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
Matt:
Amen to being summarily "fired", I was included. There are others who seem to know how to do my job better than I.
Dick Jansson, KD1K kd1k@amsat.org kd1k@arrl.net
-----Original Message----- From: eagle-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:eagle-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Matt Ettus Sent: Tuesday, 09 September, 2008 19:59 To: 'EAGLE' Subject: [eagle] ITAR BS
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
_______________________________________________ Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA Eagle@amsat.org http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
I think this misses the point of these discussions. Some of our most valuable, long term, productive volunteers, people who have been producing real results for a long time, have been sitting on the sideline because of the fear of ITAR and its implications. Shortly after our first major meeting where ACP was really introduced, they almost completely pulled back from us. They have a specific example they can point to, in a person we all know who was caught up in it, pursued by the authorities, and ate a real cost that pushed them to the edge financially.
It just isn't worth taking the risk to them and thus it is very costly to us.
I don't think anyone blames ITAR for all that happened here since June.
Bob
ARRL SDR Working Group Chair Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. "Trample the slow .... Hurdle the dead"
-----Original Message----- From: eagle-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:eagle-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Matt Ettus Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 3:59 PM To: 'EAGLE' Subject: [eagle] ITAR BS
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
_______________________________________________ Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA Eagle@amsat.org http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
The other aspect is that if AMSAT can't show that its operations won't violate ITAR, it may make component providers and launch providers nervous about dealing with us.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob McGwier" rwmcgwier@gmail.com To: "'Matt Ettus'" matt@ettus.com; "'EAGLE'" eagle@amsat.org Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 20:40 UTC Subject: [eagle] Re: ITAR BS
I think this misses the point of these discussions. Some of our most valuable, long term, productive volunteers, people who have been producing real results for a long time, have been sitting on the sideline because of the fear of ITAR and its implications. Shortly after our first major meeting where ACP was really introduced, they almost completely pulled back from us. They have a specific example they can point to, in a person we all know who was caught up in it, pursued by the authorities, and ate a real cost that pushed them to the edge financially.
It just isn't worth taking the risk to them and thus it is very costly to us.
I don't think anyone blames ITAR for all that happened here since June.
Bob
ARRL SDR Working Group Chair Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. "Trample the slow .... Hurdle the dead"
-----Original Message----- From: eagle-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:eagle-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Matt Ettus Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 3:59 PM To: 'EAGLE' Subject: [eagle] ITAR BS
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
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA Eagle@amsat.org http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA Eagle@amsat.org http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Bob, et al.
I have been looking into ITAR issues, as you know, and one of the things I found (through asking questions - but admittedly not the one who had the problem) was that the individual who it seems was actually "guilty" of violating ITAR (while consulting with a foreign satellite maker - not AMSAT related) started to spread fear throughout our ranks. Was this appropriate on his part? Was it sour grapes? Should he have known better?
Let's put this ITAR stuff on hold for bit. I have volunteered to off load from Rick his efforts to resolve ITAR. Rick has briefed me on the recent AMSAT activities, offered to assist my efforts, and has agreed on a plan which will start by getting a reading from State, using their "commodity jurisdiction determination" procedure on the IHU-3, which is the long pole in the tent right now. I'm certain that effort will flush out a lot of information from State and hopefully start some meaningful dialog. We won't know until we try.
Then I'll be preparing series of articles about ITAR and its implications or lack thereof, using all the resources I can gather to provide guidance, counsel and editing, for what could become the basis for our formal ITAR guideline.
But I can tell you this fact right now. ITAR _DOES NOT_ apply to an AMSAT satellite launched by a USA company. Additionally, ITAR DOES NOT apply to material, hardware or software, we receive from outside the USA for inclusion into our USA company launched satellite. The big key here is USA company launch. Hence the attractiveness of the Intelsat rideshare. ITAR doesn't apply.
So until AMSAT plans for a launch by a foreign government - forget ITAR. And if we must consider a foreign country launch in the future, I'm hoping we'll have a better understanding of our ITAR do's and don'ts.
Just remember - 4 years ago we launched AO-51 from Russia and I didn't see any of the AMSAT team get hauled off to jail. With all its publicity you'd have thought it would have caught the eye of someone at State if they really felt we were "bad guys." I actually take that as a tacit approval by them (by using the concept of precedents - viewing our over thirty year satellite building and launching history) that we're the "good guys" but they don't want to go to Congress to have us formally excluded from a their confusing ITAR document...............But then I'm a glass half full guy!!
So Matt, yes - I see ITAR as just _one_ reason, of which there are several, for our lack of progress and concerns by some key volunteers.
Regards...Bill - N6GHz
Bob McGwier wrote:
I think this misses the point of these discussions. Some of our most valuable, long term, productive volunteers, people who have been producing real results for a long time, have been sitting on the sideline because of the fear of ITAR and its implications. Shortly after our first major meeting where ACP was really introduced, they almost completely pulled back from us. They have a specific example they can point to, in a person we all know who was caught up in it, pursued by the authorities, and ate a real cost that pushed them to the edge financially.
It just isn't worth taking the risk to them and thus it is very costly to us.
I don't think anyone blames ITAR for all that happened here since June.
Bob
ARRL SDR Working Group Chair Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. "Trample the slow .... Hurdle the dead"
-----Original Message----- From: eagle-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:eagle-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Matt Ettus Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 3:59 PM To: 'EAGLE' Subject: [eagle] ITAR BS
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
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA Eagle@amsat.org http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA Eagle@amsat.org http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Bill, Some corrections: 1) ITAR always applies; you are just trying to meet its restrictions. 2) Also need to add to your list of conditions "participation for the US made satellite launched on US launcher is limited to US persons" 3) The US launcher has to be owned by a US customer. If a US launcher is purchased by a foreign customer, then you will need to sit at the table and discuss technical launch integration details - TAA needed. 4) In order to accept foreign payloads you will need a TAA in order to have a technical discussion. The only exception to that may be opening a catalog, choosing a device, calling the foreign company and ordering the device per the catalog with no technical discussion what so ever. So unfortunately, there is no such thing as "ITAR doesn't apply".
ITAR sucks, but fortunately for everyone, there is light at the end of the tunnel. When the industry advocated ITAR a few decades ago, it did so to protect the US aerospace industry from foreign competition. As a result, we can attribute the huge success of foreign organizations to ITAR. We didn't give them a fish, so they learned how to fish themselves. Now that in the past 5 or so year, the US Govt and DoD have been purchasing hardware abroad and therefore circumventing the purpose of ITAR, the industry is up in arms and out to significantly minimize ITAR. So we have to sit back and watch it happen. Hopefully, it won't take too long.
Assi kk7kx
-----Original Message----- From: eagle-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:eagle-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Bill Ress Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 2:49 PM To: Bob McGwier Cc: 'EAGLE' Subject: [eagle] Re: ITAR BS
Bob, et al.
But I can tell you this fact right now. ITAR _DOES NOT_ apply to an AMSAT satellite launched by a USA company. Additionally, ITAR DOES NOT apply to material, hardware or software, we receive from outside the USA for inclusion into our USA company launched satellite. The big key here is USA company launch. Hence the attractiveness of the Intelsat rideshare. ITAR doesn't apply.
Hi Assi and Chuck,
I very much appreciate your comments and thoughts regarding ITAR. You are providing what I hoped we could solicit - dialog.
I said earlier I'm no ITAR expert or a lawyer but I will try hard to keep ITAR from causing the end of AMSAT.
Assi - thanks for clarifying my comments about ITAR not applying. My inference was that there are directions AMSAT can take in satellite building that COMPLY with ITAR because US launches don't involve "exporting", the number one trust of ITAR. And yes the other launch conditions you mentioned have issues but they would not apply to us since I don't think - NOW - we'd get involved with a launch on a US vehicle that was purchase by foreign customers.
Chuck - I didn't mean to imply that you and the AO-51 team did any thing under the table. Just the opposite. You built a satellite in the US with US folks, got it to Russia for launch and no one went to jail. I also know much of the satellite details were disclosed in public forums (symposium, journal etc.) and yet no one went to jail. You did it then, why can you do it now.
My point is, the same requirements exist today as you faced 4 plus years ago when you successfully launched AO-51. There is no reason why we can't do what SpaceQuest did. If there is, tell me why.
What I will try very hard to counter is this "ITAR hysteria" that threatens to halt all AMSAT technical activities. Yes - hysteria is a harsh word, but instead of trying to be brought down by all the reasons why we can't built satellites, let's muster up our productive juices to find ways that we can build satellites. The alternative is to end AMSAT!
We have a new action plan to get re-started on ITAR and that involves dialog with attorney's and eventually State and you know that won't happen next week. In the mean time are you proposing we sit on our hands?
Again, what we need now is constructive advice. If any of you have attorney contacts in this field, know of any contacts at State in the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls or think you can help or know of someone who can help - please contact me off list. We really need to get this resolved.
Regards...Bill - N6GHz
Assi Friedman wrote:
Bill, Some corrections:
- ITAR always applies; you are just trying to meet its restrictions.
- Also need to add to your list of conditions "participation for the US
made satellite launched on US launcher is limited to US persons" 3) The US launcher has to be owned by a US customer. If a US launcher is purchased by a foreign customer, then you will need to sit at the table and discuss technical launch integration details - TAA needed. 4) In order to accept foreign payloads you will need a TAA in order to have a technical discussion. The only exception to that may be opening a catalog, choosing a device, calling the foreign company and ordering the device per the catalog with no technical discussion what so ever. So unfortunately, there is no such thing as "ITAR doesn't apply".
ITAR sucks, but fortunately for everyone, there is light at the end of the tunnel. When the industry advocated ITAR a few decades ago, it did so to protect the US aerospace industry from foreign competition. As a result, we can attribute the huge success of foreign organizations to ITAR. We didn't give them a fish, so they learned how to fish themselves. Now that in the past 5 or so year, the US Govt and DoD have been purchasing hardware abroad and therefore circumventing the purpose of ITAR, the industry is up in arms and out to significantly minimize ITAR. So we have to sit back and watch it happen. Hopefully, it won't take too long.
Assi kk7kx
-----Original Message----- From: eagle-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:eagle-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Bill Ress Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 2:49 PM To: Bob McGwier Cc: 'EAGLE' Subject: [eagle] Re: ITAR BS
Bob, et al.
