itar

A reader rightly questioned my previous post on the subject as inadequate to any review or exposition.  It was an experience report in a world that needs a review.  Thanks @cstartorg.

So we're educating ourselves, as concerned citizens interested in a touchy subject.

A google search for "Freedom of Speech ITAR" reveals the work of many many people on our subject.  How does ITAR affect open source engineering for space systems.

A scan through the Epic Free Speech Archive confirms and explores the concept that the constitution which has made us great continues to provide for our development as a peaceful nation.

Likewise that search reveals more.

So be brave, open space awaits.

Of course there's megatons of confusion out there, so as in all things, one needs to correctly classify principles versus discussion versus raw noise.

After a long search through dozens of wrong answers from professionals in the field, I've found the answer on the subject of ITAR with respect to open source engineering on the internet.  ITAR doesn't apply. 

Last week the White House and Department of Defense issued statements concerning upgrades to the regime that were focused on the sale of material goods, exclusively.  I was baffled until I read one little well written comment to Open NASA on IdeaScale by Martin Hegedus. 

Open source engineering on the internet is speech, and as such is protected by the First Amendment.  This would explain a great many mysteries, including the focus of the administration on the sale of commercial goods.

Since my beginning an earnest exploration of engineering topics in space flight last May, I had met with grave and serious statements from professionals in the aerospace industry that some components could not be openly documented under ITAR restrictions.  Plainly this was horseradish.

In "The ITAR Web Whistle" I reviewed one argument for ITAR, and proposed a solution for the internet world of individuals acting in good faith.

Perhaps the biggest problem with ITAR is represented by the counter argument, what we don't do because our hands are tied, others will and profit by it.

For example, if I can't put an open source LH2/LOX propulsion system on the internet for fear of conflicting with ITAR, then those who can in the rest of the world will profit from the development while I won't. 

Sure, I can do my own thing in private.  But my results will be bounded to about ten or twenty percent with my capabilities tied up in this way -- because I won't be able to work with others in a natural way and will have too much invested in not producing, not sharing and not excelling in the endeavor.

This is just an example, of course.  No immediate plans for a cryogenic hybrid aerospike engine, or anything like that.