I don’t know how to directly contact you so I am hoping that you will see this message. I am a member of CSTART, the Collaborative Space Travel And Research Team, and we would absolutely love to have you on our team if you have the desire. Our main project is the development of a system that can safely deliver and return one human to the Moon. Here is our most current concept: http://i.imgur.com/2pJgE.jpg
Please visit us at http://cstart.org/forum/ if you think that you may be interested in working with us.

-Titan

Even in the paranoiacally anti-freedom post-9/11 world, has any effort been made to limit the usage of flight sim software or preventing it being downloaded over the net? No not at all, even though they should clearly be categorized as controlled guidance systems under ITAR. However, they are not, because limiting such access would not prevent enemy operatives from gaining the desired skills.

Based on this, I think any position that claims that discussing rocketry online is an ITAR violation is a position made by an extremely narrow reading of law with zero appreciation for context and conditions. In order to trigger ITAR, IMHO, would require that foreign based opponents of the US gain knowledge from such forums which is not freely available elsewhere (i.e. such as via books freely available from amazon, or googlable websites, etc).

On the other hand, there is the thought that none of us would want to find us in the position that certain flight instructors in Florida found themselves in during late 2001. I’m sure they thought there would be no harm in teaching properly credentialed foreign nationals how to pilot 747 aircraft. The fact that they could not have know how certain individuals would apply that knowledge probably offers little comfort to them now. As far as I know, none of these instructors found themselves facing prosecution for what happened. They were probably investigated pretty heavily, but I do not recall if any of the instructors were found to be part of the plot to fly planes into buildings.

So, I can’t see how perfectly harmless discussion of plausible technologies for potential space applications on the open internet can be any more dangerous to national security than say… teaching foreign nationals advanced science and engineering topics in our universities. There is no telling how that knowledge will be applied in the future, but that does not prevent us from acting in good faith in the present.

Now I do agree that there should be some reasonable controls put on certain technologies that are highly specialized (i.e. not already widely available) and with obvious military applications, but to continue to suppress such a wide variety of advanced technologies with primarily peaceful applications is counter productive to the nation’s economy and potentially crippling to honest scientific discourse.

Trent, thanks for the link. What I would like to know is how far spaceflight control goes toward matching that attitude.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/cardozo.pdf

I worked in the US 2007-2008 (alternative energy), and gained a little more appreciation for the practical realities of the US. ITAR is silly and highly inconvenient, but it is no more or less so than a great many other manifestations of government (immigration, health care, etc.). It would be nice to see reform (ITAR isolates and hurts the US – an own goal), but I am not holding my breath. I can still speak freely and there are lots of interesting things that are not ITAR sensitive. And it is not like any other country is perfect either, even with ITAR, New Space is still primarily happening in the US – and for good reason.

WRT missile technology, that horse is long since out of the barn. Continuing restrictions when anything needed can be bought on the international market from north korea, pakistan, and other countries, is plainly ludicrous. Like the old crypto restrictions, all the current restrictions do is restrain legitimate commercial trade. The crooks already have what is being restricted.