But I can tell you this fact right now. ITAR _DOES NOT_ apply to an AMSAT satellite launched by a USA company. Additionally, ITAR DOES NOT apply to material, hardware or software, we receive from outside the USA for inclusion into our USA company launched satellite. The big key here is USA company launch. Hence the attractiveness of the Intelsat rideshare. ITAR doesn't apply.
Hi Bill,
Chuck - I didn't mean to imply that you and the AO-51 team did any thing under the table.
And I didn't take it that way. My point was that we have rules for taking a satellite out of the country, other rules regarding international collaboration, and still other rules for public dissemination of design information. I was pointing out that we followed the rules in each case, as far as I know.
Just the opposite. You built a satellite in the US with US folks, got it to Russia for launch and no one went to jail. I also know much of the satellite details were disclosed in public forums (symposium, journal etc.) and yet no one went to jail. You did it then, why can you do it now.
I didn't disclose any technical details. I can't speak for others. Did anyone cross the line? Not to my knowledge. All (I think) I know is there be dragons here. And I, for one, am not going where there are dragons.
My point is, the same requirements exist today as you faced 4 plus years ago when you successfully launched AO-51. There is no reason why we can't do what SpaceQuest did. If there is, tell me why.
We certainly can do what SpaceQuest did as far as the launch is concerned. But SpaceQuest did not publicly disclose the schematics for the various circuits in the satellite. And the source code that runs in the satellite is not publicly available. Both of these situations is well understood and accepted.
But those willing to work on EAGLE made it quite clear that this situation is *not* acceptable if they are going to be involved.
What I will try very hard to counter is this "ITAR hysteria" that threatens to halt all AMSAT technical activities. Yes - hysteria is a harsh word, but instead of trying to be brought down by all the reasons why we can't built satellites, let's muster up our productive juices to find ways that we can build satellites. The alternative is to end AMSAT!
Please do not take anything I said as "ITAR hysteria" but rather, a simple realization that I do not have the financial resources to defend myself should the ITAR regulators come after me nor do I have sufficient years remaining to risk spending some of them in the hooskow. Hence my previously stated requirement for a signed copy of a statement exempting AMSAT from the ITAR rules before I'll be back involved.
This has been going on for several years now and has been stated, AMSAT has spent a lot of money trying to find a way through this minefield. So far, there does not seem to be a way for us to safely proceed on an open-source development effort with, or without foreign nationals being involved. So, given this state of affairs, I have concluded that we will not find such a path (ITAR rules interpretation), but that the problem will have to be resolved at the source. But that's just me. I'd sure like to be wrong!
We have a new action plan to get re-started on ITAR and that involves dialog with attorney's and eventually State and you know that won't happen next week. In the mean time are you proposing we sit on our hands?
Well, I'll not be sitting on my hands. But they won't be working on the next satellite developed by AMSAT either until they have the aforementioned signed document in their possession.
We really need to get this resolved.
I fully agree that this *must* be resolved and that it should be the top priority of AMSAT management. I believe the future of AMSAT may very well hinge on this one thing. I very much appreciate your willingness to dive into this mess.
Chuck
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.
On Sep 9, 2008, at 11:18 PM, Chuck Green wrote:
Hi Bill,
Chuck - I didn't mean to imply that you and the AO-51 team did any thing under the table.
And I didn't take it that way. My point was that we have rules for taking a satellite out of the country, other rules regarding international collaboration, and still other rules for public dissemination of design information. I was pointing out that we followed the rules in each case, as far as I know.
Just the opposite. You built a satellite in the US with US folks, got it to Russia for launch and no one went to jail. I also know much of the satellite details were disclosed in public forums (symposium, journal etc.) and yet no one went to jail. You did it then, why can you do it now.
I didn't disclose any technical details. I can't speak for others. Did anyone cross the line? Not to my knowledge. All (I think) I know is there be dragons here. And I, for one, am not going where there are dragons.
My point is, the same requirements exist today as you faced 4 plus years ago when you successfully launched AO-51. There is no reason why we can't do what SpaceQuest did. If there is, tell me why.
We certainly can do what SpaceQuest did as far as the launch is concerned. But SpaceQuest did not publicly disclose the schematics for the various circuits in the satellite. And the source code that runs in the satellite is not publicly available. Both of these situations is well understood and accepted.
But those willing to work on EAGLE made it quite clear that this situation is *not* acceptable if they are going to be involved.
What I will try very hard to counter is this "ITAR hysteria" that threatens to halt all AMSAT technical activities. Yes - hysteria is a harsh word, but instead of trying to be brought down by all the reasons why we can't built satellites, let's muster up our productive juices to find ways that we can build satellites. The alternative is to end AMSAT!
Please do not take anything I said as "ITAR hysteria" but rather, a simple realization that I do not have the financial resources to defend myself should the ITAR regulators come after me nor do I have sufficient years remaining to risk spending some of them in the hooskow. Hence my previously stated requirement for a signed copy of a statement exempting AMSAT from the ITAR rules before I'll be back involved.
This has been going on for several years now and has been stated, AMSAT has spent a lot of money trying to find a way through this minefield. So far, there does not seem to be a way for us to safely proceed on an open-source development effort with, or without foreign nationals being involved. So, given this state of affairs, I have concluded that we will not find such a path (ITAR rules interpretation), but that the problem will have to be resolved at the source. But that's just me. I'd sure like to be wrong!
