Comments on: Export control reform followup

By: common sense

common sense — Mon, 16 May 2011 15:52:25 +0000

@ Space Cadet wrote @ May 16th, 2011 at 3:53 am

Of course the pencil is not a spacecraft… Call it a bolt if you wish. Who cares? The process I describe is real. It is insane, a parody.

By: Space Cadet

Space Cadet — Mon, 16 May 2011 07:53:24 +0000

The pencil in your example is not a spacecraft, or a component of a spacecraft, or equipment to operate a spacecraft, so it’s not on the Munitions List.

But if a British company want to buy a bolt cut to a non-standard length for a spacecraft, a US company cannot sell the screw to the British company without an export license, which increases the cost and takes at best many weeks to obtain. Said British company is likely to buy from a European supplier instead. So yes, we are ‘screwing’ our aerospace industry into economic ruin.

By: Byeman

Byeman — Sat, 14 May 2011 02:55:03 +0000

” I used to be an engineer at Hughes”
That explains why Hughes went into the dumps. They must have lowered their HR standards.

By: common sense

common sense — Fri, 13 May 2011 16:27:52 +0000

@ Bennett wrote @ May 12th, 2011 at 10:23 pm

“Wait wait, weâ€™re actually screwing ourselves into financial ruin?”

No, no, what are you saying? We have an export control system under ITAR that allows us to not sell anything that is related to anything that is being used for munitions.

So, if you use a pencil to design a draft for a bulb you plan to put on a system inside an opening in a satellite you’d like to see in, then and only then you cannot export well the pencil. Actually you cannot talk about the pencil technical data itself to a foreign person because that would be an illegal export. It’s a security thing.

Yet if said foreign person goes to a shop and buys the pencil then what is it? I don’t know. A legal sell of an ITAR protected item? Oh and btw a US person includes residents and citizens of the US. But if a US citizen works for a foreign company then he is not a US person anymore even if living in the US. Now when said person works again for a US company then he re-becomes a US person. And now you can talk about the pencil. Which you could have not when the person worked for a foreign company.

I hope it helps you understand the great value of this security asset that is ITAR.

And if you understand it, well it’d be nice you explain it to me.

Oh well…

By: Bennett

Bennett — Fri, 13 May 2011 02:24:38 +0000

“economic ruin” would have been better.

By: Bennett

Bennett — Fri, 13 May 2011 02:23:05 +0000

vulture4 wrote @ May 11th, 2011 at 11:26 pm

I’m trying to follow that logic…

Wait wait, we’re actually screwing ourselves into financial ruin?

Holy financial bailout, Batman!

By: vulture4

vulture4 — Thu, 12 May 2011 03:26:37 +0000

The main purpose of ITAR seems to be to make it easier for foreign manufacturers to get all the business. Economics can defeat us at least as effectively as military force.

By: Space Cadet

Space Cadet — Wed, 11 May 2011 16:09:08 +0000

Question: What would be the impact of ITAR reform on this current situation?

(1) Our allies in Europe might improve their ability to perform scientific investigations of the surface of Mars. National security risks of our allies having improved understanding of Mars: zero.

(2) NASA missions – costing $ 100’s of millions of US taxpayer $ – would have a significantly lower risk of failure.

By: Space Cadet

Space Cadet — Wed, 11 May 2011 16:03:41 +0000

The surface of Mars has no national security value. Yet anything designed for use on the surface of Mars is considered to be a “Munition”. This significantly raises the risk of failure of NASA missions conducted in partnership with other countries (e.g. ESA) by prohibiting NASA from communicating any information that would reduce the probability of failure of (i.e. ‘improve’) the foreign system or component, even when failure of that part or system would result in failure of the NASA mission.

By: Space Cadet

Space Cadet — Wed, 11 May 2011 15:31:12 +0000

When an export restriction applies to a technology available only from the US then it can be effective in preventing the acquisition of that technology by a country from whom we want to withhold it.

But when a technology is available from non-US vendors, the goal of restricting the technology is not accomplished. What does happen is that US employers are prevented from competing in the global marketplace and the US loses revenue and jobs. The placement of widely-available commercial space components on the Munitions List has left the US space industry crippled in the international market. Companies refer to US components and software as â€œITAR contaminationâ€, since if they buy even a single chip, screw, or line of code from a US supplier, they are then unable to sell their system or satellite. Commercial space on the Munitions List is the â€œBuy Anywhere But American Actâ€