[X] My Assistant

[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

[djellison]

I posted on TPS's Members forum in response to someone basically asking what the hell ITAR was and why we should care - I replied...

Well - I don't know the specifics of ITAR, but as I understand it, it's an array of rules dictated by legislation intended to prevent foreign countries aquiring advanced military technology or hardware from US manufacturers. One can understand the motive and justification for such laws given the global military climate...however...

The problem is, the legislation gets in the way of totally innocent 'civilian' activities, things outside the scope of the military. For instance, the legislation makes it very hard for the people working on a Canadian instrument aboard the 2007 Phoenix Mars Lander to get the information they need to control their instrument from the spacecrafts computer...i.e. the hardware and technology of the spacecraft is under the remit of ITAR regulation - so they spacecraft engineers can't share information about how it works and how to use it to the Canadian team who want to do nothing more sinister than control their instrument.

If you search for ITAR on Deborah's blog about Phoenix, you'll see first hand information about this.
http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/features/we...eborah_bass.php

So - what does all this mean? Well, why would foreign engineers and scientists want to get involved with US led missions when this legislation makes it so hard to trade the information they need to cooperate? If ITAR had been in place in the late '80s and early '90s, it would be hard to imagine the Cassini Huygens cooperation ever being possible, or even more simple projects like Ulysses or SOHO. ITAR legislation needs to be modified to allow information for projects like these to me traded without limitation. It's easy to see why the advanced technology of spacecraft might be considered to be of a 'military' type - but sometimes panic-legislation can be too broad and unspecific for it's actual requirements, as is the case here.

The irony is, of course, that those who want to trade in military hardware for malicous purposes will do so despite any legislation that might be created.


Doug