We have a new action plan to get re-started on ITAR and that involves dialog with attorney's and eventually State and you know that won't happen next week. In the mean time are you proposing we sit on our hands?
Well, I'll not be sitting on my hands. But they won't be working on the next satellite developed by AMSAT either until they have the aforementioned signed document in their possession.
We really need to get this resolved.
I fully agree that this *must* be resolved and that it should be the top priority of AMSAT management. I believe the future of AMSAT may very well hinge on this one thing. I very much appreciate your willingness to dive into this mess.
Chuck _______________________________________________ Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA Eagle@amsat.org http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Lou McFadin W5DID ARISS US Hardware manager
Hi Lou,
Perhaps you can talk Frank into making AMSAT an official educational/research division of NASA. Would affiliate status work?
Whoa - could something along those lines happen?? Hey, I'm for trying anything that might work. Come to think of it, I'm really not clear how the university CubeSats are treated by ITAR. I don't recall any of the participants complaining about ITAR. Someone got the answer??
Regards...Bill - N6GHz
Louis McFadin wrote:
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.
On Sep 9, 2008, at 11:18 PM, Chuck Green wrote:
Hi Bill,
Chuck - I didn't mean to imply that you and the AO-51 team did any thing under the table.
And I didn't take it that way. My point was that we have rules for taking a satellite out of the country, other rules regarding international collaboration, and still other rules for public dissemination of design information. I was pointing out that we followed the rules in each case, as far as I know.
Just the opposite. You built a satellite in the US with US folks, got it to Russia for launch and no one went to jail. I also know much of the satellite details were disclosed in public forums (symposium, journal etc.) and yet no one went to jail. You did it then, why can you do it now.
I didn't disclose any technical details. I can't speak for others. Did anyone cross the line? Not to my knowledge. All (I think) I know is there be dragons here. And I, for one, am not going where there are dragons.
My point is, the same requirements exist today as you faced 4 plus years ago when you successfully launched AO-51. There is no reason why we can't do what SpaceQuest did. If there is, tell me why.
We certainly can do what SpaceQuest did as far as the launch is concerned. But SpaceQuest did not publicly disclose the schematics for the various circuits in the satellite. And the source code that runs in the satellite is not publicly available. Both of these situations is well understood and accepted.
But those willing to work on EAGLE made it quite clear that this situation is *not* acceptable if they are going to be involved.
What I will try very hard to counter is this "ITAR hysteria" that threatens to halt all AMSAT technical activities. Yes - hysteria is a harsh word, but instead of trying to be brought down by all the reasons why we can't built satellites, let's muster up our productive juices to find ways that we can build satellites. The alternative is to end AMSAT!
Please do not take anything I said as "ITAR hysteria" but rather, a simple realization that I do not have the financial resources to defend myself should the ITAR regulators come after me nor do I have sufficient years remaining to risk spending some of them in the hooskow. Hence my previously stated requirement for a signed copy of a statement exempting AMSAT from the ITAR rules before I'll be back involved.
This has been going on for several years now and has been stated, AMSAT has spent a lot of money trying to find a way through this minefield. So far, there does not seem to be a way for us to safely proceed on an open-source development effort with, or without foreign nationals being involved. So, given this state of affairs, I have concluded that we will not find such a path (ITAR rules interpretation), but that the problem will have to be resolved at the source. But that's just me. I'd sure like to be wrong!
We have a new action plan to get re-started on ITAR and that involves dialog with attorney's and eventually State and you know that won't happen next week. In the mean time are you proposing we sit on our hands?
Well, I'll not be sitting on my hands. But they won't be working on the next satellite developed by AMSAT either until they have the aforementioned signed document in their possession.
We really need to get this resolved.
I fully agree that this *must* be resolved and that it should be the top priority of AMSAT management. I believe the future of AMSAT may very well hinge on this one thing. I very much appreciate your willingness to dive into this mess.
Chuck _______________________________________________ Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA Eagle@amsat.org http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Lou McFadin W5DID ARISS US Hardware manager
Cal Poly came up with Cubesats so there may be an engineering professor there that could provide guidance.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Ress" bill@hsmicrowave.com To: "Louis McFadin" w5did@amsat.org Cc: "'EAGLE'" eagle@amsat.org Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 04:08 UTC Subject: [eagle] Re: ITAR BS
Hi Lou,
Perhaps you can talk Frank into making AMSAT an official educational/research division of NASA. Would affiliate status work?
Whoa - could something along those lines happen?? Hey, I'm for trying anything that might work. Come to think of it, I'm really not clear how the university CubeSats are treated by ITAR. I don't recall any of the participants complaining about ITAR. Someone got the answer??
Regards...Bill - N6GHz
Louis McFadin wrote:
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.
On Sep 9, 2008, at 11:18 PM, Chuck Green wrote:
Hi Bill,
Chuck - I didn't mean to imply that you and the AO-51 team did any thing under the table.
And I didn't take it that way. My point was that we have rules for taking a satellite out of the country, other rules regarding international collaboration, and still other rules for public dissemination of design information. I was pointing out that we followed the rules in each case, as far as I know.
Just the opposite. You built a satellite in the US with US folks, got it to Russia for launch and no one went to jail. I also know much of the satellite details were disclosed in public forums (symposium, journal etc.) and yet no one went to jail. You did it then, why can you do it now.
