The next round in the ongoing, long-running discussion about export control reform for the US space industry will come Thursday with a meeting of the Export Control Working Group of the FAA’s Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC). That working group meeting will include a panel discussion featuring Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), who has advocated for export control reform; National Security Council staffer Brian Nilsson; and AIA vice president Remy Nathan.
This meeting is expected to be an opportunity for the administration to discuss publicly more details about their export control reform plans, including perhaps their plans to review the items in Category XV of the US Munitions List (USML), which covers spacecraft and related components. Earlier this year congressional staffers indicated they were open to reform proposals, but were waiting on a long-overdue report from the Defense Department on the effects of removing satellites and related items from the USML.
More details about the working group meeting, courtesy of chairman Mike Gold, are below:
Brian Nilsson, National Security Council Professional Staff Member, will provide a briefing on the Administration’s current export control reform plans and strategy. Also participating in the panel will be Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) an important voice on Capitol Hill on the topic of export control reform, and Remy Nathan, Vice President for International Affairs at the Aerospace Industries Association, who will provide the business perspective. The panel discussion will begin promptly at 8:30 am on Thursday, Oct. 13th, at the National Housing Center, located at 1201 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC (near the intersection of Massachusetts Ave. and 15th Street). This panel discussion should provide attendees with invaluable insight into the latest in the ongoing export control reform effort and the likely Congressional reaction to the Obama Administration’s most recent plans. The event is free and open to the public.
The full COMSTAC meeting agenda also includes on Friday a presentation by Sean Monogue, chair of the Missile Technology Export Control Group in the Office of Missile, Biological, and Chemical Nonproliferation (ISN/MBC) of the State Department, which should offer another opportunity for insight into export control policy and its application to space-related items.
Jeff, is this the same Mike Gold that is also chief counsel at Bigelow Aerospace? If so, it’s fitting that he would want ITAR reform.
Take care. mjl
Michael: yes, same Mike Gold. He’s been a leading voice on export control reform for the last few years.
Sounds good. Go Space!
There are others who want ITAR reform. We need it so desperately. Reforming ITAR should be an issue for everyone who reads this blog.
Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
TEA Party in Space
We should be cautious about reforming ITAR for the benefit of a few well placed cronies. There is no reason to arm our enemies gratuitously.
We should be cautious about reforming ITAR for the benefit of a few well placed cronies. There is no reason to arm our enemies gratuitously.
Satellites aren’t arms, you moron.
amightywind wrote @ October 11th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Well, conratulations to coming to this conclusion after your country has done exactly that for half a century. However that is beside the point, as Rand has correctly pointed out that satellites aren’t arms.
What you’re doing right now is equivalent to prohibiting the export of telephones, which is exceedingly silly.
However that is beside the point, as Rand has correctly pointed out that satellites aren’t arms.
I’m embarrassed for both of you but not surprised in the least. Global positioning is the greatest tactical weapons advance of the last 50 years, and it is a place where the US still holds a significant advantage. Heck, Obama loves to use it for political assassinations. Let’s hope his administration less cavalier attitude.
“Obama loves to use it for political assassinations. “
Y’know, as a troll you’re better than most just for never using the /sark tag after your comments.
But the sentence quoted is about as naive as it gets. Do you really think that decisions like that are made by the President?
This President?
Thanks for the laugh.
P.S. We might as well sell to whoever. No matter which way it goes with the big guys, the small producers of orbital gear will have a more open window. More jobs.
By the way, that M-I-C thing? It was all sewn up in the early 50’s.
Ike was barking into the wind.
If anything McGyver could turn into a weapon was listed as being under ITAR regulations, then there would still be jobs being created.
They’d just be created outside the United States, under the “ITAR Free” banner.
Wait a moment, isn’t that what’s happening now?
I’ll probably go to jail for saying this, but …
F=m*a
Terrorists could use that technical information to construct orbiting brain lasers, but I don’t care about protecting the USA from such things, I’m a scientific type who is only interested in the ego boost that comes from publishing such highly sensitive information.
The fact that Newton’s second law wasn’t developed here and any potential adversary worth worrying about already knows it doesn’t mean it’s not covered by ITAR.
I’ll do it again:
#6-32 screws have a diameter of 0.138 inches.
I can feel the rush. Now I’m just waiting for the groupies who dig bad boys.
If you really never want to be seen again, you have to use:
F = d(m*v)/dt
ITAR is the reason our last satellite had a communications problem. We bought a radio from Canada, but once it touches our hands (OMG!) it’s suddenly ITAR, even though anyone else can buy the same radio from Canada as well.
So when our foreign national students were testing all our radio equipment, we had to leave out the Canada radio, with the hopes that we could find an American student to test it. Long story short, we never found one and the ground unit failed, costing us our data. It was the only failure in the entire system — all because we had to separate foreign students from technology they could purchase themselves if they wanted to.
The inventor of our radio design, btw, a brilliant engineer, is now back in India wishing he could work here. I’m sure his being forced to work there has done far worse damage to American national security than any amount of money he would have sent home while working here.
ITAR accomplishes the opposite of what it sets out to do, and is in terrible need of reform.
Because of ITAR, customers of European satellite manufacturers are willing to pay a premium for “ITAR-free” satellites. I.e. the providers are able to make more money on their product by making sure they don’t buy a single bolt or resistor from any US companies.
@pr
@Lawson
The equations you guys gave are just Newtonian approximations. Get the authorities really breathing down your neck by giving an exact relativistic determination:
F=Ï’ma
where Ï’ is the Lorentz transform: 1/SQR(1-v2/c2)
Oops, superscripting showed correctly on the preview, but not in the actual post!
I’ll rewrite it without relying on superscripting HTML code.
F=Ï’ma
where Ï’ is the Lorentz transform: 1/SQR(1-v^2/c^2)
Or maybe I should have left it displayed incorrectly to foil the Chinese!
I get the point, but principles commonly taught in classrooms are exempt. The diameter of the #6-32 screw is also ok, as is the length if it is an off-the-shelf length not specifically for spacecraft.
But if you want a non-standard length screw and you want it for a spacecraft, then it’s a “munition” and falls under ITAR. Seriously.