Ten Principles for NASA Legislation

Hi again Mitchell,

>

> > 4 - agree, however, this conflicts with ITAR regulations. I
> > suggested to the committee that ITAR should be repealed. ITAR
> > prohibits US space technology from being released into the public
> > domain
>
> I wasn't aware of this. Seems to be a left over of the cold war.
>

ITAR is firmly entrenched and is a big problem for US commercial
space companies. It is enforced in a draconian manner, with multi-
$million fines and serious jail time for violators. The "war on
terror" has if anything strengthened enforcement.

> > 8 - the stated principle appears to conflict with the stated
> > rationale.
> > Stated Principle:
> > "After completion, off-earth manufacturing and infrastructure
shall
> > be turned over to a nonprofit organization. Further utilization of
> > these resources shall be on a fee for service basis contracted for
> > after turnover of resources."

> I had problems with the non vs for-profit. I settled on non-profit
> because of visions of a contractor like Lockheed-Martin or Boeing
being
> given an unearned plum paid for by public money. With a privatised
> NASA, how do you give away products that have been paid for by
NASA?

I see no advantage to have a non-profit, and a lot of disadvantages.
The main advantage is that a for-profit entity is motivated to expand
the system, increase revenues, and generally expand out into the
solar system.

Without the profit motive I am concerned that a "non profit" would
tend to sit on its laurels and stagnate.

I tend to think more of the future than the past. Regardless of who
paid for the development (taxpayer), who is the best player to move
it forwards into the private sector ?

> >
> Thanks. Nice to get some feedback. It is usually very silent when
I post.
>

The issues you have raised need a wider discussion.

Best regards,

Charles F. Radley