I didn't disclose any technical details. I can't speak for others. Did anyone cross the line? Not to my knowledge. All (I think) I know is there be dragons here. And I, for one, am not going where there are dragons.
My point is, the same requirements exist today as you faced 4 plus years ago when you successfully launched AO-51. There is no reason why we can't do what SpaceQuest did. If there is, tell me why.
We certainly can do what SpaceQuest did as far as the launch is concerned. But SpaceQuest did not publicly disclose the schematics for the various circuits in the satellite. And the source code that runs in the satellite is not publicly available. Both of these situations is well understood and accepted.
But those willing to work on EAGLE made it quite clear that this situation is *not* acceptable if they are going to be involved.
What I will try very hard to counter is this "ITAR hysteria" that threatens to halt all AMSAT technical activities. Yes - hysteria is a harsh word, but instead of trying to be brought down by all the reasons why we can't built satellites, let's muster up our productive juices to find ways that we can build satellites. The alternative is to end AMSAT!
Please do not take anything I said as "ITAR hysteria" but rather, a simple realization that I do not have the financial resources to defend myself should the ITAR regulators come after me nor do I have sufficient years remaining to risk spending some of them in the hooskow. Hence my previously stated requirement for a signed copy of a statement exempting AMSAT from the ITAR rules before I'll be back involved.
This has been going on for several years now and has been stated, AMSAT has spent a lot of money trying to find a way through this minefield. So far, there does not seem to be a way for us to safely proceed on an open-source development effort with, or without foreign nationals being involved. So, given this state of affairs, I have concluded that we will not find such a path (ITAR rules interpretation), but that the problem will have to be resolved at the source. But that's just me. I'd sure like to be wrong!
We have a new action plan to get re-started on ITAR and that involves dialog with attorney's and eventually State and you know that won't happen next week. In the mean time are you proposing we sit on our hands?
Well, I'll not be sitting on my hands. But they won't be working on the next satellite developed by AMSAT either until they have the aforementioned signed document in their possession.
We really need to get this resolved.
I fully agree that this *must* be resolved and that it should be the top priority of AMSAT management. I believe the future of AMSAT may very well hinge on this one thing. I very much appreciate your willingness to dive into this mess.
Chuck _______________________________________________ Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA Eagle@amsat.org http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Lou McFadin W5DID ARISS US Hardware manager
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA Eagle@amsat.org http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Hi Tom,
Thanks for weighing in on this sticky issue.
You mentioned SpaceQuest exporting AO-51 as a commercial satellite. Now that confuses me since an Amateur satellite by FCC rules cannot be "commercial". So somewhere there's a definition disconnect. I'd be happy to define our satellites as "commercial" and then follow whatever Space Quest did. But can we do that? I have a copy of the paper they wrote here somewhere describing all they went through as a sorta guideline.
Educational organizations - I'd have to go back through ITAR again but I didn't recall seeing a ITAR exemption for "educational" entities. IF there is, I would think, like you, that AMSAT should be considered a bona fide educational institution. If degrees can be obtained on the internet, surely we can offer courses in satellite design, building and operation. I bet you could whip up a curriculum.
I jest somewhat, but perhaps there are some other legitimate directions we can follow and that is why I think all this dialog is useful.
I have just sent off an email to one of my CalPoly contacts involved with the CubeSat program asking him about ITAR. I'll report on what I get back.
Regards...Bill - N6GHz
Tom Clark, K3IO wrote:
Bill Ress wrote:
Hi Lou,
Perhaps you can talk Frank into making AMSAT an official educational/research division of NASA. Would affiliate status work?
Whoa - could something along those lines happen?? Hey, I'm for trying anything that might work. Come to think of it, I'm really not clear how the university CubeSats are treated by ITAR. I don't recall any of the participants complaining about ITAR. Someone got the answer??
If you look at the ITAR regs, commercial satellites can be exported, under the rules Chuck stated. Since AO-51 was
* built at SpaceQuest with (mostly) components supplied by SpaceQuest, * under contract between AMSAT and SpaceQuest, and * since Chuck stayed behind in Kazakhstan after the rest of the AMSAT/SpaceQuest folks came home just to meet the ITAR rules and * since SpaceQuest (specifically Dino Lorinzini) had already met all the ITAR commercial rules (just as they had done for the Saudi microsats) ,we elected to have SpaceQuest handle the all details export to Moscow and thence Kazakhstan.
Most of the CubeSats have been flown by bona fide educational organizations and/or under support of NASA, NSF, DoE and other gov't agencies. Educational organizations have negotiated away most of the onerous rules. Personally, I have advocated getting a disposition that AMSAT, as a 501c(3) scientific/education organization, is an educational entity.
It is interesting to note, as an aside, AFAIK a decade ago, the Republican congress wrote the tough ITAR export rules after Loral (previously known as Philco/Ford) told the Chinese why they were having control system problems on their LongMarch rocket. At the time Loral was a major Silicon Valley contributor to the Clintons. Guess what US firm is the probable source for a Geostationary ride is?
73, Tom
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA Eagle@amsat.org http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1595 - Release Date: 8/6/2008 8:23 AM
Tom,
Thanks for the references. Very interesting material indeed.
