What do we mean by a “spacefaring civilization?”

Jul 18 2011 by J Simmons.

2001: A Space Odyssey Clavius Moon Colony

Image by Dallas1200am via Flickr

The mission of Mach 30 is “to hasten the advancement of humanity into a spacefaring civilization.” But what does that mean? When we talk about a “spacefaring civilization,” we are talking about the promises of the 1960s made real. Consider the film 2001: A Space Odyssey, released in April 1968 over a year before the first humans walked on the Moon. This movie predicted that by 2001 major airlines would be offering regular service to Low Earth Orbit using reusable space planes. It also predicted there would be multiple, extensive lunar bases. And, let’s not forget that the defining mission to another planet is not to Mars (been there, done that?) but to Jupiter and its moons! This is something that not even the most forward looking advocates of space exploration are discussing.

2001 is not the only example from the 1960s that makes these kind of predictions. There are a number of of books, videos, and other material that all promised a very similar future (routine access to space, lunar colonies, expeditions to Mars), all by the end of the twentieth century. Yet, none of this has come to pass. At present, all human access to Earth orbit is still provided by government space programs. And the Space Shuttle, while partly reusable, does not come close to being the kind of space plane that can make routine flights to space (commercial or otherwise) a reality.

Yes commercial companies are starting to work on access to space, but each of them has to start at square one when they are founded. Just look at the first project of almost every new space company: design and build a rocket engine. Seriously, if you want to start a spaceflight company, the first thing you need to do is design your own rocket engine. This is the equivalent of saying go design your own jet engine to anyone who wants to start an airline.

Still, we believe, some day the kind of future predicted in 2001 (or one very much like it) will come to pass. It is a vision born of the idea that commercial enterprise has developed the tools, technologies, and markets to establish a true space economy. And eventually all of those things will come to pass. It is just in our nature to push the boundaries of what can be done and where we can go. So, reaching this future is less a question of if, and more a question of when.

Given the costs associated with spaceflight (and the amount of effort spent reinventing the “wheel”), it seems reasonable to assume that without any intervention it will take quite a bit of time before we reach the future promised in the film 2001. Our goal at Mach 30 is to shorten the wait. We believe that by applying the principles of sustainability, open source development, and the use of mature technology we can get off the “not invented here” merry-go-round, and instead get on a path toward evolutionary improvements built on a shared foundation of technologies. And that like the explosion of commercial enterprise on the Internet, this shared foundation will lead to new and unimagined markets in space for commercial enterprise to serve.

End of the Space Age? Or a Time for Reinvention?

Jul 16 2011 by J Simmons.

Comment

Image via Wikipedia

The Economist has dedicated an issue to the “end of the space age” suggesting over three articles that the promise of the space race has faded, political will eroded, and public interest evaporated. Who can blame them? Aging isn’t easy! Like life, it always seems more exciting when you’re young and free and visionary.

Kennedy mesmerized the world with sheer audacity of launching the space race. Without a doubt the excitement led to incredible achievements built on competition and daring goals. It helped, of course, that this competition had political objectives and seemingly unlimited resources to back it up.

When the shuttle program took off, it galvanized the world, again, around the possibilities of new technologies and intrepid journeys. The shuttles made it possible to create and support the International Space Station with which the shuttle has docked for that last time. I know I was captivated by the possibilities the ISS provided that unfortunately never materialized for most of the American (and global) public. Indeed, The Economist got it right that, over thirty years, the space program has become commonplace, mundane—just another trip to the International Space Station. But, where the The Economist sees the mundane Mach 30 appreciates the mature.

There’s less fanfare in building the foundations, but Mach 30 is focused on a new audacious goal—Open Source Spaceflight Hardware; cooperation that moves beyond government agendas or private industry to a community-led effort. Shuttle technology never focused sufficiently on building the mature technologies that could be leveraged for missions further afield. Imagine what small steps over 30 years might have meant to a spacefaring future.

Mature technologies (perhaps with small changes or new uses) are the foundation of successful systems. It’s critical that those systems be sustainable also in order to make long-term space travel a reality. Mach 30 goes one step further by placing open source as a central springboard for innovation to keep barriers low and advancement rapid among communities of practice—reaching for the stars through community.

Mach 30 accepts that moving a little slower but very deliberately may actually be the quickest route—even admitting we do miss some of the excitement of the race! That is maturity indeed.

And, yet there are dreams to be achieved. There are bold goals yet to be named. Find them with us—whether you’re a space enthusiast or simply recall shuttle memories—by joining Mach 30’s community. Donate. Friend us. Contribute to Open Design Engineering. With an open community leveraging mature technologies for sustainable travel spacefaring will be a reality.

The Role of Open Methods in the Development of the First Airplane

Jul 15 2011 by J Simmons.

2 Comments

Image via Wikipedia

The open source spaceflight hardware movement has its roots in both the growing open source hardware movement, which is itself based on the open source software movement, and the application of open methods in aerospace engineering which dates back to the earliest days of the field. In fact, this openness led to the success of the Wright brothers.

