Re: Inexcusable Policy - {Was: Re: Red Tape For SpaceShipTwo}
Inat,
In case you are not so familiar with the structure and function of the U.S.
government, the Congress makes law and the Administration (the President and
those that work for him) implements/enforces the law, and the Judiciary
determines if the law is consistent with the Constitution. In response to
abuses by the previous (Clinton) Administration (China-gate, Loral, Motorola,
etc.), Congress passed law that limited which part of the Administration (was
Commerce Dept. now State Dept.) could approve military applicable
technology transfered to (any) foreign persons or countries not specifically
approved (ITAR). And the State Dept. has done the usual bureaucratic maneuver
and refused to make any decision that might cause political heat, and sits on
all applications to transfer military applicable technology. It doesn't help
that there are still a lot of hold-overs in the State Dept. covering abuses of
their former boss, Clinton.
President Bush cannot unilaterally approve these technology transfer
applications, without violating the law Congress passed. Burt Rutan was
appealing to the government body than can fix this growing problem, Congress.
BTW, Congressman Rohrbacher has been pressing his colleges to fix this tech.
tranfer problem for years, but so far Congress has had other priorities.
Mark Reiff
Inat Hajduk wrote:
[Note: I’m pretty sure this might offend some of the more partisan persuasion
and I apologize in advance. My intent is not to post a partisan or off-topic
commentary but to respond to something I think is really important and not
the least bit frustrating of course. I would not post if I did not feel very
strongly about what I think the government is doing wrong in this case.]
Thanks for the post Mark.
: The difficulties with export controls have emerged despite the fact : that
British-owned Virgin Galactic plans to operate its commercial : spaceflight
services initially in the United States.
: "I thought Britain was a relatively friendly nation," Rutan told :
committee members, adding the export-control issues also are : affecting the
financing for the project.
: "We have had to move away from the basic concept of this being a :
foreign-funded development," he said.
Should have known, it was all too good to be true, such a fast launch date…Of
course, I’m sure we all expected red tape to get in the way, what regulars
on this list would not?
The thing that somewhat surprises me is the administrations lack of any
movement on this…any comments even? (Today's press conference would have been
a good time, especially to throw reporters and the public a curve-ball in
some bad times for the admin.).
Maybe it is still too early, perhaps “free-marketeers” that they supposedly
are, something is still forthcoming, but that they let it get to this point I
don’t think is a good sign.
Perhaps another thing some long-time list regulars (and those with good
memories ;) well you will now anyway) will remember that I have no particular
love for Republicans of any sort (well the odd Senator Chafee or McCain
aside perhaps, though love is a very strong word ;) or Democrats for that
matter.
This administration I find particularly odious. I can definitely say that I
oppose every singly issue/policy/attitude/rhetoric etc., et al ;) of this
administration virtually without exception…
Perhaps the one big exception is of course is the administration’s space
policy. I think they did pretty well in their handling of the Columbia
accident and have been good about promoting commercial space and privatizing
NASA. Though I think a lot of this support has been more rhetorical then
directly benefiting “startups” and the fledging private space industry
(Scaled Composites, SpaceDev, etc.).
Again very qualified and limited support on my behalf since I am not gung-ho
on either count but I think if done responsibly, in the interests of U.S.
taxpayers, such as opening the bidding process for contracts to more -all?-
parties and perhaps limiting the influence-role-etc. of monster
pseudo-government-contractors like Lockheed, Boeing, etc. they would have my
support in that at least.
So now they (or their bureaucracy) are holding up a technology transfer to
Britain????
Is not Britain the only major country in the administrations “Coalition of
the Willing”? Is not the United Kingdom the one significant and invaluable
(seriously now, Britain pulls out of Iraq and you can kiss the already
severely struggling occupation goodbye not to mention the embryonic Iraqi
“government”) government who has supported the U.S. in its horrid occupation
and failed fiasco of Iraq? Is not Britain one of the world’s last important
U.S. allies? I mean of course I could go on and on here (and already have)
but come on, this is just ridiculous.
If not addressed quickly I who knows what deleterious effects it will have on
the nascent private space industry. There must be immediate action to fix
this absurd mistake and keep the private space industry on its collective
feet (well not even out of the cradle really, but I think you get my drift).
Maybe some agree that we have to be careful transferring technology to our
greatest ally...but does anyone really?? I hope not, but I'm sure there are
some who still harbor some antipathy towards those shifty red-coats... ;)
--
Mark Reiff <markreiff@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
Space Future | To unsubscribe send email with the subject "unsubscribe"
www.spacefuture.com | to "sf-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx".