On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Jens Lerch wrote:
> >That's also roughly what Tim Pleasant told a bunch of us at Space
> >Access 99: as long as it's public information, arms control does not
> >get involved.
>
> This is interesting to hear. Then there is a big difference about what
> a small group of amateurs vs. an incorporated company, no matter how
> small, even if both are using the same technical sources and are doing
> similar things. When I was doing my internship at XCOR up to a year
> ago, everything related to the actual rocket engines (igniter, injector,
> thrust chamber, cooling systems) was off limits for me, due to state
> department regulations...
The big difference is not the corporate structure, but the word "public".
The technical details of the XCOR engines are *not* public information --
they are (mostly) proprietary. That brings ITAR down on them in full
force. The current government position -- sustained by the courts, at
least so far -- is that the Bill Of Rights defence does not apply to
private information, on the grounds that the Constitutional protections
are there to protect public discussion only.
(Yes, this means that [say] Randall can ask me anything he wants about
rocketry on the list, but he is supposed to get government permission
before discussing such topics with me in private email -- even if everyone
agrees that I know more about the particular issue than he does.)
ERPS has had foreign nationals involved in it from the start -- one of its
founders is Canadian. (No, Canada doesn't have special exemptions from
this nonsense, not any more.) So ERPS actually has incentive to keep its
technical details open and public!
Henry Spencer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
