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/Z2LJXGV5QPXYBGVXL6DFWKMZLA7RTB65/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "Z2LJXGV5QPXYBGVXL6DFWKMZLA7RTB65",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/IM3IWZG6QBDZWIHFR5RDWRJCO4C72QWP/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "greencl (a) mindspring.com",
        "mailman_id": "5421c5ff9a12494f8f7bd304db4ac696",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/5421c5ff9a12494f8f7bd304db4ac696/emails/?format=api"
    },
    "sender_name": "Chuck Green",
    "subject": "[eagle] Re: ITAR BS",
    "date": "2008-09-10T03:18:44Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/QXNTQKDJU4AQDZMTV3TRUN2VRQW56J6N/?format=api",
    "children": [
        "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/VOQF3TDA5MXMWGBHUVNSALO2ZEANVDXV/?format=api"
    ],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "Hi Bill,\n> Chuck - I didn't mean to imply that you and the AO-51 team did any thing \n> under the table.\nAnd I didn't take it that way.  My point was that we have rules for \ntaking a satellite out of the country, other rules regarding \ninternational collaboration, and still other rules for public \ndissemination of design information.  I was pointing out that we \nfollowed the rules in each case, as far as I know. \n>  Just the opposite. You built a satellite in the US with \n> US folks, got it to Russia for launch and no one went to jail. I also \n> know 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, \n> why can you do it now.\n>   \nI didn't disclose any technical details.  I can't speak for others.  Did \nanyone cross the line?  Not to my knowledge.  All (I think) I know is \nthere be dragons here.  And I, for one, am not going where there are \ndragons. \n> My point is, the same requirements exist today as you faced 4 plus years \n> ago when you successfully launched AO-51. There is no reason why we \n> can't do what SpaceQuest did. If there is, tell me why.\n>   \nWe certainly can do what SpaceQuest did as far as the launch is \nconcerned.  But SpaceQuest did not publicly disclose the schematics for \nthe various circuits in the satellite.  And the source code that runs in \nthe satellite is not publicly  available.  Both of these situations is \nwell understood and accepted. \n\nBut those willing to work on EAGLE made it quite clear that this \nsituation is *not* acceptable if they are going to be involved. \n> What I will try very hard to counter is this \"ITAR hysteria\" that \n> threatens to halt all AMSAT technical activities. Yes - hysteria is a \n> harsh word, but instead of trying to be brought down by all the reasons \n> why we can't built satellites, let's muster up our productive juices to \n> find ways that we can build satellites. The alternative is to end AMSAT!\n>   \nPlease do not take anything I said as \"ITAR hysteria\" but rather, a \nsimple realization that I do not have the financial resources to defend \nmyself should the ITAR regulators come after me nor do I have sufficient \nyears remaining to risk spending some of them in the hooskow.  Hence my \npreviously stated requirement for a signed copy of a statement exempting \nAMSAT from the ITAR rules before I'll be back involved. \n\nThis has been going on for several years now and has been stated, AMSAT \nhas spent a lot of money trying to find a way through this minefield.  \nSo far, there does not seem to be a way for us to safely proceed on an \nopen-source development effort with, or without foreign nationals being \ninvolved.  So, given this state of affairs, I have concluded that we \nwill not find such a path (ITAR rules interpretation), but that the \nproblem will have to be resolved at the source.  But that's just me.  \nI'd sure like to be wrong!\n> We have a new action plan to get re-started on ITAR and that involves \n> dialog with attorney's and eventually State and you know that won't \n> happen next week. In the mean time are you proposing we sit on our hands?\n>   \nWell, I'll not be sitting on my hands.  But they won't be working on the \nnext satellite developed by AMSAT either until they have the \naforementioned signed document in their possession.\n> We really need to get \n> this resolved.\nI fully agree that this *must* be resolved and that it should be the top \npriority of AMSAT management.  I believe the future of AMSAT may very \nwell hinge on this one thing.  I very much appreciate your willingness \nto dive into this mess. \n\nChuck\n",
    "attachments": []
}