ITAR and Secrecy Options

[PhilHorzempa]

[size=2]

I thought that it was about time that we start to discuss one of the most
important, yet most often ingored, factors affecting Unmanned Spaceflight,
namely ITAR. From what I have noted ITAR (International Traffic and Arms
Reduction) regulations threaten to disrupt most Space Science missions.
Supposedly, ITAR was initiated to stop the flow of info to other nations that
would enable them to improve their development of arms. However, its tentacles
have now reached into Space Science and UMSF in many ways.
I want to hear from members of the UMSF community about ways that ITAR
has adversely affected a project. I also want the UMSF community to discuss
whether ITAR has become a bureacratic nightmare with no positive effects.
One aspect of ITAR that disturbs me is the cover it can provide to those that
wish to cloak their goof-ups in SECRECY. The most recent example is NASA's
announcement last week that they would not release the Mishap Report for
DART. Another example came a couple of years ago when NASA released the
CONTOUR Mishap Report with major sections blacked-out, supposedly because
of ITAR concerns.

Another Phil

[Bob Shaw]

Another Phil:

Yup. It certainly seems to be an effective fig-leaf at times!

Pity also the high-power rocketry community, who are getting all sorts of grief just because they like mixing up commercial quantities of explosives in their garden sheds. Or that poor Boy Scout (the bald, glowing one who nobody speaks to except from a distance of 30 feet) who built a nuclear reactor by mail order.

I suppose there *are* valid reasons for (ahem) 'care' these days, but yes, it can go too far. At least the Boy Scout got his Merit Badge before he was classed as ordnance

Bob Shaw

[The Messenger]

I have been told that the engineering data, relative to the entry, descent and landing of Spirit and Opportunity, will NOT be placed in the PDS 'possibly' because of ITAR restrictions. ITAR restrictions almost certainly led to at least one Japanese launch failure - (How does that work to America's advantage?).

In theory, ITAR does NOT apply to information the is easily derivable using basic engineering and scientific principles. On the other hand, it is easy to slap ITAR restrictions on any result that is poorly understood. Contractors will always try to error in the conservative, never releasing information when there is any question.

All in all, I am of the opionion ITAR does much more harm than good - certainly if we are withholding rocket information that could help advisaries - imagined or real - if they have the means to utilize the information, they have the means to buy the technology - either from other nations or illegal traders.

I don't know that it is fair to say ITAR is being used to hide bad news...bad news is always minimized and downplayed - the Venus Express deployment problem is textbook.

[djellison]

VEX isn't under ITAR though - ITAR is a US regulatory issue.

However - there is some pleasently and surprisingly candid comments on ITAR by Deborah Bass on her web log
http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/features/we...eborah_bass.php

ITAR has been a thorn in our side for a long time, and it continues to hinder our work. We are doing our best to carefully get work done being mindful of the issues, but it is a struggle. Once again, the issue came up with regards to our software tools. The MET team doesn't know whether some weird restriction will pop up long after we've designed much of the whole system, so they don't know whether to design a system that is really integrated with the rest of the Ops Team, or whether they should build a system that can stand alone. Right now they are carrying both options. But it gets expensive to continue to work two parallel designs. At some point, we're going to have to commit to one or the other. The safest approach is to just do the stand-alone system. But the more desired and efficient approach is to have the MET team integrated into the whole design just as the other instrument teams are. It is frustrating.
The MET team reasonably asked when they might get a "drop dead" date by which the decision would be made regarding which path to go down. We're investigating that.

Also, the MET team is not allowed access to commands that interface directly with the lander. This means they actually don't have access to the MET_ON and MET_OFF commands! Because those are the ones that interact directly with the lander! I find this remarkable--they can send all of the internal-to-MET commands, but if the instrument isn't powered on, we could lose a whole measurement!! So I'm trying to figure out who is responsible for turning on and off the MET instrument and who will build those commands each sol when we use the MET. Some of the restrictions end up being a little silly!

I'm in danger of kicking myself out of my own forum for saying this - but ITAR seems to be one of those batches of legislation that do nothing to combat what they're designed to, and plenty of hindrance of innocent people's good work. On the one hand we have the administration asking for international cooperation within the VSE, and on the other - evidence that such cooperation is being hindered by complex legislation.

Doug

[Bob Shaw]

ITAR seems to be one of those batches of legislation that do nothing to combat what they're designed to, and plenty of hindrance of innocent people's good work. On the one hand we have the administration asking for international cooperation within the VSE, and on the other - evidence that such cooperation is being hindered by complex legislation.

Doug

Doug:

We're watching you.

Bob Shaw

[The Messenger]

VEX isn't under ITAR though - ITAR is a US regulatory issue.

That was my point - it doesn't take ITAR to bury a problem, it is just one more excuse.

I have a couple more ITAR stories that demonstrate why ITAR imposes absolutely assinine restrictions, but it would be a violation of ITAR to share them

[Bob Shaw]

I have a couple more ITAR stories that demonstrate why ITAR imposes absolutely assinine restrictions, but it would be a violation of ITAR to share them

And if you did, then you'd have to kill us first, just to be safe.

