ITAR: friend or foe to the ISS

I was recently reading the Hearing Charter for a meeting that took place on April 24^th, 2008 regarding NASA’s International Space Station (ISS) Program. For background, the meeting was held by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology, and more specifically the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. The April 24^th meeting was a platform for expert witnesses to discuss the status and issues surrounding the ISS.

Quickly, the ISS is a joint effort by Canada, the United States, Russia, Japan, and ten nations of the European Space Agency. On-orbit assembly began in 1998 and, in President Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration 2004, was declared an important part of the overall exploration initiative. When completed, the ISS will house 6 crew members and will have a pressurized volume of over 33,000 cubic feet (934 meters cubed). The ISS Program is set to end in 2017 and to-date, is the most expensive project ever built by mankind.

One of the main issues brought up at the Hearing was the effects of International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which pose export restriction on NASA.

The ISS Independent Safety Task Force in 2007 issued that ITAR restrictions “are a threat to the safe and successful integration and operations of the International Space Station.”

Content, including technical data relevant to vehicle operation, is restricted under ITAR and consequently increases the danger in operations that are internationally collaborative by nature.

ITAR is a set of United States government regulations which restricts information to US persons for the primary purpose of national security. There seems however, to be a revenge effect with this ITAR policy. It is well known that ITAR has made technical integration between the United States and other countries almost impossible, and is the reason for many lost contracts. It is arguable and widely accepted by US citizens that this cost is acceptable to ensure national security. What happens though when ITAR itself threatens the lives of US persons?

I propose one possible scenario. In the development of ISS systems, a membership country ancillary to the United States requires information that is critical to life support systems. Due to ITAR restrictions, US developed software controlling life support is unavailable. Only partial information, as determined by an ITAR committee, is given to the membership country. The partial information is used to develop the life support systems. Using the same rationale as the ITAR committee, the membership country delivers the life support system only providing partial information to its operation; this seems fair. During an actual mission on the ISS, something goes wrong and a quick decision about the life support system needs to be made. However, the necessary information needed to make an informed decision resides in two separate places, protected with the United States and protected with the membership country. The information is inaccessible given the time constraint and an incorrect decision is made. As a result, three US astronauts, a Canadian astronaut, and a Russian cosmonaut must abandon the ISS to save their lives.

Fortunately, the ISS crew members are alive, but their safety was put in jeopardy because of ITAR restrictions. This begs the question: does ITAR and ITAR-like restrictions have a place in international space projects?

I say it is next to impossible to create an environment of safety if participating members are hiding information from one another. Officials often celebrate the idea of the ISS being a flagship of international teamwork and shared technology. If ISS is supposed to be a technology platform for the world to explore itself and the surrounding universe, then why is there technology or information that is critical to national security on the ISS? The ISS is no place for a nation’s military technologies or government secrets. ITAR may serve the purpose of the US on many fronts, but it should not exist on a ship that flies over a dozen flags.

For the ISS to be safer and a true symbol of international teamwork, the ISS should be ITAR free.

Dinner with Bob

On April 3rd a group of space enthusiasts and myself went to dinner with our guest of honor Dr. Bob Richards. As some of you know, Bob has founded the International Space University and more recently has founded Odyssey Moon Ltd., a contender in the Lunar XPrize. While sitting down to some pasta at East Side Mario’s, Bob shared of the upcoming policy issues in the realm of space commercialization.



First off, a short history lesson is needed. In the 1900’s shortly after the Wright brothers demonstrated controlled heavier-than-air flight, a series of aviation competitions took place to spark the aviation industry. One of the most famous and ambitious competitions was the Orteig Prize, which required a non-stop flight between New York and Paris. The prize was won by Charles Lindbergh in 1927. This sparked a new era in the commercial aviation industry, which today is a multi-billion dollar industry and plays a vital role in other industries. Take note that you can also go on Expedia and book a return-trip from NY to Paris for $729.



The Orteig Prize was a model for Peter Diamandis’ Ansari XPrize; the winner would have to complete two sub-orbital space flights within a week. In October 2004, Burt Rutan of Mojave Aerospace Ventures won the Ansari XPrize of $10M. Soon after, Sir Richard Branson teamed up with Burt Rutan to create Virgin Galactic so that you and I can fly into space for a cool $200,000. How can Virgin Galactic offer a moderately affordable cost? First off, they are a private company that has developed technology with economic sense. While NASA has built sky-scraper-sized rockets, Burt Rutan and his ingenious team have decided to take the more practical and affordable route. A large airplane, called the White Knight, carries a smaller space craft to an altitude of 15 km. At this height the space craft, SpaceShipTwo, rockets upwards to 100 km. This design is reusable, robust, and cheaper!






If the Ansari and Lunar XPrizes have a similar effect as the Orteig Prize, then imagine what commercial space travel will look like 20 years from now! There will be space ports, space pilots, space passengers, space lines, and more. There will also be a whole new set of policies to govern the commercial space industry.



Let’s take a step back to current day. There are little to no rules and policies for commercial space travel. Space is the wild west and companies like Odyssey Moon and Virgin Galactic are pioneers.



When Bob imagines his company landing on the moon in 2011, with a robotic rover scouring the lunar surface, he ponders about some of the ethical issues to which there are no clear-cut legal answers. What is a private company allowed to do on the surface of the moon? How much of the moon can a company bring back to earth? Can a competing space company land near their robot, jeopardizing their robot’s operation? Can a space company sell part of the moon? Is a lunar rover allowed to drive over the footprints of astronauts? Bob tells a story of how Andy Aldrin (Astronaut Buzz Aldrin’s son) jokes: “My mother is going to kill you if you roll over my dad’s footprints.”



Angry mothers are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to making correct ethical decisions. International relationships can flare up over access to coveted space materials and the enforcement of corporate space crimes . These ethical issues are catching up as technology has once again outpaced social norms. There must be a new set of policies and laws to govern this new space frontier. Keep reading for upcoming ideas and developments in space commercialization!