Category Archives: Open Source

The Space Program Marks Time with a Career in the Classroom

A big thanks to Lucie Carruthers for sharing her memories of NASA‘s space program as part of Mach 30’s Open Source Spaceflight Revolution!

This month marks the forty-second anniversary of man stepping onto the moon for the first time and the last time the space shuttle will orbit the Earth. In the span of the fifty-five years that I have spent in the classroom, many space discoveries have been made, many opinions about space have been proven to be false, and many amazing innovations in science have occurred. None of the more recent events in the NASA program have eclipsed the initial euphoria I felt when the United States first launched its space program in the 1950s.

USSR postage stamp depicting the communist sta...

Image via Wikipedia

My first introduction to space exploration came at the hands of the older students in the one room, Nebraska schoolhouse I attended in 1957. I remember I was six years old, and in first grade — an age when anything the seventh and eighth graders told me had to be true. On a fall day, warm enough that only a sweater was needed to run out to the pump where the big kids were passing around a dipper filled with water from the small, corrugated tin shed that sat a few yards away from the building, I joined a group of older students who were standing around during a recess break. Someone noticed a shiny object moving across the brilliant blue sky, pointed at it, and yelled, “Sputnik!” Then I recalled my older sister, who was in the fifth grade, burst into tears. She said, “The Communists are going to get us. They’re going to bomb the United States.” For many years, I lived in the shadow of fear that the Communists from Russia were going to destroy our country. That threat was further reinforced when my dad built a sturdy bomb shelter in the basement of our home. This was also the era when some of our teachers told us that humans would never put a man on the moon, while the more optimistic ones predicted people would drive flying cars by the year 2000. Some of the older folk, those individuals born in the late 1800s, often believed that astronauts never stepped foot on the moon but were part of a huge government conspiracy concocted to make people believe they did.

Armstrong works at the Apollo Lunar Module in ...

Image via Wikipedia

In 1969, the next momentous event in space travel occurred. Contrary to what some of the naysayers from the early 1950s predicted, NASA—using Apollo 11–did put a man on the moon in July of that year, two months after I graduated from high school. The Norfolk Daily News, a local paper, used a fourth of the front page to declare the victorious success of JFK’s New Frontier program. My husband kept a copy of the Omaha World Herald’s special edition commemorating the event and it’s buried somewhere in our house, hidden away like the memory of the near-tragic Apollo 13, an event I journaled about in college.

Space Shuttle Challenger ' s smoke plume after...

Image via Wikipedia

Throughout the next forty years, most of my time was spent in the classroom. It was there that I received the heart-breaking news about Challenger’s fateful flight, carrying a teacher who many of us in the teaching profession had secretly wanted to swap places with, and the repeat shuttle disaster of the Columbia in 2003 that spread a pall over the whole space program. I was still in the classroom and rejoiced when my second cousin, Clayton Anderson, was chosen to man the International Space Station for 152 days in 2007. He instigated a lively interaction with school children while serving at the space station that drew many of them into the fascinating study of space. Afterwards, he visited Minden, Nebraska, the place where I teach, because our town is the home of Royal Composites, a company that makes materials for space launches. The miracle of space travel was never far removed from elements in my teaching career.

I am now approaching my sixtieth year—a year that might possibly be my last in the classroom. Coinciding as it does with the last shuttle mission this summer leaves a bittersweet taste in my mouth. Can travel in space be so easily compacted into the time a life-long teacher scrolls through her career? Wheeled vehicles have existed for over 5500 years. Inventors took another 5400 years to add a motor to them. Today, those vehicles still operate using the principle of friction created by contact with the earth. When will man’s imagination fly high enough to lift the mode of ordinary travel off the ground and into the wild blue yonder? I hope humans say good-bye to elite space exploration and hello to private travel created by the masses through open source technology.

Ready to join the Open Source Space Revolution?  Learn more here.

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!

Greg goes to Cape Canaveral for the Space Shuttle Launch

The excitement is building and the astronauts are loading into the Space Shuttle Atlantis.  I arrived at MCO – Orlando International Airport last night on my way to watch the last NASA Space Shuttle launch.  Shuttle Atlantis, called OV-104 by the nerdiest of the space enthusiasts is sitting on the pad while the army of technicians and controllers go about their business of launching the 135th shuttle flight.  To follow along, NASA has their Public Affairs team narrating the live streaming NASA TV feed also available in HD.  check it out:

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

Chance of launch today is low (due to the forecast of rain and clouds) but we’re going out there anyway!

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

Progress Report on Open Design/Open Source Hardware Licensing

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 thistoo, 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…)