Er...

Bob Shaw

[PhilHorzempa]

[size=2]

A few more thoughts on ITAR. First, we need to remember how close we
came to losing the ENTIRE Huygens Titan lander mission. The issue was the
software used to command the Cassini receivers. As I recall, ITAR was the
primary reason that American and European engineers were not able to more
closely check this software to detect and correct errors. If BOTH of Cassini's
radio receivers had remained OFF, then I imagine that the ITAR issue may be
getting more attention today. As it is, valuable Science data was lost from the
Huygens mission - wind velocity, as well as priceless images.

Second, as the quote from Deb Bass's blog indicates, ITAR causes headaches
on just about every Planetary mission. As I recall, ITAR caused constant grief
for the MESSENGER team. In addition, I imagine that the cost of the DAWN mission,
which includes 2 science instruments from Europe, must have taken a large
hit from ITAR.

Do any members of the UMSF community have more background on why ITAR
was inititated and if Congress is aware of the damage that it is causing in
American efforts to explore space?

[The Messenger]

[size=2]

A few more thoughts on ITAR. First, we need to remember how close we came to losing the ENTIRE Huygens Titan lander mission. The issue was the software used to command the Cassini receivers. As I recall, ITAR was the primary reason that American and European engineers were not able to more
closely check this software to detect and correct errors. If BOTH of Cassini's radio receivers had remained OFF, then I imagine that the ITAR issue may be getting more attention today. As it is, valuable Science data was lost from the Huygens mission - wind velocity, as well as priceless images.

Thats news to me...but I have never seen an official report on any kind about why the power cord wasn't plugged in (too short?). Was ITAR to blame, or is this just a convenient excuse?

ITAR was passed at a time the US congress was embarrassed by the fact US weapons were being used to routinely harass US aircraft, and the state department was more-or-less powerless to prosecute exporters of US weapons systems. Many of the restrictions are administrative add-ons made by a paranoid government that learned nothing during the McCarthy "there is a communist in ever corner" era. Since the president does not even have a science advisor, who is going to advise him that the law is screwing up the exchange and ultimately the value of scientific knowlege?

On the Japanese failure, an engineer explained to me that 'they kept coming to us with drawings, and we kept saying 'no, that will not work', but we could not tell them why, because of ITAR...so it was a trial-and-error kind of thing, and in the end, it was clear they had a solution that may work some of the time - which is the worst case, because it could work in the test motor and fail under launch conditions...'

[The Messenger]

...Another time we had a reason to contract a certain analysis with a Canadian firm. We couldn't send 'the' material to Canada, so we found a 'different' material with exactly the same composition in a local hardware store and shipped it to Canada instead.

[DDAVIS]

[quote name='PhilHorzempa' date='Apr 17 2006, 04:57 PM' post='50945']
[size=2]


I want to hear from members of the UMSF community about ways that ITAR
has adversely affected a project.

My profession includes creating visualizations of space missions and their results. In pre ITAR days it was a simple matter to contact people in JPL and have blueprint like 'vellum drawings' of spacecraft sent to me so I could create perspective views of spacecraft with their targets in the background and such. Now it is harder at best to obtain such drawings, indeed the sad saga of the repression of access to MER engineering drawings shows the sad state to which we have sunk from the openness traditionally associated with American space projects. Only one individual has been given 'official blessing' to use such information to create animations of the MER rovers, despite the presence of numerous qualified entities to do the same. The policies of restricting access to data needed to create quality science visualizations, and of creating virtual monopolies on the reciepients of such data should be addressed and corrected.

Don Davis

[edstrick]

I saw what must be a particularly idiotic effect of ITAR tonight during a National Geographic Channel rerun of "Megastructures: Sea Launch". (from a year or so ago)

All images of the Zenit booster's 4 engines were blurred to hide engine details.

[djellison]

LOL - I've seen the same program here in the UK - no blurring at all.

Doug

[edstrick]

To quote King Richard Milhouse the First: "(Expletive Deleted)"

<nixon, that is>

[The Messenger]

The worst problem we have run into that I am aware of is our inability to place our best people - often foreign nationals who are waiting for citizenship - on a project. I can't be very specific here, because of ITAR!

If you read the law, anything already in the public domain is not generally considered ITAR sensitive, but because it takes so long to get a state department ruling on a specific item, and since the penalties are so harsh, the general policy amoung US contractors is not to share anything with anyone.

I would be very interested to know how and why ITAR interfered with the conversation between NASA and the ESA, contributing to the A channel failure on HUYGENS. This is, arguably a 100+million Euro plus faux pas that should NOT have been an ITAR issue at all: All of the mission specifications were written and shared before ITAR, therefore conversing with Europians about Cassini communication protocols should not have been an ITAR issue. Bean counters have raised red flags everywhere, and it is choking the space program.