Yes, this make well become ITAR II. Just as ITAR threw a monkey wrench in the global business of America space the sanctions are likely to do the same.
Two points. First, unlike the Apollo Era, America doesn’t have the great lead in space technology it once had. Alternatives are available from other nations which make sanctions nothing more than a feel good activity.
Second, the sooner space is disconnected from global politics and becomes just another global industry, like entertainment or automobiles, the better. And NASA’s efforts to turn New Space into the New Space contractors is not helping in this regard and the same goes for continuing to see NASA as the focus of America’s space industry.
Second, the sooner space is disconnected from global politics and becomes just another global industry, like entertainment or automobiles, the better.
Entertainment, automobiles, airliners, computers and other global industries are hardly disconnected from global politics. Politics (many blood-sucking parasites) will never allow any industry to escape its clutches. That would give up too many opportunities for crony enrichment, graft and corruption.
First, unlike the Apollo Era, America doesn’t have the great lead in space technology it once had.
If the US is so far behind why is the the plan for Ariane 6 in disarray and the French Space Minister is complaining about SpaceX “dumping” rockets? Where is the Masten equivalent? ULA has some smart and innovative engineers with ACES and PropDepot designs (I wish they would just spin them off). What about XCOR – piston pumps, nylon engines and Lynx. Even Boeing is plodding along with CST-100. Anyone equivalent to Bigelow with a ready-to-go space station? How about Dreamchaser? What about Altius and their sticky boom? What about Planetary Resources? What about Dragon Mk1, Dragon Mk2, Grasshopper, F9R and DragonFly? Orbital? Let’s not forget about Raptor or the F-1B powerpack. I know I have missed a bunch…
Stop being a nattering nabob of negativity. . . .
It didn’t matter that Hughes built better comsats, when ITAR hit their business went to foreign firms not restrained by it. Similarly if U.S. sanctions prevent SpaceX from launching foreign payloads or Bigelow aerospace from flying foreign astronauts it doesn’t matter if their technology is a bit better, they still lose the money to foreign firms. That is the point.
Similarly if U.S. sanctions prevent SpaceX from launching foreign payloads or Bigelow aerospace from flying foreign astronauts it doesn’t matter if their technology is a bit better, they still lose the money to foreign firms. That is the point.
ITAR limits the EXPORT of technology, not the IMPORT of technology. Your point is specious. Please go read the law before you comment.
Sorry, but its clear being from Europe you have no clue about how ITAR works. Perhaps you are the one that needs to do some research.
ITAR is not just about the export of hardware, but also information.
If you want to launch a foreign satellite from a site in the U.S. you must provide the builder with technical information on the launch vehicle and required interfaces. Sharing this information requires ITAR approval.
A foreign astronaut flying on a U.S. launch vehicles, either as a sub-orbital tourists or as a tourist to a U.S. space habitat (i.e. BA 330) will need to be provided with some basic knowledge about the systems involved and has the potential to learn other information about the systems by observation, so they will also need to have ITAR approval, especially if they are going to a BA habitat for a prolonged stay as a researcher.
Since you haven’t done your research here is a link discussing both issues.
From Ad Astra, Volume 17 Number 3, Winter 2005
One Nation, Over Regulated:
Is ITAR Stalling the New Space Race?
By Jeff Foust
[[[ITAR also affects U.S. companies seeking launch business, such as launch vehicle startup Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX). “Right now we have the greatest difficulty just dealing with people from New Zealand, U.K. and Canada,” says SpaceX founder Elon Musk. “We really need to do something about ITAR. It is really hurting U.S. industry.” ]]]
[[[“After U.S. government technology transfer issues are clarified and addressed if deemed necessary, we hope to place a firm order for the spacecraft,” Will Whitehorn, president of Virgin Galactic, said at a Congressional hearing on space tourism in April 2005. “At this point, due to uncertainty about possible licensing requirements, we are not able to even view Scaled Composites’ designs for the commercial space vehicle.”]]]
Yes, Sir Richard Branson, as a foreign national, had to get ITAR approval to view the design for the space ship he was paying for and plans to ride in…
Hopes this helps your understanding of how ITAR has harmed the U.S. space industry and the potential sanctions have to do so as well.
Plus your first point is specious too…
It didn’t matter that Hughes built better comsats, when ITAR hit their business went to foreign firms not restrained by it.
Hughes Space and Communications Company remained independent until 2000, when it was purchased by Boeing and became Boeing Satellite Development Center.
Seems that Boeing is doing pretty well manufacturing and selling satellites. Even checking the U.S. Industrial Outlook for 1994-2000 no one makes that argument stick. At least do some simple research before you start to blab such blibber blubber!
(With apologies to Theodore)
Again, its YOU that need to do some research…
FYI From Congressional Testimony in 2009. Note, In the United States lying to Congress in a hearing is regarded as Contempt of Congress and could land you in jail…
Apr 2, 2009 … House Foreign Affairs Committee. Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade. April 2, 2009. Written testimony by Marion C. Blake
[[[U.S. firms accounted for 73% of the world market for commercial satellites (COMSATS) in 1998, the year before space restrictions were implemented through the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). By 2000, the U.S. market share dropped to 27%. The market is now increasingly dominated by France, Russia, and the European Union, and there is every reason to expect this trend to continue as India seeks to extend its commercial space capabilities and market presence.]]]
Losing two-thirds of a market in a single year is a major impact in any business….
Did you mean extraglobal industry? Or perhaps transterrestrial?
I’ve often found disconnected recordsets to be useful. How about disconnected economies? Neither is technically disconnected but both could have practical value.
So does it qualify as a Transterrestrial Musing? =)
Yes, this make well become ITAR II. Just as ITAR threw a monkey wrench in the global business of America space the sanctions are likely to do the same.