Regards...Bill - N6GHz
Tom Clark, K3IO wrote:
I retitled the thread because this topic is NOT BS! It is real. Bill -- you asked for more documentation:
You mentioned SpaceQuest exporting AO-51 as a commercial satellite. Now that confuses me since an Amateur satellite by FCC rules cannot be "commercial". So somewhere there's a definition disconnect. I'd be happy to define our satellites as "commercial" and then follow whatever Space Quest did. But can we do that? I have a copy of the paper they wrote here somewhere describing all they went through as a sorta guideline.
The fact that we "bought" AO-51 (from AMSAT members @ SpaceQuest) impacted the ITAR situation. The Amateur Satellite Service status is defined by ITU & FCC and has nothing to do with the manner of acquisition/fabrication. If I follow your logic, then all the YaeComWood radios are not amateur. We might want to talk with Dino (KC4YMG) about how SpaceQuest (BTW, they has been involved in a LOT of amateur satellites, see http://spacequest.com/success_stories.php?PHPSESSID=e57bf8985c5689d7e2340f45...).
Educational organizations - I'd have to go back through ITAR again but I didn't recall seeing a ITAR exemption for "educational" entities. IF there is, I would think, like you, that AMSAT should be considered a bona fide educational institution. If degrees can be obtained on the internet, surely we can offer courses in satellite design, building and operation. I bet you could whip up a curriculum.
The Federal Register describing the March, 2002 "ITAR Exemptions for US Institutions of Higher Learning" can be found at http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2002/03/fr032902.html. See also http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL31695.pdf & http://fas.org/sgp/crs/RL31845.pdf The problem is, as I understand it, the 2002 rule got universities out of their black hole. Commercial entities has well defines procedures. But /ad hoc/ volunteers working on activities for a non-profit organization seem to fall thru the cracks. This idea has been discussed with some high ups (lawyers, DoS retirees, etc) but so far,. /when all is said and done, much more has been said than done! /
For some other info on ITAR, I recommend everyone look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations where you will see a lot of references and the words that IMHO summarize our problem: /*"Currently, officials at the Department of State dismiss the burden on industry and educational institutions as minor compared to the contributions to national security provided by ITAR. They also view the announcements of "ITAR-free" items as anecdotal and not systemic"
*/ For more info on the Loral/LongMarch story, this makes interesting reading: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/528/1
For an interesting mp3 interview about the ITAR mess, where David Livingstone first said /*"ITAR is Three Types of Stupid"*/: http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/457-BWB-2006-02-12.mp3
Are the commercial visitors to the ISS exports? http://rescommunis.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/deemed-exports-and-space-tourist...
Its 3AM & Bed time -- 73, Tom
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA Eagle@amsat.org http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1595 - Release Date: 8/6/2008 8:23 AM
Hi Bill,
Hey, I'm for trying anything that might work. Come to think of it, I'm really not clear how the university CubeSats are treated by ITAR. I don't recall any of the participants complaining about ITAR. Someone got the answer??
I worked with Cal Poly quite a bit. They had to follow the ITAR rules just like the rest of us. And they did.
I was in Germany when I got a panic telephone call from the guys at Cal Poly. They had just received notice from the ITAR regulators that ITAR was exercising their option to send observers along on the launch campaign at Cal Poly's expense. Cal Poly did *not* have the budget to support this! I referred them to Dino as someone who knew how to handle the situation and eventually they negotiated a solution that did not involve observers. Cal Poly also has a legal staff that got involved.
Also, Cal Poly required a signed statement from CubeSat developers that their satellites were in compliance with all pertinent ITAR regulations.
Chuck
This is incorrect and why I made my caustic remark about what I think of opinions.
<<NASA>> is exempt. United States citizens are NEVER exempt.
If we ask, for example, a favorite AMSAT-UK developer to work on dsPic33 and we give them technical details, even though it is for a NASA project, we are subject to ITAR. If NASA, as an official act, decides to transfer the knowledge, under official cover to our favorite hypothetical AMSAT-UK developer, the exemption applies.
Bob
ARRL SDR Working Group Chair Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. "Trample the slow .... Hurdle the dead"
-----Original Message----- From: eagle-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:eagle-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Louis McFadin Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 11:36 PM To: Chuck Green Cc: 'EAGLE' 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.
On Sep 9, 2008, at 11:18 PM, Chuck Green wrote:
Hi Bill,
Chuck - I didn't mean to imply that you and the AO-51 team did any thing under the table.
And I didn't take it that way. My point was that we have rules for taking a satellite out of the country, other rules regarding international collaboration, and still other rules for public dissemination of design information. I was pointing out that we followed the rules in each case, as far as I know.
Just the opposite. You built a satellite in the US with US folks, got it to Russia for launch and no one went to jail. I also know much of the satellite details were disclosed in public forums (symposium, journal etc.) and yet no one went to jail. You did it then, why can you do it now.
I didn't disclose any technical details. I can't speak for others. Did anyone cross the line? Not to my knowledge. All (I think) I know is there be dragons here. And I, for one, am not going where there are dragons.
My point is, the same requirements exist today as you faced 4 plus years ago when you successfully launched AO-51. There is no reason why we can't do what SpaceQuest did. If there is, tell me why.
We certainly can do what SpaceQuest did as far as the launch is concerned. But SpaceQuest did not publicly disclose the schematics for the various circuits in the satellite. And the source code that runs in the satellite is not publicly available. Both of these situations is well understood and accepted.