The Wrights built upon a large body of published works including books, articles, and expired patents, dating back to the beginning of the nineteenth century. George Cayley identified the use of curved airfoils for lift, the need for controls, and the use of propellers as a means of propulsion as the fundamentals of flight in 1799. He also proposed the use of the bi-plane wing, which would later be used in a number of gliders, including those built by the Wrights, and the first airplane. These ideas were not widely known until Alphonse Penaud rediscovered and published Cayleys work. Penaud went on to expand Cayleys work by publishing what he saw as the core challenges to achieving heavy than air flights: resistance of the air, resistance of the machine, and a light weight motor. Even more important to the story of the Wrights was Penauds work in models and his use of rubber bands as a power source for model airplanes and helicopters, some of which were sold as toys. The Wright’s father gave young Wright brothers one of Penauds toy helicopters, which is said to be the catalyst for their interest in aviation as adults.

These principles and challenges identified by Cayley and Penaud were the core of the problems tackled by the Wrights, due in large part to the Wrights beginning their journey into aviation by researching all of the work done to date. But the aviation community’s influence on the Wrights’ work did not end with an understanding of the principles of aviation, it also influenced their approach to tackling the problem. Louis Pierre Mouillard, author of the 1881 book The Empire of the Air, was a proponent of using ailerons for roll control, a challenge that the Wrights solved with the related idea of wing warping. And it was Otto Lilienthal who in the late 1800s publicly promoted the idea that the best approach to developing the first airplane was to start by developing a reliable glider and then adding a motor. This is exactly the approach used by the Wright brothers in the development of the Wright Flyer. Finally, the Wrights knew and were in contact with Octave Chanute who published the most complete summary of nineteenth century aeronautics to date, Progress of Flying Machines, leaving little doubt that the Wrights were influenced by the developments of earlier aviation pioneers.

As can be seen above, the Wrights first airplane is the product of not only their hard work and ingenuity, but also of the culture of openness surrounding the field of aviation during the nineteenth century. In the words of author Courtlandt Canby in his book A History of Flight, “The Wrights were not pioneers. Their work, rather, culminated a century of experience.”

A Music Major’s Guide to Exploring the Galaxy

Jul 14 2011 by Maureen Carruthers.

Comment

In order to achieve the “become a spacefaring society” portion of the Mach 30 mission, we can’t focus our efforts solely on scientists and engineers; we must also tap into imagination and spirit of adventure that will lead the rest of society to support our efforts to explore the galaxy. To that end, we are excited to share today’s guest post from Molly Duncan, a former opera performance major and current English teacher, about what she learned in her college astronomy class.

My freshman year of college, I took a course called Astronomy of the Universe. I took it because I needed a lab science, and this one didn’t take a two-hour chunk out of my very busy music major schedule, since the labs were at night at the observatory. It ended up being one of the best classes I ever took, and sparked in me an interest in cosmology that continues to this day.

I was not a stellar astronomy student. The mathematical models were far over my head. I only barely comprehended things like the size of the universe and how it is expanding. But I found myself looking forward to it every week. I hung around the professor’s office asking questions and trying to deal with the largeness of it all.

What I loved about cosmology, and what I still love about cosmology, is how it makes me think. This is a science that is constantly trying to conceive of ideas that are literally too large for our minds to understand. Thinking about the size of the universe forces us to take what we already know and shape it into a radical new model.

For instance, science tells us that the universe is expanding. Picture that. Most of use will think of an image like a ripple in the water moving constantly outward. Then science tells us that the universe is expanding, but not from one central point. As a matter of fact, there is no central starting point of the universe. How do we picture that?

(Seriously, someone give me an image. I’ve been struggling with this one for 15 years).

The space program has given us many wonderful things; it’s greatest legacy, though, may be the expansive thinking it has inspired in us. We have a different perspective of who we are in the world and in the universe because of the Hubble space telescope, our Mars twins Spirit and Opportunity, the Voyager probes, Columbia and her sister shuttles, and Tranquility Base on the moon. I hope that as the shuttle makes it’s final orbit, we find ways to keep our minds journeying beyond the atmosphere.

What He Does When I Leave Town…

Jul 13 2011 by Bekah McGrady.

1 Comment

As we observe the last shuttle mission with a mixture of sadness and celebration, I am inspired to share my most recent and personal brush with rocketry…

Last month I was the Matron of Honor in my best friend’s out of state wedding. It was a lovely wedding and a good trip. When I returned home to my happy pets and husband, I asked him what he did while I was away.

Him: “Oh, you know, work, laundry, dishes, hung out with Scott… I need to buy a few more rockets though.”

Me: “Rockets??!?!?!!”

Him: “Oh, yes. I built some rockets while you were gone.”

Me: “(stunned silence)… Built. Some. Rockets… !??”

