Author Archives: J Simmons

Mach 30 makes a friend

by .
Comment

Over the last few months I have been noticing that we are not the only group with the vision of open source based space development and exploration.  Just as I was starting to wonder how Mach 30 could reach out to the other groups and make contact, I came across CSTART and their “Friends of CSTART” program.  The program is brilliant in its simplicity and is a great way to encourage other “open source” space groups to make contact.  (I also have to admit, I am a little embarrassed that I did not think of it.)

As I looked around CSTART’s website, I found their Social Contract, and was convinced that I had found a truly kindred group.  I presented the information I had learned about CSTART to the Board at the last meeting, and proposed that we send an offer of friendship to CSTART.  The Board was overwhelmingly in support of this, and so I sent a short note to CSTART last week.  The result is that we are the fourth official friend of CSTART.

Inspired by the warm welcome by CSTART to be their friend, I have also brushed up the Mach 30 website to include several connections to CSTART and the other groups we are aware of (take a look at the right side “blocks” for the new material).  Here’s to an open future in space!

ad astra per civitas

Progress Report on Open Design/Open Source Hardware Licensing

by .
Comment

One of the pivotal components of Open Design is a set of licenses foropen source hardware (be sure to click through to the PDF) that mirror the ideals underlying the various open source software licenses (and the Creative Commons which has distilled the idea into four traits that combine to form six licenses).  Finding or developing such licenses has been, and continues to be, a major road block for Mach 30.  The good news is that the open source community is thinking about this, too, and there are some licenses to consider.

One promising license is the TAPR Open Hardware License (TAPR OHL), written by John Ackerman (scroll down to read about his NTP servers), a resident of the Dayton area.  He has written an article in the UD Law Review discussing the TAPR OHL from a legal perspective.  In terms of the Creative Commons licensing terms, the TAPR OHL would probably best be described as an “Attribution Share Alike” license, or in software terms a GPL-like license.  There is also a non-commercial “flavor” of the license, that probably maps to the Creative Commons “Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike”.  I am personally very excited by the inclusion of multiple “flavors” of the license, as I think it is important that the Open Design community have the same choices artists and software developers do in the Creative Commons and various open source software licenses.

(more…)

Origins for Space…

by .
3 Comments

So, I have been thinking about the second item listed in our specific objectives and purposes in our Bylaws, namely:

(b) Promote development of a spacefaring culture by sponsoring activities that inspire the public to embrace the possibility of life beyond Earth

and how that relates to engaging our various constituencies.  Specifically, I have been wondering how can we engage with the enthusiasts (both fans of science fiction and of space flight programs), professionals (engineers, policy makers, etc), and other members of the space exploration community (astronauts, legislators, etc).  One thought I have had is a conference/convention, but most of the ones I have attended are either strictly technical, or strictly fan oriented (though I will be the first to admit I have been to only a handful of the events listed at the link).

What would be cool is if there was a conference that really split the line down the middle, having engaging content for fans, amateur engineers, professionals, and explorers all at the same site and at the same time.  Kind of an Origins for Space.  Origins is a Gaming Convention that includes official product launches, professional meetings for members of the gaming industry, and lots of opportunities for gamers to get together, play games, and meet the people who make the games.  Of the handful of events I have attended, only one that I can recall blurs the line (ISPCS) between technical conference and community engagement.  But it is small (a few hundred people) and is really aimed at allowing industry members to get together face to face.  Participation by enthusiasts is an added bonus more than a goal.

Not that we don’t already have enough to do, but at some point, I think it would behoove us to either find this kind of blended event, or if nothing like it exists, create it.  It would allow us to cross pollenate our constituencies, and hopefully help them see each other as allies and not unrelated groups.  It might also help us build up a core of dedicated community members (I know Maureen, Andy, Bekah and I are so dedicated to attending Origins that we plan for it a year in advance, committing to next year’s hotel room before this year’s convention has even started).  Finally, it would make a great place to hold our version of the state of the industry address.

