Yay. In trouble with ITAR...

Pat Flannery wrote:

:
:Oh, I have no problem with keeping defense projects details classified;
:but the Saturn V/Apollo was a civilian, not military program.
:Classifying it, especially forty years after it was made, is really a
:case of closing the barn door after the horse has left...in this case
:the horse is long dead of old age.
:

Uh, nobody is talking about or has classified any such thing, Pat.

Are you really this clueless about what ITAR is? It has no connection
to 'classified'.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

On Aug 2, 11:43 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

:
:Oh, I have no problem with keeping defense projects details classified;
:but the Saturn V/Apollo was a civilian, not military program.
:Classifying it, especially forty years after it was made, is really a
:case of closing the barn door after the horse has left...in this case
:the horse is long dead of old age.
:

Uh, nobody is talking about or has classified any such thing, Pat.

Are you really this clueless about what ITAR is? It has no connection
to 'classified'.

I rather think this is the main problem.
Something should either be classified
or not classified. Capricious interpretation
of basically public information and normal
technical exchanges can be enormously
destructive and not particularly useful to
national security. Quite the opposite,
actually, IMO.

Len

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
This reminds me of them taking the Fat Man and Little Boy off display at
the National Atomic Museum because some terrorist might learn how to make
a nuclear weapon by studying them. "So that's what we've been doing wrong!
The fins go at the _back_ end!"

When was this? I last visited about 2 years ago and they were there.

A few years earlier Paul Tibbets had a book signing in front of them- it was
hard to see him from all of the Japanese tourists taking pictures :P

This administration is completely off its rocker when it comes to security
and classifying things. Most of this seems to emanate from Cheney's
office, who I am becoming increasingly convinced is clinically mentally
unbalanced.

That's classified information. Please report to your local disintegration
booth.

Scott Hedrick wrote:
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...

This reminds me of them taking the Fat Man and Little Boy off display at
the National Atomic Museum because some terrorist might learn how to make
a nuclear weapon by studying them. "So that's what we've been doing wrong!
The fins go at the _back_ end!"


When was this? I last visited about 2 years ago and they were there.


It was back around 2002 when they were going nuts about security after
911; the story was pretty funny, ranking up there with Ashcroft draping
the naked lady statues at the Department Of Justice.
I'll see if I can dig up specifics on it, but the nuclear scientists and
military historians were rolling their eyes over the whole thing. :-)

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Scott Hedrick wrote:
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...

This reminds me of them taking the Fat Man and Little Boy off display at
the National Atomic Museum because some terrorist might learn how to
make a nuclear weapon by studying them. "So that's what we've been doing
wrong! The fins go at the _back_ end!"


When was this? I last visited about 2 years ago and they were there.


It was back around 2002 when they were going nuts about security after
911;

Yeah, the last time I visited it on base was Sept 10, 2001.

I saw it two years ago in its new location and they were there in all their
shining glory, but the statute of a sword being beaten into a plowshare was
missing. In its place was a plow made from recycled nuclear bomb casings

The new location is somewhat easier to get to (since its off base, but in
the Old Town area of Albuquerque, with its 16th century street designs).
Unfortunately, this means the outdoor exhibits are lost- the missiles,
planes, artillery and retired boomer sail. The B-52 would require the entire
lot the museum now sits on.

The first time I visited the place in 1995, I was also able to drive out to
the solar power tower I saw in National Geographic. Nobody seemed to have a
problem with my driving my pickup anywhere on base. The only time I was
asked for ID was when I entered the base, and all they wanted was what any
traffic cop would want. There was more concern over insurance than
citizenship. Makes me want to find the ashes of Atta and **** on them.

Scott Lowther wrote:

While I was out today, a voicemail came in from a General Dynamics
Export Control Compliance guy at NASA/KSC. Wanted to ahve a chat with me
about my web page he
http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocspace.htm

Didn't leave details, and by the time I heard the message, he had long
since left for the weekend. So I get to wait until Monday, I suppose.

So I did the obvious thing... lookeda t that page to see what was on
there that might be ITAR-problematic. I don;t see nuthin' but mostly
Saturn stuff, witha bit of Shuttle and Dyna Soar. I figured maybe he
got the wrong page, and instead meant this page:
http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocair.htm

That, at least, has some Convair nuclear powered aircraft stuff. Figured
that must be it, the guy being from General Dynamicws and all.

But then I got this message from a contact who worked at KSC:

"However, just before we left KSC, a guy from the NASA Export Control
Office (which is run by some contractor, maybe Analex?) came by our
office on an "inspection" and told us we had to take down all the
Saturn V drawings we had around ... now, these were just old NAA public
relation drawings, plus a few commercially-purchased posters showing
the Saturn V internals in very rough detail. He said they were all
covered by ITAR and therefore had to be locked up! We kept telling him
some were purchased at the Visitor Center Gift Shop, but he did not
care. He ended up coming around with an armed security cop until we
took them down and shredded them."


WTF??? Saturn V is under ITAR control? Has anyone told David Weeks?

