For example, have you reviewed something like this page:
https://research.mit.edu/integrity-and-compliance/export-con...
1: I’m building this myself as an amateur, not a university or company, this seems to instantly put everyone on high alert and I suspect I’m getting “ITAR” as an excellent stonewalling/excuse instead of just saying they don’t want to talk to me.
2: I’m working with an orbital imaging systems which could in theory be used as a very ineffective spy sat (the optics aren’t designed to look at the ground but it is a telescope)
3: I’m not in America, so I have to deal with the “international” part of ITAR. It’s not like I’m in an embargo country, I’m in Australia… but a lot of people want to minimise their ITAR exposure so they just don’t want to work with anyone outside the USA, they are effectively “outsourcing” the ITAR problem to the downstream customers that build systems using their components. Since they aren’t exporting they have a much simpler due diligence process, like just making sure they confirm the buyer is an American citizen.
Overall it’s just been less of a complete dead end but more of a minefield of bullshit I have to dodge any time I’m forced to deal with American companies… dual use technology is ok to buy, until your using it for one of those special purposes, then it’s a mountain of paperwork.
SOURCES:
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/satellite-export-controls...
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/Download?urlI...
* (might try reaching out to author’s of paper above to see if they have any suggestions)
Personally, I would not make to much of how people respond to you independently trying to complete paperwork. My guess is it’s more likely related to any non-consumer system that requires paperwork not wanting to deal with non-professionals and/or give legal advice.
____
Unrelated, do you have a breakdown of the SatComm expense by type product/vendor and/or utility fees/rates and expected utilization?