From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 09:09:05 +0800
To: The Deviant <unicorn@schloss.li>
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: ITAR satellite provision
Message-ID: <199610042101.OAA08867@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 08:09 PM 10/4/96 +0000, The Deviant wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:
>[...]
>> "A launch vehicle or payload shall not, by reason of the launching of such
>> vehicle, be considered an export for purposes of this subchapter."
>> 
>> Focus on "by reason of launching of such vehicle,"
>> 
>> Launching a vehicle alone is not export.  It takes more than launch to
>> make it an export.  More than the launching is not much.
>[...]
>> --
>> I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
>> unicorn@schloss.li
>> 
>
>So.. if I were to take PGP, put it on a floppy disk, tape it to a model
>rocket, and launch it across the mexican border, that's not exporting it
>(although the FAA might complain)?


That's _my_ interpretation.  I look at it this way:  Missile launches can 

1.  Return to the country of origin.
2.  Splash down in International waters.
3.  land on foreign soil.
4.  Orbit for awhile and land "somewhere."
5.  Orbit essentially forever.
6.  Go somewhere in space other than an earth orbit.

All this stuff is obvious to the people who wrote the regulation. In 
addition, it is not necessarily certain which of these outcomes will occur 
in any given launch.   The terminology in the rule above does not 
distinguish any of these outcomes.  In the absense of further clarification, 
it is logical to conclude that which particular route the missile 
subsequently takes is irrelevant to the applicability of the exception.

This is particularly true, since the writers of that regulation were free to 
add clarification should they have chosen to do so.  Further, that they 
DIDN'T "clarify" is logical, because if the outcome of any given missile may 
be uncertain, and assuming that this regulation was written as a 
mutual-suck-up maneuver between government and industry, it is reasonable to 
assume that the regulation would be interpretated to immunize the launcher 
regardless of the launch's outcome.  One can reasonably suppose that 
Rockwell wouldn't want to be declared in violation of ITAR simply because 
the second stage of a rocket failed and dropped a crypto-carrying satellite 
onto China.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com