[eagle] Re: ITAR BS
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
<<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.
ARRL SDR Working Group Chair
Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats,
NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC.
"Trample the slow .... Hurdle the dead"
From: eagle-bounces at amsat.org [mailto:eagle-bounces at amsat.org] On Behalf Of
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 11:36 PM
To: Chuck Green
Subject: [eagle] Re: ITAR BS
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
>> 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
>> why can you do it now.
> I didn't disclose any technical details. I can't speak for others.
> 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
>> My point is, the same requirements exist today as you faced 4 plus
>> 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
> 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
>> 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
> Please do not take anything I said as "ITAR hysteria" but rather, a
> simple realization that I do not have the financial resources to
> myself should the ITAR regulators come after me nor do I have
> years remaining to risk spending some of them in the hooskow. Hence
> previously stated requirement for a signed copy of a statement
> AMSAT from the ITAR rules before I'll be back involved.
> This has been going on for several years now and has been stated,
> 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
> 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
> Well, I'll not be sitting on my hands. But they won't be working on
> 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
> 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.
> Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA
> Eagle at amsat.org
ARISS US Hardware manager
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA
Eagle at amsat.org
More information about the Eagle