Innovation and Kites – Stepping Stone to Aurora

by .
1 Comment

I have some rather detailed thoughts about why we, as a nation and as a planet, have not developed safe, sustainable, routine, and reliable access to space (S2R2), and I plan to elaborate more fully on this in blog post.  For now, let me summarize by saying that I believe that S2R2 access to space is an innovation problem, not an engineering one, and as such we need to apply the lessons of innovators more that the lessons taught in engineering schools around the country.

When I think of innovators, I think of the Wright Brothers, Wernher von Braun, and Thomas Edison to name a few.  One common thread to all of these innovators’ work was the shear number of tests that they conducted.  It helps if those tests are not all full up systems, but are simpler representations that allow for rapid and low cost iteration on ideas and design concepts.  The Wrights for instance, built a number of kites and later gliders, before building the first airplane in 1903.  The kites and gliders taught them valuable lessons, including that the then state of the art airfoil data was not accurate enough to base the design of an airplane on.

I propose that Mach 30 needs to follow a similar path, and build, fly, and test “kites” of its own to learn about what makes a good S2R2 launch vehicle.  I will follow this post with some thoughts on guiding principles for a “kite” program that can directly benefit the Aurora Program.

Update 11/02/2009

A Mach 30 Kite Program should integrate into the existing Aurora Program.  Ideally, we would use the Aurora Phase 1 Design Competition to solicit design concepts to test out with kite-level technology, iterating and testing until we learned enough about S2R2 space access to do design refinement and move to the next level of development.  The catch is that it is not obvious what the appropriate level of complexity represents “kites” in the S2R2 design space.  So, we really have an additional challenge on our hands, namely learning how to build this new kind of “kite”.

To overcome this challenge, I recommend the following integrated road map for Aurora and Kite development (note, indicated years are notional).

  1. Get ready for Aurora
    1. Complete planning for Aurora Phase I Design Competition (2010)
    2. Develop Kite Building and Testing Infrastructure (2010-2011)
  2. Aurora Phase I Design Competition (2011)
  3. Test promising Aurora Design Concepts using “kites”, emphasis on first stage concepts (2011-2012)
  4. Develop example Aurora first stage(s) to be used as launch platform for second stage kites (2012-2013)
  5. Refine Aurora stage 2 concepts and test promising concepts using “kites” (2013-2014)
  6. Develop example Aurora second stage(s) and demo single seat S2R2 access to space (2014-205)

There are some assumptions as to the nature of Aurora that feed this road map.  These assumptions should not be taken as requirements, they are meant to inform the development of the Kite Program. They include:

  • Aurora will likely be a 2-stage to orbit system
  • Both stages of Aurora will be powered by rocket engines (no air breathing technology in Aurora)
  • Aurora will likely launch vertically (though the kite program should include the ability to compare vertical and horizontal launch)
  • Aurora will likely land horizontally

As I have pondered the development of kites (especially first stage kites), I have imagined a tiered approach to evolving their capabilities in order to learn what level of investment (material cost and time) is necessary to properly test Aurora design concepts.  The tiers might look something like this:

  1. $200 kite
    1. Estes and electric R/C airplane components
    2. Could test basic flight stability
    3. Could be basic trainer for test pilots to give them experience across launch, climb, burn out, and return to launch site
    4. Could likely be flown several times per day
  2. $2000 kite
    1. N or O class model rocket engine, extended range R/C airplane controls and higher end components
    2. Could carry larger amount of instrumentation
    3. Could test telemetry and long range flight
    4. Extend envelope of flights (higher altitude, greater speed)
    5. Could likely be flown several times per day
  3. $20,000
    1. liquid rocket engine (LOX/Ethanol?), small scale UAV style controls?
    2. Could test representative speeds?
    3. Could test near representative altitudes?
    4. Could test representative trajectories (up and back)?
    5. Could develop full system materials handling and flight prep/maintenance
    6. Could test feasability of UAV controls for first stage of Aurora
    7. Could get sizing data for S2R2 class first stage vehicles

The 2010-2011 Kite Program would then focus on testing the capabilities at each of these tiers and developing the necessary infrastructure to build and test vehicles like these.  The design should probably be derived from a historical example of a Mach 3-5 aircraft, and not focus on what a first stage for Aurora might look like.  That can wait until after the phsae I design competition.