September 2008 - Eagle (INACTIVE)

Falcon 1 successful
by Bob McGwier 30 Sep '08

30 Sep '08

Falcon 1 successfully made it to orbit today. http://www.spacex.com/ Falcon 9 Heavy will be a 12000 Kg to GTO launcher and will almost certainly have test flights. http://www.spacex.com/falcon9_heavy.php and it pays to have friends: http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Jeff_Ward_To_Head_Up_Avionics_Guidance_A nd_Control_At_SpaceX_999.html Bob N4HY ARRL SDR Working Group Chair Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. "Trample the slow .... Hurdle the dead"

2 2

Re: ITAR BS
by Daniel Schultz 16 Sep '08

16 Sep '08

NASA is NOT exempt from ITAR. Most of the documents I handle for work are now marked "US export controlled". Why do you think I haven't given any Hubble talks at recent Amsat meetings? NASA has to jump through the same legal hoops as everyone else, but they have lawyers on the payroll already so it is not a big burden. NASA's budget for photocopy paper is many times larger than Amsat's total budget. Amsat is not the only outfit affected by ITAR, a lot of small businesses are being shut down by an inability to export their products. It is their complaints that have attracted the attention of the Obama campaign, whose space policy states that: "Revising Regulations for Aerospace Export Control: Some sections of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) have unduly hampered the competitiveness of domestic aerospace industry. Outdated restrictions have cost billions of dollars to American satellite and space hardware manufacturers as customers have decided to purchase equipment from European suppliers. While protecting our national security interests, Barack Obama will direct a review of the ITAR to reevaluate restrictions imposed on American companies, with a special focus on space hardware that is currently restricted from commercial export. He will also direct revisions to the licensing process to ensure that American suppliers are competitive in the international aerospace markets, without jeopardizing American national security." McCain has not made any such statements in his space policy, but those who support his campaign should get in touch with him and try to get it added on. We should be making complaints to elected representatives about how our organization is being affected by ITAR. Our organization is sufficiently different from commercial for-profit companies that our specific needs should be considered along with those of small business, in particular our desire to conduct the project in "open-source" mode. If I understand correctly, if the IHU3 was an engine control computer for a car, it would be OK to work with the Germans, but since it is designed to go into a satellite, it is forbidden to share it with foreigners. Very Strange. While we are sorting this out, keep in mind that this subject WILL come up at the Symposium/Annual Meeting next month. We better have a good presentation for the membership at that time. If you want to print anything in the published proceedings, I will need your material by the end of September. Dan Schultz N8FGV ------ Original Message ------ Received: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:37:28 PM EDT From: Louis McFadin <w5did(a)amsat.org> To: Chuck Green <greencl(a)mindspring.com>Cc: "'EAGLE'" <eagle(a)amsat.org> Subject: [eagle] Re: ITAR BS > Chuck, > 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. >

7 9

ITAR BS
by Matt Ettus 10 Sep '08

10 Sep '08

Saying that the reason there is no progress on Eagle is because of ITAR is like saying that the reason my dog hasn't read "The Complete Works of William Shakespeare" is because he can't reach it on the top bookshelf. The real reasons why there is no progress: Nobody knows what "Eagle" is anymore Everyone who was actually doing any work was summarily "fired". Multiple times in some cases. Matt

10 18

2008 Symposium deadline
by Daniel Schultz 08 Sep '08

08 Sep '08

We still have a serious lack of presentations on the Eagle and Intelsat programs. Tom Clark has promised some sort of paper but I have not received proposals from anyone else involved in these flagship projects. The symposium at this point will be all about student built satellites and how to work AO-51 with your HT. Eagle team members, please let me know very soon if you have any plans to contribute a paper to this year's symposium. Dan Schultz N8FGV

