X Prize 2

1) We had our application accepted back in October 2003; on
April 23, 2004 it was approved.

I was at Space Access 2004 conference in Phoenix when Jeff accepted his launch
license. What a milestone moment for the alternative space access movement!
We're all a bit closer to going up after this occassion.
I must admit that the AST office of the FAA is not a significant hurtle to
alternative space access and the possibility of anyone's traveling in space is
improving :-) hooray!
[Here's wishing John C. much success when he applies for *his* license]

(I attempt to post a variant of this about 2 weeks ago, with another try a
week ago. It never made it to the moderator either time. While the thread
has run its course, I'd like to get this "on the record" anyway.)

(Gordon D. Pusch) wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:

(Len) wrote:
Then, instead of DoT sending the U.S. citizen to jail, the
Dept. of State would do the honors for violating technology
export laws.

What exists uniquely in the U.S. that the U.S. citizen would need to
export? (Other than themself?)

Uh, Jim, one is dealing here with a bureaucracy that has classified
"strong encryption technology" as a _MUNITION_ that may not be
exported --- nothwithstanding the fact that anyone in the world who
has read and understood the relevant publicly-available CS and Math
journals should at least in principle be able to code up any given
encryption algorithm in fairly short order!

I'm definitely not going to argue your position, since I wholeheartedly
agree with it! But it appears to me to be addressing a different point than
the one I'm concerned about.

These people are =NOT= exactly strong on logic, reason, or critical
thinking;

Hmmm... sounds like some Usenet posters! :-)

they are only interested in "policy," and perceived
"national interest"... :-(

I wouldn't have posted on this subject at all, but I saw statements
implying the FAA had vast jurisdiction in all sorts of areas - one or two
that I happened to know were regulated by other authorities. It looked to
me like people were confusing export of munitions with launch licensing,
with some aspects of SEC authority and executive branch sanctioning
confusion thrown in for good measure. Or more likely I misunderstood their
positions.

(I attempted to post this about 2 weeks ago, with another try a week ago.
It never made it to the moderator either time. While the thread has run its
course, I'd like to get this "on the record" anyway.)

Charles Buckley wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
I believe U.S. citizens can buy stock in foreign aerospace firms.
They can be party to their establishment - all quite legally and
without contacting the FAA. If you believe differently, it would help
if you cited appropriate statute or case law.
..
http://ast.faa.gov/aboutast/701complete.htm

Thank you for the citation! It brings out some useful information, but
unless I'm misreading things, nothing you've quoted appears to contradict
my paragraph above. Specifically:

In this chapter -

(1) ''citizen of the United States'' means -

(A) an individual who is a citizen of the United States;

(B) an entity organized or existing under the laws of the

United States or a State; or

(C) an entity organized or existing under the laws of a

foreign country if the controlling interest (as defined by
the

Secretary of Transportation) is held by an individual or
entity

described in subclause (A) or (B) of this clause.


ie, it is solely at the discretion of the Secretary of Transportation
as to who this applies to. "controlling interest" is quite often
less than 50% of the stock.

Here's a definition of controlling interest from:
http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/a401-1.pdf

"United States citizen means:
(1) Any individual who is a citizen of the United States;
(2) Any corporation, partnership, joint venture, association, or other
entity organized or existing under the laws of the United States or any
State; and
(3) Any corporation, partnership, joint venture, association, or other
entity which is organized or exists under the laws of a foreign nation,
if the controlling interest in such entity is held by an individual or
entity described in paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition.

Controlling interest means ownership of an amount of equity in such
entity sufficient to direct management of the entity or to void
transactions entered into by management.
Ownership of at least fifty-one percent of the equity in an entity by
persons described in paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition creates a
rebuttable presumption that such interest is controlling."

Pretty onerous, and I despise the regulatory overreach - yet the definition
seems to provide enough wiggle room for a U.S. citizen to accomplish their
goal without FAA intrusion. E.g. ownership of non-voting stock,
establishment of a contract with a large penalty clause that would allow
minority investors access to flight slots, etc. None of which seem to allow
investors to direct management or void management transactions.

Furthermore, as best I can make out, all such regulations seem to pertain
to licensing of the launch itself, not construction of the launch vehicle.
Until an attempt to launch, a launch license from the FAA would not be
needed. Certainly none is needed to invest up to that point! And if a
foreign company (with, for example, 34% ownership by a U.S. citizen) did
launch from a foreign country without getting an FAA launch license, two
items would impede the FAA:

1) Trying to enforce its jurisdictional overeach,
2) Dealing with any political headaches that the target could muster.

And..

Title V Sec. 2410b. - Missile proliferation control violations

(A)

If the President determines that a United States person knowingly -

(i)

exports, transfers, or otherwise engages in the trade of any item on
the MTCR Annex, in violation of the provisions of section 38 (22
U.S.C. 2778) or chapter 7 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2797 et seq.), section 5 or 6 of this Act (section 2404 or 2405 of
this Appendix), or any regulations or orders issued under any such
provisions,

(ii)

conspires to or attempts to engage in such export, transfer, or trade,
or

(iii)

facilitates such export, transfer, or trade by any other person,


then the President shall impose the applicable sanctions described in
subparagraph (B).

First, the above regulations all refers to trade, transfer, or export of
prohibited items. Not to manufacture and subsequent self use. Secondly, it
is worthwhile to note the nature of the applicable sanctions (from
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/22/2797a.html):

"(2) The sanctions which apply to a United States person under paragraph
(1) are the following:
(A) If the item on the MTCR Annex involved in the export, transfer,
or trade is missile equipment or technology within category II of
the MTCR Annex, then the President shall deny to such United
States person for a period of 2 years -

(i) United States Government contracts relating to missile
equipment or technology; and

(ii) licenses for the transfer of missile equipment or technology
controlled under this chapter.

(B) If the item on the MTCR Annex involved in the export, transfer,
or trade is missile equipment or technology within category I of
the MTCR, then the President shall deny to such United States
person for a period of not less than 2 years -

(i) all United States Government contracts, and

(ii) all export licenses and agreements for items on the United
States Munitions List."

I'm afraid I don't see any mention of jail time. Nor does there seem to be
any FAA involvment at this point either, just the executive branch.