Sounds to me like typical "NewCOntractoritis"
(Which is the civilian form of "NewAgencyitis")
Whenever a somebody gets a contract for, say, Site Security or
ITAR-like functions, they comein all gung-ho trying to show that they're
On the Ball, Bright Eyed and Bushy-tailed.
Of course, the people they are hiring to fill the slots are inexperienced,
unknowlegable lightweights - your Standard Issue wannabee - like the bozos
who hand out at the Dunkin' Donuts at 0300 waiting for a cop to come in, so
they can try to talk "Adam-12" talk.
They very quickly establish themselves by throwing their weight around, and
being deathly afraid that everybody knows more than they do.

As an example, last year I was supervising an installation on a Destroyer.
The Security contract at the Shipyard involved had just changed.
The new Security folks were incapable of getting things done right (Like
maintaining Access Lists from one day to the next), but had absolute power
to either refuse access to the yard or toss people out for "Workplace
Safety Violations - like having the wrong color steel-toed boots. (Happened
to one of my people. The funny thing is that the Safety Goon who made that
pronouncement was wearing the exact same "Unsafe Shoes")
I on the other hand, had (Other than dealing with lost paperwork such that I
would stand in the Security Office and make the Security Supervisor hand
carry the (Faxed for the 3rd time that morning) Access list to the Gate
Apes.) little problem - My Sreel-toes are broken in and obviously used,
my Hard Hat had my name stenciled on it and was also obviously not from Home
Depot, and I looked like I knew what was going on.

The same behavior occurs in Government Agencies (At all levels) when either
an Agency is rapidly expanded, or newly created.

It's completely independent of who's administration it is, or what their
policies are.

--
Pete Stickney
Without data, all you have is an opinion

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 12:52:12 -0400, Peter Stickney
wrote:

They very quickly establish themselves by throwing their weight around, and
being deathly afraid that everybody knows more than they do.

....We had one ****wit engineer at Dell who pulled that stunt the first
day he was assigned to our group. We test engineers had finished a
series of tests on one of the last video cards Number Nine had put out
before those Beatlefreaks went out of business, and as standard policy
we added our conclusions to the end of the report. This guy came into
the lab and made it clear in no uncertain terms that he and he *alone*
would be making any conclusions regarding any test results, and that
he'd have anyone who reported any results without being filtered
through him first removed from the team, if not fired. We were in his
book, "lowly techs" because we weren't "Engineering/Analyists", and
weren't "qualified" to make any sort of judgments regarding data.

....Needless to say, being test *engineers* and not "test technicians"
as he claimed we were - Dell thought otherwise - this didn't sit well
with any of us, so we asked for that in writing, as it negated our
previous SOP. So he fired off an e-mail to all of us restating his
edicts. Which we then forwarded to *our* big boss, who then forwarded
it to -his- boss.

A week later, this bozo was gone. Seems he told the *bigger* boss that
either the testing was done his way or the highway, so they told him
to start hitching his thumb...

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Scott Lowther "scottlowtherAT ix DOT netcom DOT com" wrote:
the Saturn V internals in very rough detail. He said they were all
covered by ITAR and therefore had to be locked up! We kept telling him
some were purchased at the Visitor Center Gift Shop, but he did not
care. He ended up coming around with an armed security cop until we
took them down and shredded them."

So, I guess that's the only way to get rid of the Saturn V: Bring an armed
security copy around and demand that you shread the drawings.

I kinda wish Russia would put the drawings for the N1 up on the net :-)

Glen Overby

Glen Overby wrote:

I kinda wish Russia would put the drawings for the N1 up on the net :-)


COMRADE! Mighty Soviet Super-Rocket!:
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/n/n1diagko.jpg
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/n/n1cut4.gif
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/n1.html

Pat

On Jul 27, 5:31 pm, Scott Lowther
wrote:
WTF??? Saturn V is under ITAR control? Has anyone told David Weeks?

Why of course our Jewish Third Reich "Saturn V" is entirely hocus
pocus ITAR worthy.

After all, accomplishing our NASA/Apollo missions within a mere 60:1
rocket per payload ratio, as well as for having a nearly 30% inert
GLOW to start off with, never the less somehow that big old sucker
managed via hocus-pocus smoke and mirrors in order to so quickly get
our rad-hard and electrostatic dust proof Apollo missions off to such
an impressive fly-by-rocket start. Apparently those brave rad-hard
astronauts of ours consumed mass quantities of beans and subsequently
utilized their flatulence for the necessary 4th stage thrusting, as
well as for their getting safely back home. If that's not fully ITAR
rated, then perhaps nothing is.

Why don't you try posting those all-inclusive hard facts about such
impressive fly-by-rocket specs of that nifty Saturn V (including its
initial tonnage of ice loading), showing us how those ITAR rated
Jewish Third Reich laws of such faith-based conditional physics are
simply way superior to anything else on Earth, even still as of today
being at least twice if not nearly three fold better.

Perhaps you can use any number of the most modern fly-by-rocket
technology that's not nearly as inert to start with, that couldn't
possibly manage GSO at much better off than 80:1.
- Brad Guth