[X] My Assistant

[jay@e-vmi.com]

I have seen several references to the MER CAD drawings (one message related "the recently released CAD files". Where do I get the CAD files?

[djellison]

I have seen several references to the MER CAD drawings (one message related "the recently released CAD files".  Where do I get the CAD files?

I'm affraid it had to be taken down - Caltech considered it proprietry information.

Please dont ask for anyone to email it to you - this place has got in trouble over it once before, dont want it to happen again.

Doug

[infocat13]

I'm affraid it had to be taken down - Caltech considered it proprietry information.

Please dont ask for anyone to email it to you - this place has got in trouble over it once before, dont want it to happen again.

Doug

you would think that as taxpayers and the fact the space craft has all ready flown that we own data like that.also when one puts a paper in a science journal it is customary to release at least the data on instruments that collect the data.
So if I got a california intititive passed like the stem cell one calling for say $4 hundred Million for 4 copys of the mars rover to made would JPL refuse to build them for us?

[Deimos]

... when one puts a paper in a science journal it is customary to release at least the data on instruments that collect the data.

I think you will find this is less and less the case, at least for spaceflight instruments. Welcome to the wonderful world of ITAR (International Trafficking in Arms Regulations). If the diagrams or discussion can be construed as giving technical advice, and that advice can be seen by non-US citizens, ITAR may be involved. Institutions (including Universities) are responsible for policing themselves, making sure they have no violations, to stay on the list of good guys. If you, as a scientist, want to publish something, and the lawyers say no--then you have to spend the extra money, paying the lawyers to investigate whether it is really ITAR sensitive. Or you can not publish what the lawyers object to (or take it off the web, whatever). Of course, the lawyers would never push an overly broad interpretation just to get more funding for their office; that's just silly, isn't it? On the other hand, a broad interpretation is better for any institution--would you rather publish a little extra about the current project, or would you rather avoid even a small risk of becoming an ITAR violator and therefore missing out on future projects. It's sort of a low-risk, high-impact thing, and institutions that are succesful in getting NASA contracts tend to be risk-averse.

While rover CAD drawings and Mars mission scientific instruments are unlikely to help Belgium get the bomb, the relevance of ITAR concerns is real: a system capable of a "600 million mile hole in one" bears a certain resemblance to ICBM technology. So, even though instrument papers traditionally have included lots of description, and have even described what approaches failed to work as well as what worked (i.e., advice), I think you'll see that less--not because it ultimately is ITAR material, but because there are extra (costly) hoops to jump through to show it is not protected.

[helvick]

I think you will find this is less and less the case, at least for spaceflight instruments. Welcome to the wonderful world of ITAR (International Trafficking in Arms Regulations).

All too true, sadly. A great example is given on the Phoenix site, ITAR restrictions mean that (for now) the Canadian team responsible for the Phoenix MET are not being given access to the systems that will turn on and off their instruments.

ITAR might have fairly noble intent but this aspect is very damaging and it seems to me that all it does is hinder the risk averse - real traders in international arms technologies are by their very nature not risk averse.

My 2c at any rate.