9 16

The ITAR Nail on the Head
by Bill Tynan 07 Sep '08

07 Sep '08

All: I would conclude that Bill Ress has HIT THE ITAR NAIL ON THE HEAD! The { }ed words or phases from the ITAR document are those I chose to emphasize. The [ ]ed comments are mine. 120 (5) This definition does {not} include information concerning general scientific,mathematical or engineering principles commonly taught in schools, colleges and universities or information in the {public domain} as defined in § 120.11. It also does not include basic marketing information on function or purpose or general system descriptions of defense articles. [I cannot believe that anything we are doing is THAT new and innovative that its basic tenets are not being taught in college. Yes, it may very well be based on using that information in innovative ways.] § 120.11 Public domain. (a) Public domain means information which is {published} and which is generally accessible or available to the public: (1) Through sales at newsstands and bookstores; (2) Through {subscriptions} which are available without restriction to any individual who desires to obtain or purchase the published information; [Our Journal is available to ANYONE who wishes to join AMSAT (subscribe).] (3) Through second class mailing privileges granted by the U.S. Government; (4) At libraries open to the public or from which the public can obtain documents; (5) Through patents available at any patent office; (6) Through {unlimited distribution at a conference, meeting, seminar, trade show or exhibition, generally accessible to the public, in the United States;} [ANYONE can attend our Symposia. There is not even a need for membership.] (7) Through public release (i.e., unlimited distribution) in any form (e.g., not necessarily in published form) after approval by the cognizant U.S. government department or agency (see also § 125.4(b)(13) of this subchapter); [I'm not sure about this one, but I believe it refers to work done under Government auspices/contract.] (8) Through fundamental research in science and engineering at accredited institutions of higher learning in the U.S. where the resulting information is ordinarily published and shared broadly in the scientific community. Fundamental research is defined to mean basic and applied research in science and engineering where the resulting information is ordinarily published and shared broadly within the scientific community, as distinguished from research the results of which are restricted for proprietary reasons or specific U.S. Government access and dissemination controls. University research will not be considered fundamental research if: [This should clear the way for schools with foreign students working on Cubsts etc.] (i) The University or its researchers accept other restrictions on publication of scientific and technical information resulting from the project or activity, or (ii) The research is funded by the U.S. Government and specific access and dissemination controls protecting information resulting from the research are applicable. 121.1 CATEGORY XV-SPACECRAFT SYSTEMS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT * (a) Spacecraft, including communications satellites, remote sensing satellites, scientific satellites, research satellites, navigation satellites, experimental and multi-mission satellites. {*NOTE TO PARAGRAPH (a): Commercial communications satellites, scientific satellites, research satellites and experimental satellites are designated as SME only when the equipment is intended for use by the armed forces of any foreign country.} [I don't know when, or how this provision got in there; but it seems like it's exactly what we have be wanting all along. Our satellites are NEVER intended for use by ANY armed forces, foreign or domestic. it seems to me to let us off the hook as it were. Let's go!] 73, Bill Tynan, W3XO LM-10 Past President and Board Chairman, now Senior Advisor (GEEZER) VerDate

1 0

Re: 2008 Symposium deadline
by Daniel Schultz 07 Sep '08

07 Sep '08

Failure to present papers or other evidence of progress at the symposium will send a pretty clear message to the membership that these projects are well and truly dead. Is that what we want to do? Dan Schultz N8FGV ------ Original Message ------ Received: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 12:02:08 PM EDT From: "Frank Brickle" <brickle(a)pobox.com> To: "Daniel Schultz" <n8fgv(a)usa.net>Cc: eagle(a)amsat.org Subject: [eagle] Re: 2008 Symposium deadline > Dan -- > > Understand that I mean nothing controversial by saying this, but it's very > unclear what the status of the Eagle and/or Intelsat projects *is*. There's > potentially a lot to say, but hard to know whether any of it is pertinent at > this point. > > I was prepared to deliver a paper on AMSAT-specific aspects of the same > topic (Delay Tolerant Networking) that I wrote up for DCC. The gist of the > paper was an outline of the specific implementation of a comprehensive > text-messaging service for Eagle. Given the current level of uncertainty > even about *who* the teams are, and the ambient level of acrimony in the > membership, it's questionable whether the time is worth spending. > > 73 > Frank > AB2KT >

5 4

Re: 2008 Symposium deadline
by Daniel Schultz 06 Sep '08

06 Sep '08

One could hope that the new administration coming in January might fix ITAR. At least one candidate has mentioned it in his space policy. ( http://www.fladems.com/page/-/Obama_Space.pdf page 6). The other candidate may also be willing to listen to reason. I suppose you could project blank slides just to make a point, sort of like what the student newspaper in college did when facing censorship issues. Or maybe Amsat could schedule a "US only" session with proof of citizenship required for admittance to also drive the point home. We have to present some evidence of progress on these projects. If that means speaking in bland generalities, or shooing non-citizens from the room, we have to do something. Explaining how ITAR has hurt Amsat projects would itself be a valid topic for a presentation. Since screwdrivers and wrenches can be used to assemble satellites, I wonder if my local hardware store has the proper export controls in place to ensure national security? Dan ------ Original Message ------ Received: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 12:48:51 PM EDT From: Lyle Johnson <kk7p(a)wavecable.com> To: Frank Brickle <brickle(a)pobox.com>Cc: Daniel Schultz <n8fgv(a)usa.net>, eagle(a)amsat.org Subject: Re: [eagle] Re: 2008 Symposium deadline > Hello Frank! > > I don't mind being controversial :-) > > My take on all things AMSAT for the past couple of years is: > > 1) ITAR prevents us from any meaningful exchange of ideas, projects or > design with any non-U.S. citizen. While there are ways to do this, they > assume very deep pockets and a large full-time staff devoted to > satisfying unreasonable, unrealistic and arbitrary government demands. > > Feedback from meetings with people who ought to know strongly suggest > that while Amateur satellites are not the intent of the ITAR rules > (duh!), absolutely no one in a position to help us is willing to go on > record with that interpretation. > > The practical result is that ITAR has killed the IHU3 since it was > dependent on cooperation from a non-NA group. P3E and whatever Eagle > was to have been were dependent on the IHU3. The impact is pretty easy > to extrapolate. > > 2) For the same reasons, ITAR prevents us from making a presentation at > any AMSAT Symposium with any technical content except perhaps the most > general. If there is technical content, we have to be ready to cite > chapter and verse of the publicly available source of anything we utter > that might be construed as potentially revealing of any level of > technology that might possibly be applied to any spacecraft in orbit or > supporting such a spacecraft on the ground. > > Unless of course we clear the building of all non-U.S. citizens. > > Sigh. > > 73, > > Lyle KK7P (who now does terrestrial stuff) > > >

2 1