Email Detail

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "url": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/QXNTQKDJU4AQDZMTV3TRUN2VRQW56J6N/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "QXNTQKDJU4AQDZMTV3TRUN2VRQW56J6N",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/IM3IWZG6QBDZWIHFR5RDWRJCO4C72QWP/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "bill (a) hsmicrowave.com",
        "mailman_id": "d7ecbf0c1df148f289f27dd7a8c37974",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/d7ecbf0c1df148f289f27dd7a8c37974/emails/?format=api"
    },
    "sender_name": "Bill Ress",
    "subject": "[eagle] Re: ITAR BS",
    "date": "2008-09-10T02:07:24Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/SYDNRMZ62NLSHNYQOBQOMHLD7YNGFG4G/?format=api",
    "children": [
        "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/Z2LJXGV5QPXYBGVXL6DFWKMZLA7RTB65/?format=api"
    ],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "Hi Assi and Chuck,\n\nI very much appreciate your comments and thoughts regarding ITAR. You \nare providing what I hoped we could solicit - dialog.\n\nI said earlier I'm no ITAR expert or a lawyer but I will try hard to \nkeep ITAR from causing the end of AMSAT.\n\nAssi - thanks for clarifying my comments about ITAR not applying. My \ninference was that there are directions AMSAT can take in satellite \nbuilding that COMPLY with ITAR because US launches don't involve \n\"exporting\", the number one trust of ITAR. And yes the other launch \nconditions you mentioned have issues but they would not apply to us \nsince I don't think - NOW - we'd get involved with a launch on a US \nvehicle that was purchase by foreign customers.\n\nChuck - I didn't mean to imply that you and the AO-51 team did any thing \nunder the table. Just the opposite. You built a satellite in the US with \nUS folks, got it to Russia for launch and no one went to jail. I also \nknow much of the satellite details were disclosed in public forums \n(symposium, journal etc.) and yet no one went to jail. You did it then, \nwhy can you do it now.\n\nMy point is, the same requirements exist today as you faced 4 plus years \nago when you successfully launched AO-51. There is no reason why we \ncan't do what SpaceQuest did. If there is, tell me why.\n\nWhat I will try very hard to counter is this \"ITAR hysteria\" that \nthreatens to halt all AMSAT technical activities. Yes - hysteria is a \nharsh word, but instead of trying to be brought down by all the reasons \nwhy we can't built satellites, let's muster up our productive juices to \nfind ways that we can build satellites. The alternative is to end AMSAT!\n\nWe have a new action plan to get re-started on ITAR and that involves \ndialog with attorney's and eventually State and you know that won't \nhappen next week. In the mean time are you proposing we sit on our hands?\n\nAgain, what we need now is constructive advice. If any of you have \nattorney contacts in this field, know of any contacts at State in the \nDirectorate of Defense Trade Controls or think you can help or know of \nsomeone who can help - please contact me off list. We really need to get \nthis resolved.\n\nRegards...Bill - N6GHz\n\nAssi Friedman wrote:\n> Bill,\n> Some corrections:\n> 1) ITAR always applies; you are just trying to meet its restrictions. \n> 2) Also need to add to your list of conditions \"participation for the US\n> made satellite launched on US launcher is limited to US persons\"\n> 3) The US launcher has to be owned by a US customer. If a US launcher is\n> purchased by a foreign customer, then you will need to sit at the table and\n> discuss technical launch integration details - TAA needed.\n> 4) In order to accept foreign payloads you will need a TAA in order to have\n> a technical discussion.  The only exception to that may be opening a\n> catalog, choosing a device, calling the foreign company and ordering the\n> device per the catalog with no technical discussion what so ever.\n> So unfortunately, there is no such thing as \"ITAR doesn't apply\".\n>\n> ITAR sucks, but fortunately for everyone, there is light at the end of the\n> tunnel. When the industry advocated ITAR a few decades ago, it did so to\n> protect the US aerospace industry from foreign competition.  As a result, we\n> can attribute the huge success of foreign organizations to ITAR. We didn't\n> give them a fish, so they learned how to fish themselves.  Now that in the\n> past 5 or so year, the US Govt and DoD have been purchasing hardware abroad\n> and therefore circumventing the purpose of ITAR, the industry is up in arms\n> and out to significantly minimize ITAR. So we have to sit back and watch it\n> happen. Hopefully, it won't take too long.\n>\n> Assi kk7kx\n>\n>   \n>> -----Original Message-----\n>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf\n>> Of Bill Ress\n>> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 2:49 PM\n>> To: Bob McGwier\n>> Cc: 'EAGLE'\n>> Subject: [eagle] Re: ITAR BS\n>>\n>> Bob, et al.\n>>\n>> But I can tell you this fact right now. ITAR _DOES NOT_ apply to an\n>> AMSAT satellite launched by a USA company. Additionally, ITAR DOES NOT\n>> apply to material, hardware or software, we receive from outside the USA\n>> for inclusion into our USA company launched satellite. The big key here\n>> is USA company launch. Hence the attractiveness of the Intelsat\n>> rideshare. ITAR doesn't apply.\n>>     \n>  \n>\n>\n>\n>\n>   \n",
    "attachments": []
}