But those willing to work on EAGLE made it quite clear that this situation is *not* acceptable if they are going to be involved.
What I will try very hard to counter is this "ITAR hysteria" that threatens to halt all AMSAT technical activities. Yes - hysteria is a harsh word, but instead of trying to be brought down by all the reasons why we can't built satellites, let's muster up our productive juices to find ways that we can build satellites. The alternative is to end AMSAT!
Please do not take anything I said as "ITAR hysteria" but rather, a simple realization that I do not have the financial resources to defend myself should the ITAR regulators come after me nor do I have sufficient years remaining to risk spending some of them in the hooskow. Hence my previously stated requirement for a signed copy of a statement exempting AMSAT from the ITAR rules before I'll be back involved.
This has been going on for several years now and has been stated, AMSAT has spent a lot of money trying to find a way through this minefield. So far, there does not seem to be a way for us to safely proceed on an open-source development effort with, or without foreign nationals being involved. So, given this state of affairs, I have concluded that we will not find such a path (ITAR rules interpretation), but that the problem will have to be resolved at the source. But that's just me. I'd sure like to be wrong!
We have a new action plan to get re-started on ITAR and that involves dialog with attorney's and eventually State and you know that won't happen next week. In the mean time are you proposing we sit on our hands?
Well, I'll not be sitting on my hands. But they won't be working on the next satellite developed by AMSAT either until they have the aforementioned signed document in their possession.
We really need to get this resolved.
I fully agree that this *must* be resolved and that it should be the top priority of AMSAT management. I believe the future of AMSAT may very well hinge on this one thing. I very much appreciate your willingness to dive into this mess.
Chuck _______________________________________________ Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA Eagle@amsat.org http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Lou McFadin W5DID ARISS US Hardware manager
_______________________________________________ Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA Eagle@amsat.org http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Hi Bill,
I have been quiet so far on this thread. I'm the one that took AO-51 to the launch sight (in Kazakhstan via Moscow). This was not done behind the backs of the ITAR regulators. It was done after complying with their requirements, in detail. All this was arranged by SpaceQuest (Dino Lorenzini). We hid nothing and followed all the rules and special procedures arranged for us. SpaceQuest had been through this process before with satellites of their own. It is not a simple process and *only* covers the transport of the satellite out of the country through to the launch. It involves much more than just following the already documented regulations but also working with the regulators to develop a procedure they like.
Working with foreign nationals during development is a totally different issue even though it is covered by the same ITAR regulations. AO-51 was totally developed in the US by US citizens. As I understand it, it is the process specified by the regulators that has made international collaboration on future projects impossible (unacceptable to the foreign nationals).
Even US citizens doing development in the US have a problem if they want to do it in an "open" way. In every meeting I have attended regarding the development of EAGLE it has been stated and restated that it would be done totally "open" meaning all schematics, drawings, and software source code would be published. Most people expressed their very strong feeling that they would not be interested in participating in the project if this were not the case. It would seem that this in itself might be a violation of ITAR regulations. I remember reading that even NASA got into hot water after posting some of their source code on the internet. They took it down and I don't think anyone went to jail or was fined for it, but they could have been.
What would it take for me to do any more regarding any AMSAT satellite project? I would want to have a copy of a statement signed by a high level ITAR regulator exempting AMSAT from these regulations. Everyone seems to have an opinion regarding all of this. But opinions won't keep me out of jail and I have no intention of doing anything that might expose myself to this possibility.
Chuck
Bill Ress wrote:
Bob, et al.
I have been looking into ITAR issues, as you know, and one of the things I found (through asking questions - but admittedly not the one who had the problem) was that the individual who it seems was actually "guilty" of violating ITAR (while consulting with a foreign satellite maker - not AMSAT related) started to spread fear throughout our ranks. Was this appropriate on his part? Was it sour grapes? Should he have known better?
Let's put this ITAR stuff on hold for bit. I have volunteered to off load from Rick his efforts to resolve ITAR. Rick has briefed me on the recent AMSAT activities, offered to assist my efforts, and has agreed on a plan which will start by getting a reading from State, using their "commodity jurisdiction determination" procedure on the IHU-3, which is the long pole in the tent right now. I'm certain that effort will flush out a lot of information from State and hopefully start some meaningful dialog. We won't know until we try.
Then I'll be preparing series of articles about ITAR and its implications or lack thereof, using all the resources I can gather to provide guidance, counsel and editing, for what could become the basis for our formal ITAR guideline.
But I can tell you this fact right now. ITAR _DOES NOT_ apply to an AMSAT satellite launched by a USA company. Additionally, ITAR DOES NOT apply to material, hardware or software, we receive from outside the USA for inclusion into our USA company launched satellite. The big key here is USA company launch. Hence the attractiveness of the Intelsat rideshare. ITAR doesn't apply.
So until AMSAT plans for a launch by a foreign government - forget ITAR. And if we must consider a foreign country launch in the future, I'm hoping we'll have a better understanding of our ITAR do's and don'ts.
