Category Archives: Community/Partners

Join the Open Source Space Revolution!

Now that the final shuttle mission is in orbit, we at Mach 30 are celebrating the past, present, and most importantly, the future of human space flight.  Please visit each day of the mission to see why we are so passionate about human space exploration and to find out why we believe open source hardware holds the key to humanity’s future in space.

Don’t miss out!  Subscribe to our newsletter to keep track of Mach 30 activity and learn more about how to get involved.

Ready to join the revolution?  You can contribute to the cause here.

Thanks for visiting!

Notes from meeting with Neil Milburn

25 June 2011 – Drove out to Caddo Mills, TX to meet (face-to-face) with Neil Milburn to:

– receive information about the Armadillo Aerospace insurance provider.
– get a tour of their facility.

Details:

  1. Armadillo’s Insurance provider is JLT Aerospace (North America) Inc.out of Houston, TX.  He gave me the info of a Ralph Harp, Senior Vice President.  w: 713.984.7570, c: 713.253.4594, email:  ralph.harp@jltaerospace.com. 
  2. (more…)

An open source flashlight? Well, not exactly…

Update 07/06/2011:

HexBright has setup a wiki on their website.  Not much content posted yet, but the structure that is in place looks good.  Looking forward to licensing information and documentation.

Update 06/09/2011:

Just got this very clarifying tweet from @Hexbright:

We are going to release mechanical drawings, electrical drawings, and source code for the Flex!! That’s what we mean by open source!

That is very exciting news!!!  It turns out that google linked to much older comments and the team over at Hexbright decided to open everything up on June 2.  Thanks to Hexbright for clearing this up.  I can’t wait to get one of my own (and see the plans).


World’s first open source flashlight?” This headline caught my eye the other day. As a supporter of relatively new Open Source Hardware (OSWH) movement, I thought to myself, now here is an interesting idea for an OSHW project. I can’t wait to see what type of flashlight it is and what the plans look like. After all, a flashlight is clearly hardware, so surely the developer is talking about opening the entire design… Boy was I in for a surprise.

Before I even read the article, I followed the link to the project website, which is really nothing more than an advertisement for the Kickstarter page. Despite the very clear language indicating the HexBright is open source (“Hex Bright: Open Source Light”), there are no links to a project page of any kind. No information on where to get any plans, source code, or documentation. There is just an email address and the previously mentioned link to the Kickstarter page. Contrast this with open source software projects such as the Python programming language, which prominently links to the source code, documentation, and forums in the sidebar on the project homepage.

Needless to say, this was not an auspicious start as far as I was concerned. Still, I was determined to see what the story was, so off I went to the Kickstarter page. Here you will find a number of videos showing off the HexBright (including one with Grant Imahara of the Mythbusters), but still no links to the plans, source code, or documentation one should expect of a project that is advertising itself as open source. So, I dug still deeper, and googled for “hexbright plans” and found this discussion page on the Kickstarter site. If you scroll down to the bottom of the page, you will find a question posted by user mitpatterson, “Any plans to release the schematic for the electronics inside at all? …”, to which Christian Carlberg (one of the developers) responds:

I just plan on releasing the source code for you light hackers to play with. It’s a good question, but part of what makes the HexBright special is the body shape which I want to keep hold of.

So, it turns out that this is not an OSHW project at all. It is an LED flashlight for which the developers plan to release the source code for the embedded processor that runs the LED.

There are two important points for supporters of OSHW to consider from this story. The first is the need to come up with a common language to describe the relative openness of hardware projects. I think it is important for the maker community to avoid misunderstandings about what is being shared, what will be shared, and what will not be shared (and under what terms does the sharing take place) when it comes to hardware projects. These kinds of misunderstandings can at best lead to frustration (such as I felt while researching the HexBright) and at worst can lead to intellectual property violations (such as someone misusing a design or source code because of a failure to understand their rights to that information). This will likely involve both educating the maker community about how open source can be applied to hardware, and having a dialog about how to clearly label projects.

The second point is that something is not open source just because you say it is. There are clear definitions for both software and hardware, and in both cases being open source requires that the appropriate material (source code and accompanying instructions in the case of software, and drawings, instructions, etc in the case of hardware) be available to the users. Planning to release this material is not the same thing… At all. It is just plain unfair (and untrue) to label something as open source when there are no aspects of the project that are available to end users (and covered under a valid open source license). Again, this is likely something that needs to be addressed through education in the maker community. Though, to be perfectly fair, this is occasionally a problem even in organizations that should know better.

So, tell me what you think. Am I being too harsh or do we really need to address these issues? And is educating the maker community about open source the right path forward? If so, what does that look like? If not, what do you think is the right path is?

ad astra per civitas

Rockets 101 Update: A story of preparation and clever hacks

Yesterday was the last launch day of the season at TORC (it turns out the farmer needs his field back to grow corn during the summer, go figure).  So, it was my last chance to test out the draft Rockets 101 Manual content under live conditions (and to get my NAR Bronze flights certified while I was at it).  I would love to be able to report that everything went according to plan, but that just is not the case.  However, as is often the case, I think the lessons learned from the complications that came up yesterday are far more valuable than those that would have come out of the day just going according to plan.