Now my dear husband is not a rocket scientist, but he has dabbled in flying RC Airplanes a good bit, so I suppose I should have seen this coming. He only built “some little ones… well, ok, and a medium one too.” If he builds some more and launches them just so, meeting certain criteria, he can get his Bronze Certification with the National Association of Rocketry. Don’t I want him to be be certified to launch rockets?

After six years of marriage, I am somewhat accustomed to his hijinks, so I didn’t hit the roof or use his full name at him or anything like that. I first asked where he might have launched these rockets, what gave him the idea and if he’d hurt himself or others. Turns out, he had been very safe and responsible and launching rockets is really not that big a deal (“NASA does it all the time”). He got the idea from J.’s blog post. J. is a rocket scientist.

My husband then took my inquiries to mean I wanted to know (much) more about the arts of rocketry and regaled me with way more technical detail than I was prepared for, including gluing techniques, motor assembly and sizes – “A is a small one and G is crazy big with all the letters in between. They are measured in Newtons of force so basically higher letters equal more power.”

Me: “Like bra sizes?”

Him: “Um, yes…”

Apparently, you can get the smaller rocket starter sets for around $25-30 and they have little parachutes or streamers so you can get them back in one piece and reuse them. There is a whole instruction manual here for those of you who like making things go fwoom!

If you would like to help insure that all surprise spousal rocket encounters go as well as this one did, you can donate to Mach 30 (creators of the Rockets 101 Manual) here,

Or share the Rockets 101 Manual with your friends who may be at a high risk for trying to shoot things up into the sky,

Or subscribe to Mach 30’s newsletter for more space-y, science-y, open source-y and occasionally entertaining news.

Shared Challenges and Opportunities in Open Source Spaceflight

Jul 12 2011 by J Simmons.

5 Comments

Image by Jungle_Boy via Flickr

Yesterday’s discussion of open source spaceflight hardware groups reveals a number of repeated challenges facing this movement. These challenges include licensing open source hardware, the development of web-based project management tools for engineering, overcoming the costs associated with engineering software, and resolving the conflict between open source methods and export restrictions on spaceflight hardware. The good news for the open source spaceflight organizations is that they are not alone in addressing some of these challenges, which provides for important opportunities.

The first challenge is licensing open source hardware. Licensing software is a matter of applying terms of use to copywritten works. This is a process which is well understood in the software industry and does not involve any additional cost to the developers. However, intellectual property rights for hardware are more complex. Hardware is often protected by patents, trade secrets, and non-disclosure agreements. Each of these processes involves different laws and processes, and generally additional costs. These factors make developing open source hardware licenses difficult. This challenge is shared by the open source hardware movement as a whole, and is being addressed by other organizations. For example, the Tuscon Amateur Packet Radio Corp. (TAPR-OHL) and CERN (CERNOHL) have developed open source hardware licenses similar to the GNU Public License 2.0. Mach 30’s own licensing approach (Mach 30 Open Design Pledge) is modeled after the Arduino’s use of multiple licenses and is similar to the Apache Software License.

The second challenge is developing web-based project management tools for engineering projects. There are a number of web sites which fill a similar role for open source software projects, including Source Forge. However, these tools are optimized for managing and sharing software projects, not hardware projects. So, at present, most of the organizations listed above are making due with a collection of disconnected tools. Which explains why a number of them are working to address this challenge. And these organizations are not alone. DARPA, which is researching open source hardware, is soliciting proposals for the development of their own open source hardware project portal called Vehicle Forge. And CERN has recently announced its Open Hardware Repository. DARPA and CERN’s investments validate the efforts to develop such a portal, and may help pave the way for wide-spread availability in the near future.

The third challenge is overcoming the cost of engineering software. The ideal solution for these groups is to identify and adopt open source engineering tools. Using open source engineering tools first ensures the tools will continue to be available and at no cost to volunteers participating in the design process. Second, using open source engineering tools fits in with the over all philosophy of open source hardware. The second best solution is to find software which can be used freely for personal or not-for-profit use. Sites like the Mach 30’s Openeering Wiki and Develop Space’s Open Source Engineering Tools are both intended to catalog the available options as a means of addressing this challenge.

The fourth challenge is resolving the conflict between open source methods and export restrictions on spaceflight hardware. In the United States, there are a number of export restrictions which affect almost every type of spaceflight hardware, regardless of use or intent. Put simply, these export controls forbid United States citizens from sharing any material concerning spaceflight hardware. Failing to comply with these regulations can carry severe penalties, making it essential that anyone working in spaceflight hardware follow them. However, following these kind of restrictions is in direct opposition to the open source philosophy.

While it is true these challenges are significant, most of them are shared by the larger open source hardware community, which means we are not alone in facing them. The key to overcoming these challenges, and making open source spaceflight successful, is to work together to address these challenges, both within the fledgling open source spaceflight and with the larger open source hardware community.

Want to join Mach 30′s team in the Open Source Spaceflight Revolution? Learn more here.