Just remember - 4 years ago we launched AO-51 from Russia and I didn't see any of the AMSAT team get hauled off to jail. With all its publicity you'd have thought it would have caught the eye of someone at State if they really felt we were "bad guys." I actually take that as a tacit approval by them (by using the concept of precedents - viewing our over thirty year satellite building and launching history) that we're the "good guys" but they don't want to go to Congress to have us formally excluded from a their confusing ITAR document...............But then I'm a glass half full guy!!
So Matt, yes - I see ITAR as just _one_ reason, of which there are several, for our lack of progress and concerns by some key volunteers.
Regards...Bill - N6GHz
Bob McGwier wrote:
I think this misses the point of these discussions. Some of our most valuable, long term, productive volunteers, people who have been producing real results for a long time, have been sitting on the sideline because of the fear of ITAR and its implications. Shortly after our first major meeting where ACP was really introduced, they almost completely pulled back from us. They have a specific example they can point to, in a person we all know who was caught up in it, pursued by the authorities, and ate a real cost that pushed them to the edge financially.
It just isn't worth taking the risk to them and thus it is very costly to us.
I don't think anyone blames ITAR for all that happened here since June.
Bob
ARRL SDR Working Group Chair Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. "Trample the slow .... Hurdle the dead"
-----Original Message----- From: eagle-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:eagle-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Matt Ettus Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 3:59 PM To: 'EAGLE' Subject: [eagle] ITAR BS
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
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA Eagle@amsat.org http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA Eagle@amsat.org http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA Eagle@amsat.org http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Bill:
There is a lot overlooked here. Let me give you an example to illustrate for you the mine field.
Suppose I were as a US AMSAT loving ham, to ask my favorite UK ham experimenter, to work on the digital signal processing apparatus and code for the software defined transponder. Suppose I help this volunteer in a number of ways, consulting if you will, answering questions, etc.
This is, in my opinion, a deemed export. It does not matter that I intend it to be used on a US satellite taken up on a US launcher. I violated the deemed export rules by transferring information about a device intended to be used in a satellite to a non-US national.
This fairy tale is not intended to resemble any individuals that may or may not be associated with any of our projects.
;-)
Bob
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Bill Ress bill@hsmicrowave.com wrote:
Bob, et al.
I have been looking into ITAR issues, as you know, and one of the things I found (through asking questions - but admittedly not the one who had the problem) was that the individual who it seems was actually "guilty" of violating ITAR (while consulting with a foreign satellite maker - not AMSAT related) started to spread fear throughout our ranks. Was this appropriate on his part? Was it sour grapes? Should he have known better?
Let's put this ITAR stuff on hold for bit. I have volunteered to off load from Rick his efforts to resolve ITAR. Rick has briefed me on the recent AMSAT activities, offered to assist my efforts, and has agreed on a plan which will start by getting a reading from State, using their "commodity jurisdiction determination" procedure on the IHU-3, which is the long pole in the tent right now. I'm certain that effort will flush out a lot of information from State and hopefully start some meaningful dialog. We won't know until we try.
Then I'll be preparing series of articles about ITAR and its implications or lack thereof, using all the resources I can gather to provide guidance, counsel and editing, for what could become the basis for our formal ITAR guideline.
But I can tell you this fact right now. ITAR _DOES NOT_ apply to an AMSAT satellite launched by a USA company. Additionally, ITAR DOES NOT apply to material, hardware or software, we receive from outside the USA for inclusion into our USA company launched satellite. The big key here is USA company launch. Hence the attractiveness of the Intelsat rideshare. ITAR doesn't apply.
So until AMSAT plans for a launch by a foreign government - forget ITAR. And if we must consider a foreign country launch in the future, I'm hoping we'll have a better understanding of our ITAR do's and don'ts.
Just remember - 4 years ago we launched AO-51 from Russia and I didn't see any of the AMSAT team get hauled off to jail. With all its publicity you'd have thought it would have caught the eye of someone at State if they really felt we were "bad guys." I actually take that as a tacit approval by them (by using the concept of precedents - viewing our over thirty year satellite building and launching history) that we're the "good guys" but they don't want to go to Congress to have us formally excluded from a their confusing ITAR document...............But then I'm a glass half full guy!!
So Matt, yes - I see ITAR as just _one_ reason, of which there are several, for our lack of progress and concerns by some key volunteers.
Regards...Bill - N6GHz
Bob McGwier wrote:
I think this misses the point of these discussions. Some of our most valuable, long term, productive volunteers, people who have been producing real results for a long time, have been sitting on the sideline because of the fear of ITAR and its implications. Shortly after our first major meeting where ACP was really introduced, they almost completely pulled back from us. They have a specific example they can point to, in a person we all know who was caught up in it, pursued by the authorities, and ate a real cost that pushed them to the edge financially. It just isn't worth taking the risk to them and thus it is very costly to us.
I don't think anyone blames ITAR for all that happened here since June.
Bob
ARRL SDR Working Group Chair Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. "Trample the slow .... Hurdle the dead"
-----Original Message----- From: eagle-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:eagle-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Matt Ettus Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 3:59 PM To: 'EAGLE' Subject: [eagle] ITAR BS
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
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA Eagle@amsat.org http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA Eagle@amsat.org http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle
participants (10)
-
Assi Friedman -
Bill Ress -
Bob McGwier -
Chuck Green -
Dick Jansson-rr -
John B. Stephensen -
Louis McFadin -
Matt Ettus -
Robert McGwier
-
Tom Clark, K3IO