Two points. First, unlike the Apollo Era, America doesn’t have the great lead in space technology it once had. Alternatives are available from other nations which make sanctions nothing more than a feel good activity.
Second, the sooner space is disconnected from global politics and becomes just another global industry, like entertainment or automobiles, the better. And NASA’s efforts to turn New Space into the New Space contractors is not helping in this regard and the same goes for continuing to see NASA as the focus of America’s space industry.
Second, the sooner space is disconnected from global politics and becomes just another global industry, like entertainment or automobiles, the better.
Entertainment, automobiles, airliners, computers and other global industries are hardly disconnected from global politics. Politics (many blood-sucking parasites) will never allow any industry to escape its clutches. That would give up too many opportunities for crony enrichment, graft and corruption.
First, unlike the Apollo Era, America doesn’t have the great lead in space technology it once had.
If the US is so far behind why is the the plan for Ariane 6 in disarray and the French Space Minister is complaining about SpaceX “dumping” rockets? Where is the Masten equivalent? ULA has some smart and innovative engineers with ACES and PropDepot designs (I wish they would just spin them off). What about XCOR – piston pumps, nylon engines and Lynx. Even Boeing is plodding along with CST-100. Anyone equivalent to Bigelow with a ready-to-go space station? How about Dreamchaser? What about Altius and their sticky boom? What about Planetary Resources? What about Dragon Mk1, Dragon Mk2, Grasshopper, F9R and DragonFly? Orbital? Let’s not forget about Raptor or the F-1B powerpack. I know I have missed a bunch…
Stop being a nattering nabob of negativity. . . .
It didn’t matter that Hughes built better comsats, when ITAR hit their business went to foreign firms not restrained by it. Similarly if U.S. sanctions prevent SpaceX from launching foreign payloads or Bigelow aerospace from flying foreign astronauts it doesn’t matter if their technology is a bit better, they still lose the money to foreign firms. That is the point.
Similarly if U.S. sanctions prevent SpaceX from launching foreign payloads or Bigelow aerospace from flying foreign astronauts it doesn’t matter if their technology is a bit better, they still lose the money to foreign firms. That is the point.
ITAR limits the EXPORT of technology, not the IMPORT of technology. Your point is specious. Please go read the law before you comment.
Sorry, but its clear being from Europe you have no clue about how ITAR works. Perhaps you are the one that needs to do some research.
ITAR is not just about the export of hardware, but also information.
If you want to launch a foreign satellite from a site in the U.S. you must provide the builder with technical information on the launch vehicle and required interfaces. Sharing this information requires ITAR approval.
A foreign astronaut flying on a U.S. launch vehicles, either as a sub-orbital tourists or as a tourist to a U.S. space habitat (i.e. BA 330) will need to be provided with some basic knowledge about the systems involved and has the potential to learn other information about the systems by observation, so they will also need to have ITAR approval, especially if they are going to a BA habitat for a prolonged stay as a researcher.
Since you haven’t done your research here is a link discussing both issues.
http://www.nss.org/adastra/volume17/itar.html
From Ad Astra, Volume 17 Number 3, Winter 2005
One Nation, Over Regulated:
Is ITAR Stalling the New Space Race?
By Jeff Foust
[[[ITAR also affects U.S. companies seeking launch business, such as launch vehicle startup Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX). “Right now we have the greatest difficulty just dealing with people from New Zealand, U.K. and Canada,” says SpaceX founder Elon Musk. “We really need to do something about ITAR. It is really hurting U.S. industry.” ]]]
[[[“After U.S. government technology transfer issues are clarified and addressed if deemed necessary, we hope to place a firm order for the spacecraft,” Will Whitehorn, president of Virgin Galactic, said at a Congressional hearing on space tourism in April 2005. “At this point, due to uncertainty about possible licensing requirements, we are not able to even view Scaled Composites’ designs for the commercial space vehicle.”]]]
Yes, Sir Richard Branson, as a foreign national, had to get ITAR approval to view the design for the space ship he was paying for and plans to ride in…
Hopes this helps your understanding of how ITAR has harmed the U.S. space industry and the potential sanctions have to do so as well.
Plus your first point is specious too…
It didn’t matter that Hughes built better comsats, when ITAR hit their business went to foreign firms not restrained by it.
Hughes Space and Communications Company remained independent until 2000, when it was purchased by Boeing and became Boeing Satellite Development Center.
Seems that Boeing is doing pretty well manufacturing and selling satellites. Even checking the U.S. Industrial Outlook for 1994-2000 no one makes that argument stick. At least do some simple research before you start to blab such blibber blubber!
(With apologies to Theodore)
Again, its YOU that need to do some research…
FYI From Congressional Testimony in 2009. Note, In the United States lying to Congress in a hearing is regarded as Contempt of Congress and could land you in jail…
http://www.aia-aerospace.org/assets/testimony_hfac_comsats_040209.pdf
Apr 2, 2009 … House Foreign Affairs Committee. Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade. April 2, 2009. Written testimony by Marion C. Blake
[[[U.S. firms accounted for 73% of the world market for commercial satellites (COMSATS) in 1998, the year before space restrictions were implemented through the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). By 2000, the U.S. market share dropped to 27%. The market is now increasingly dominated by France, Russia, and the European Union, and there is every reason to expect this trend to continue as India seeks to extend its commercial space capabilities and market presence.]]]
Losing two-thirds of a market in a single year is a major impact in any business….
Did you mean extraglobal industry? Or perhaps transterrestrial?
I’ve often found disconnected recordsets to be useful. How about disconnected economies? Neither is technically disconnected but both could have practical value.
So does it qualify as a Transterrestrial Musing? =)
I like the cut of your jib, sir!