Hacker News Reader

Comment by p_l | Hacker News Reader

Conversely, if it gets ITAR-free, it might just pay off for not having DoD as customer.

>> ITAR-free

Not likely. Everything to do with misses/rockets is very restricted. Put GPS guidance on your model rocket and you can expect a visit from the FBI. Sell rockets with GPS/FLIR/INS/TV guidance and you should expect swat teams.

Their very public use of New Zealand launch site led me to incorrect assumption they were less married to USA.

And yes, ITAR-Free is becoming a bigger and bigger selling point both in military and space industries (also, besides ITAR, such high-profile contracts with USA entities are generally bad for you...)

Launch companies specifically need the anchor customers of nasa/airforce, or the equivalent in their own country. This is, I assume, why Rocket Lab eventually became a USA company

Commercial clients are very interested in "ITAR-free" solutions though

But rocket lab is based in New Zealand, so does US regulations even matter as long as they don’t launch from US soil?

They are registered in USA and apparently do a bunch of US-based development.

They recently built a launch site in the US so I think ITAR is still going to apply to them

I believe rockets are under ITAR regardless.

Their choice of NZ launch location confused me a bit.

But ITAR-free (effectively "USA-free") is a big important thing to offer if possible.

I'd argue the opposite.

The revenue potential of selling to the entire US government far outweighs the revenue potential of the rest of the world combined as Europe, China, and Russian already have national champions and closed launch markets.

Going with ITAR, and US sales, and US investors, is exactly why RocketLab became a US company. If you look at their flight manifest so far, it's certainly worked out for them!

Indeed, you can argue that ITAR is the single most effective industrial policy in the US by comparing the health of the US rocket manufacturing base to the relative health of all other US manufacturing industries.

Why is that?

I've understood that the US places restrictions on payloads that carry cameras, and from that alone, I could see that getting out from under those restrictions could be valuable.

But what else?

>> But what else?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_...

IV: Launch Vehicles, Guided Missiles, Ballistic Missiles, Rockets, Torpedoes, Bombs and Mines

V: Explosives and Energetic Materials, Propellants, Incendiary Agents and Their Constituents

XII: Fire Control, Range Finder, Optical and Guidance and Control Equipment

XV: Spacecraft Systems and Associated Equipment

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=86008bdffd1fb2e79c...

(1) Rockets, SLVs, and missiles capable of delivering at least a 500-kg payload to a range of at least 300 km (MT);

(2) Rockets, SLVs, and missiles capable of delivering less than a 500-kg payload to a range of at least 300 km (MT);

[...]

(12) Thrusters (e.g., spacecraft or rocket engines) using bi-propellants or mono-propellant that provide greater than 150 lbf (i.e., 667.23 N) vacuum thrust (MT for rocket motors or engines having a total impulse capacity equal to or greater than 8.41 × 10^5 newton seconds);

(13) Control moment gyroscope (CMG) specially designed for spacecraft;

And lots more stuff.

Just talking with a supplier while integrating your payload under ITAR can bring enough problems. Hell, US military sales, directly approved by Department of State, ended sometimes canceled because despite the usual circus of bribery involved ITAR was just that much of an impediment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com