can't reach it on the top bookshelf.
>> The real reasons why there is no progress:
>>    Nobody knows what "Eagle" is anymore
>>    Everyone who was actually doing any work was summarily "fired".
>>  Multiple times in some cases.
>> Matt
>> _______________________________________________
>> Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA
>> Eagle at amsat.org
>> http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
>> _______________________________________________
>> Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA
>> Eagle at amsat.org
>> http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle

More information about the Eagle mailing list