[AR] Re: interesting conclusions
- From: Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Arocket List <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 18:53:13 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 29 Aug 2016, qbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I was not aware and don't think that processing screens the way we did it
was covered under ITAR since we got it straight from a public book on
peroxide rockets and Erik Bengtsson from Peroxide Propulsion
One of the most pernicious effects of ITAR is the uncertainty about what's
covered and what's not. That, coupled with the severe consequences of
getting it wrong, encourages people to censor themselves even when there
is probably no problem.
Mind you, Bill wasn't saying *you* had to keep quiet, he was saying that
*he* had better not be too specific. And since he mentioned "proprietary
processes", at least some of what he knows about catalyst screens
presumably is not public knowledge.
(There is also the awkward problem of "defence services", in which
pointing people to a page in a public book is covered by ITAR even if the
book itself isn't. There was talk at one point of changing that; haven't
heard whether it actually happened.)
Henry
Other related posts:
