[eagle] Re: ITAR BS

Bob McGwier rwmcgwier at gmail.com
Wed Sep 10 03:12:46 PDT 2008


This is incorrect and why I made my caustic remark about what I think of
opinions.

<<NASA>> is exempt.  United States citizens are NEVER exempt.  

If we ask, for example, a favorite AMSAT-UK developer to work on dsPic33 and
we give them technical details, even though it is for a NASA project,  we
are subject to ITAR.   If NASA, as an official act, decides to transfer the
knowledge, under official cover to our favorite hypothetical AMSAT-UK
developer,  the exemption applies.

Bob




ARRL SDR Working Group Chair
Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats,
NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC.
"Trample the slow ....  Hurdle the dead"


-----Original Message-----
From: eagle-bounces at amsat.org [mailto:eagle-bounces at amsat.org] On Behalf Of
Louis McFadin
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 11:36 PM
To: Chuck Green
Cc: 'EAGLE'
Subject: [eagle] Re: ITAR BS

Chuck,
I would like to point out that any work on ARISS is exempt since it is  
a government activity NASA.
You are free to help ARISS all you want.

On Sep 9, 2008, at 11:18 PM, Chuck Green wrote:

> Hi Bill,
>> Chuck - I didn't mean to imply that you and the AO-51 team did any  
>> thing
>> under the table.
> And I didn't take it that way.  My point was that we have rules for
> taking a satellite out of the country, other rules regarding
> international collaboration, and still other rules for public
> dissemination of design information.  I was pointing out that we
> followed the rules in each case, as far as I know.
>> Just the opposite. You built a satellite in the US with
>> US folks, got it to Russia for launch and no one went to jail. I also
>> know much of the satellite details were disclosed in public forums
>> (symposium, journal etc.) and yet no one went to jail. You did it  
>> then,
>> why can you do it now.
>>
> I didn't disclose any technical details.  I can't speak for others.   
> Did
> anyone cross the line?  Not to my knowledge.  All (I think) I know is
> there be dragons here.  And I, for one, am not going where there are
> dragons.
>> My point is, the same requirements exist today as you faced 4 plus  
>> years
>> ago when you successfully launched AO-51. There is no reason why we
>> can't do what SpaceQuest did. If there is, tell me why.
>>
> We certainly can do what SpaceQuest did as far as the launch is
> concerned.  But SpaceQuest did not publicly disclose the schematics  
> for
> the various circuits in the satellite.  And the source code that  
> runs in
> the satellite is not publicly  available.  Both of these situations is
> well understood and accepted.
>
> But those willing to work on EAGLE made it quite clear that this
> situation is *not* acceptable if they are going to be involved.
>> What I will try very hard to counter is this "ITAR hysteria" that
>> threatens to halt all AMSAT technical activities. Yes - hysteria is a
>> harsh word, but instead of trying to be brought down by all the  
>> reasons
>> why we can't built satellites, let's muster up our productive  
>> juices to
>> find ways that we can build satellites. The alternative is to end  
>> AMSAT!
>>
> Please do not take anything I said as "ITAR hysteria" but rather, a
> simple realization that I do not have the financial resources to  
> defend
> myself should the ITAR regulators come after me nor do I have  
> sufficient
> years remaining to risk spending some of them in the hooskow.  Hence  
> my
> previously stated requirement for a signed copy of a statement  
> exempting
> AMSAT from the ITAR rules before I'll be back involved.
>
> This has been going on for several years now and has been stated,  
> AMSAT
> has spent a lot of money trying to find a way through this minefield.
> So far, there does not seem to be a way for us to safely proceed on an
> open-source development effort with, or without foreign nationals  
> being
> involved.  So, given this state of affairs, I have concluded that we
> will not find such a path (ITAR rules interpretation), but that the
> problem will have to be resolved at the source.  But that's just me.
> I'd sure like to be wrong!
>> We have a new action plan to get re-started on ITAR and that involves
>> dialog with attorney's and eventually State and you know that won't
>> happen next week. In the mean time are you proposing we sit on our  
>> hands?
>>
> Well, I'll not be sitting on my hands.  But they won't be working on  
> the
> next satellite developed by AMSAT either until they have the
> aforementioned signed document in their possession.
>> We really need to get
>> this resolved.
> I fully agree that this *must* be resolved and that it should be the  
> top
> priority of AMSAT management.  I believe the future of AMSAT may very
> well hinge on this one thing.  I very much appreciate your willingness
> to dive into this mess.
>
> Chuck
> _______________________________________________
> Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA
> Eagle at amsat.org
> http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle



Lou McFadin
W5DID
ARISS US Hardware manager


_______________________________________________
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