I spent the night before reviewing the requirements, packing my rockets and materials, and updating the course manual.  When I got to the field, I decided to start with the non-timed flights (in testing the timed flights were the harder ones to achieve success on, and I wanted to get some early momentum going).  As expected, my first two flights went off without a hitch, and allowed me to quickly get half way through the Bronze certification objectives.  The details of the flights are as follows:

  • “D” size or larger flight

    Rocket: Big Daddy

    Preparation: 7 squares of wadding

    Motor: D12-3

    Notes: Successful flight, achieved Bronze objective.  However, there was some minor melting of the parachute.  Should increase wadding on next flight of this rocket.

  • 2-Stage flight

    Rocket: Aztec

    Preparation: 3 squares of wadding, streamer recovery

    Motor: B6-0/B6-4 (taped together and friction fit with tape per kit instructions)

    Notes: Successful flight, achieved Bronze objective.  Some minor dings to the booster stage.

With two great flights under my belt I moved on to the first of the two timed flights, the 30+ seconds streamer recovery.  The spec’ed rocket for this flight is an Estes Hi-Flier.  This rocket always performed well in testing, so I felt confident it would pass the requirements.  There is just one minor detail I failed to consider.  The Hi-Flier is a very small rocket, and the launch site is a VERY large cornfield.  I’ll let the flight log below tell the rest of the story.

  • 30+ sec streamer recovery flight

    Rocket: Hi-Flier

    Preparation: 3 squares of wadding, streamer recovery

    Motor: B6-4

    Notes: Flight lasted 43.6 sec.  Rocket landed beyond line of sight.  Over an hour of searching failed to turn up the rocket.  Bronze certification requires recovering the rocket; objective not met.  Check with Greg to see if he used a B6-2 for his flight.

So, this was a problem.  First, I had failed to meet the requirement for the third mission.  Second, the Rockets 101 Manual calls for using the Hi-Flier for both duration flights.  I now had a choice to make.  I still had a B class motor rocket I could fly, namely the Aztec upper-stage.  But testing had shown time and again that most rockets could not meet the streamer recovery times.  So, I could either fly the Aztec upper-stage in an unlikely attempt at the streamer flight or go home.

I decided to go ahead and try the Aztec.  Worst case is I lost it, too, but I already had my 2-stage flight certified, and it is not a very expensive rocket.  Turns out it missed the time by 3.5 seconds, as shown in the flight log below, but that is not the end of the story.

  • 30+ sec streamer recovery flight

    Rocket: Aztec Upper-Stage

    Preparation: 3 squares of wadding, streamer recovery

    Motor: B6-4

    Notes: Flight lasted 26.5 sec.  Rocket landed close to launch site.  After the flight, another NAR member at the site asked if the rocket had a motor clip or used tape to friction fit the motor.  I answered it used tape, and he replied, try it without the tape so the motor will eject and lighted the returning rocket.

Talk about a clever hack.  The suggestion from the observing NAR member to simply let the motor eject so the rocket would weigh less on its descent was brilliant.  And it was just what I needed to get the last few seconds for the streamer duration flight.  So, quick turn around and then I tried again.

  • 30+ sec streamer recovery flight

    Rocket: Aztec Upper-Stage

    Preparation: 3 squares of wadding, streamer recovery; motor inserted without any tape so there was very little friction in the fit.

    Motor: B6-4

    Notes: Flight lasted 33 sec.  However, the rocket landed further away and it took nearly 45 min to find it in the field.  Rocket was undamaged, Bronze certification requirement accomplished.

Finally, after nearly two hours spent on recovery operations, and some clever hacking, the first of the two timed trials was complete.  The last flight was actually a breeze.  I again flew the Aztec Upper-Stage, this time swapping the kit’s streamer for a 12 inch parachute.  I continued to exclude the tape from the motor mount.  I also chased the rocket while it descended so I would not run the risk of not being able to find it, and I was able to recover the rocket in just a few minutes.  However, this meant I did not know the duration of the flight until I got back from my recovery…  At which point, I learned it had flown for 76 sec, easily achieving the 60 sec requirement.  Woot!

  • 60+ sec parachute recovery flight

    Rocket: Aztec Upper-Stage

    Preparation: 3 squares of wadding, 12″ parachute recovery; motor inserted without any tape so there was very little friction in the fit.

    Motor: B6-4

    Notes: Flight lasted 76 sec.  Chased rocket down during descent.  Rocket was undamaged, Bronze certification requirement accomplished.

So, there you have it, all four requirements for NAR Bronze certification achieved in one day.  Based on the performance of the Aztec Upper-Stage, I think it is worth it to conduct some additional testing to see if it is reliable enough as configured to be the spec’ed rocket.  It would be very exciting to shave an entire rocket off of the build list for the Rockets 101 curriculum.

ad astra per civitas