This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
SLS and Orion

SLS Performance Specs Fall Under ITAR

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
January 25, 2013
Filed under , , , ,

NASA MSFC Says That SLS Performance Specs Fall Under ITAR
“You requested the Technical Performance Metrics (TPM) presented to SLS senior management on a monthly basis for TPMs created during Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012. The documents requested contain export-controlled information and are being withheld in their entirety pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3).”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

16 responses to “SLS Performance Specs Fall Under ITAR”

  1. Ben Russell-Gough says:
    0
    0

    I’m genuinely unsure exactly what to think about this.  I’m certain there are bits of the control electronics that have classified technology in them but I think this is taking paranoia just a wee bit too far.

  2. Gonzo_Skeptic says:
    0
    0

    It looks like a form letter packed with tons of legal sounding gobble-dee-goop written to discourage further communications.

    They should just write “GO AWAY.  YOU ANNOY US!”

  3. stonemoma says:
    0
    0

    I like it. Our institute once delivered part of a science instrument to NASA (not military related). It had a problem. So we asked for what the problem was. This information fell under ITAR. No solution possible.

    It takes close to two years to get a technical assistance agreement signed by the president. This is the only chance you have to work with US so no chance for fast cooperation. With Orion it might be different but you have to be big to get the president to sign fast.

    A lot of people in ESA have made similar experience and at the end think it is better to cooperate with other european countries.

    • Ralphy999 says:
      0
      0

      Then they should develop their own systems and not participate in the Orion CEV. They will be happy ever after and have their very own space craft to explore the endless high frontier…. as they snicker at the puny commercial space craft launched by Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand from a Tex-Mex spaceport whose borders are guaranteed by the Zeta and Gulf Cartels..RAH would be proud.

      • stonemoma says:
        0
        0

         They do not want a system of their own. Human space flight is a nice to have if you can buy it when you need it. But to maintain it and develop it is extreamly expensive. ESA has no way to get enough money to have a CEV and launcher of their own. The Orion cooperation is only there to funnel money into space industry and pay the dept for the ISS to the US. The interest to have a human on Mars or Moon on their own is nearly not existing here in Europe, especially if it the astronaut does not come from the own country.

        • John Gardi says:
          0
          0

          stonemoma:

          Actually, it’s the bureaucracy that is expensive, not the hardware. It’s the overlarge workforce that’s hard to maintain. It’s the philosophy that’s in error, not the goal.

          If you’ve followed SpaceX, they have designed, fabricated and flown, more than once, a launch vehicle and human adaptable spacecraft with less the 2,000 employees. They did all this at a fraction of the cost of any serious space program than ever before.

          Regardless of what detractors say about SpaceX, they’ve shown that this can be done. Remember this: the great designer, Sergei Korolev, did much the same thing fifty years ago and his basic design flies til this very day.

          If Europe want’s to have indigenous human space flight, maybe they’ll need to think out of the box. How about having some of Europe’s best aerospace professionals form a private company, go fishing for investors, do a design removed from government and committee oversight and just get the job done!

          It’s not like there is a shortage of talent… or finances… or ideas. It’s the willingness to take chances, maybe the only advantages America has (or once had) over everyone else.

          It’s only a matter of time before we see company logos on reusable launch vehicles soaring skyward. Will the first ones read American Spacelines or Spacebus?

          tinker

          • Ralphy999 says:
            0
            0

            I ‘m having a problem grokking the country of Jules Verne and Descartes or the country of Kepler could not have  private space exploration companies. The Invisible Hand it seems, is pecuilarly American in nature. OTOH, ah hates it when the Invisible Hand slaps me on the back of the head and puts me out of work.  

          • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
            0
            0

             The French think companies are servants of the state and should do what the king and his ministers says.  These days the king is a president and the ministers are politicians but that does not change the principle.

    • Denniswingo says:
      0
      0

      TAA’s are not signed by the president and a competent lawfirm can have one done in six months or less.

  4. NewSpacePaleontologist says:
    0
    0

    My ITAR training (from some pretty well respected ITAR experts) said that things such as performance specs are not controlled unless they are to such detail that a foreign entity can take them and use them to design and manufacture controlled technology. I did not recognize that the SLS design included the detailed specs for build of the internal parts of black boxes/LRUs.

    This is not unusual. Some NASA folks consider pictures of buildings as ITAR controlled.

    ITAR, “pre-decisional” and “sensitive but not classified” are becomming the tools used to prevent viisibility by the public into programs and projects. It is the same thing that the over classification (confidential/secret/etc.) trend in the 70s was used to accomplish.

    Not all of this is conspirital. Some ITAR training is little more than telling the student that they can personally be fined into destitution and imprisoned for a ITAR mistake. They are told that if there is any concern, claim ITAR controlled to protect themselves and the company.

    The recent law changes will not fix any of this. The only relief will come if there are penalties for over classification. Who has the money to sue to dispute abuse of ITAR classification?

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      My own experience with this was as a Canadian engineer.  Our team was designing systems for a third country who was buying US fighter planes.  We had potential ITAR and secrecy problems with several aircraft systems, most notably ECM and weapons systems, which is not surprising (we had NATO Secret clearance).

      What investigation showed was that the information causing the objections was simply the operating frequencies, since knowing these, if they got out, could give an enemy an easy time in developing jamming techniques.  It turned out that getting documents that were complete except for the operating frequencies was relatively easy.  The solution then became having one outside person, a consultant with very high clearances, who would come in to implement the frequency settings.

      That still left the buyer with the problem of how the systems had to be stored and accessed, and who could used certain features.  In our case, however, since we were actually designing and building training systems, we were allowed to simply use a different set of frequencies than the real ones.  So, the people who enforce these restrictions are not always impossible to work with.  They’re just doing a job that they take very seriously.  I do wish they’d speak and write in English instead of lawyer-talk, though.

  5. JimNobles says:
    0
    0

    This whole thing doesn’t look good for SLS.  If they were proud of their performance figures they’d find a way to brag about them.

    • Stuart J. Gray says:
      0
      0

      They are just irritated that every time SLS gives performance specs, SpaceX announces a future upgrade that will defeat SLS. They are tired of being undercut by the MUCH lower bidder…

      • hamptonguy says:
        0
        0

        Perhaps SLS just plain sucks.  Or, the cost of it, if it actually ever flies, will be so embarrassing that they decided to get a jump on suppressing information early.  There seems to be no logic or credible reason behind not publishing rocket specs for a rocket that has no military purpose.  More NASA paranoia and hiding info from the very people who pay for this stuff.

  6. John Gardi says:
    0
    0

    Folks:

    So, how can customers design payloads if they don’t know the performance specs? Oh, forgot, there will be no ‘customers’ for SLS.

    tinker