Private Space Exploration? Can it be open source?

[bmlbrandsllc]

You have organizations and operations like http://cstart.org/wiki/CLLARE and http://cstart.org/ and articles like this http://opensource.com/life/11/4/future-space-exploration-publics-hands-what-can-collaboration-do pose the same question.  So what can WE do as a community with an open source project.  Can it be done as a true open source project?
Lets get this discussion going and see what kind of answers come out.

[tigerade]

I'm not sure what all this is suggesting, but I doubt it with ITAR and all that.  Also there are lot of proprietary concerns.

[bmlbrandsllc]

I guess what I am asking is does anyone think its possible to develop a program using open source technology in some components?
Here is where I am at this.  I am a business owner, I am a space enthusiast but not technically there yet. I want to learn all i can and I truly want to foray into this world. I just need some guidance

[tigerade]

Welcome to the forum by the way   If you are a space enthusiast this is the right place to be!

I see no reason why an open source project wouldn't be a neat idea, maybe it would spark some innovation or at least be educational in value.  It is very unlikely that any commercial companies would share much of their secrets though, for legal and competitive reasons.  So you won't get ULA or SpaceX to teach you how to build their engines.

I am interested in what you are proposing here though.  Some kind of idea exchange between space enthusiasts could be helpful as long as they are economically/technically viable. 

[bmlbrandsllc]

Exactly. A think tank, a collaboration of ideas that may or may no mold itself into something viable.  It may not all be open source, it may just be use of open source.  I am just convinced collaboration is the key

[Crispy]

A non-commercial body that does fundamental research and makes the results of that research available to commercial bodies? What a novel idea :p

[bmlbrandsllc]

Who better?  Enthusiasts and Purists who come to a mutual agreement on the absolute best way for it to be done to the betterment of the project.

[Jim]

Who better?  Enthusiasts and Purists who come to a mutual agreement on the absolute best way for it to be done to the betterment of the project.

He was being facetious, the description is one of NASA's tasks.

[bmlbrandsllc]

Rocket guys are a tough crowd 
I am so very interested in this idea.  I would be the first to throw my hat into a think tank ring commit myself and my resources to the project.
If not for nothing more than educational tools for future generations.

[dcporter]

Rocket guys have been applying real physics and politics to big dreams for their whole careers.  Definitely important to develop some thick skin around here.

I think open-source rockets are off the table, due to ITAR and due to the insane amount of money required to actual bend metal and test an open-source design.  (Kickstarter ain't gonna do it here.)  I'd love to see it, but I don't see how.

There are certainly other challenges in space, however, that might be amenable to the "everyone contributes knowledge on the weekends" model, and with a more realistic level of funding required.  My favorite examples of people solving those smaller problems are Altius and their StickyBoom, and the various super-ISP engine concepts going around, the best example of which is probably VASIMR right now (scheduled for test and use on ISS in the middle of the decade).

What sort of challenges could be amenable to open sourcing with relatively small capital requirements?  Propellant depot design maybe?  Something smaller?

Whatever challenge you tackle, it's not going to fly for a while, which means it's not going to produce for a while, which means it'll be easy to lose your shirt to a huckster.  Soooo basically you probably want to keep this forum in the loop, as there's a strong anti-huckster bias hereabouts.

[Robotbeat]

There are groups going for the Google Lunar X-Prize who do have a relatively open-source approach.

There are some ways around ITAR, including having your work published. But there are all manner of legal issues lurking around this sort of thing, and no one currently pursuing an open-source approach can afford any kind of legal battle to prove that they aren't violating eye-TAR (and yes, considering the cost of a court battle, it may as well be effectively a "guilty until proven innocent" issue).

At the hobbyist level, "open-source" (or something that looks that way) is an option for making rockets:
http://rocketmoonlighting.blogspot.com/

Armadillo Aerospace has done a lot with respect to documenting their efforts in relative detail, though not as much recently (now that they're more of a business).

Open-source rocketry is not a worthless idea, but there are pretty big roadblocks standing in the way. Most of all, the very high barrier to entry in the field, where to get even a small bipropellant liquid rocket engine running will run you thousands of dollars. A small VTVL rocket will run you $100k.

But there is something akin to the PC revolution which enabled the open-source movement going on in the cubesat (or smaller) realm right now, though it's still quite expensive.

It will happen eventually. Not overnight.

[bmlbrandsllc]

I am willing to put what I need to into this field. I believe whole heatedly in it.  Maybe open source is not the right term or even the right way to go about it.  All i know is there are some brilliant people reading this forum who have talents going to waste.  Why not bring them together and let brililance shine?

[Jim]

You got $$$$?

[bmlbrandsllc]

Thats a pretty forward question Jim. I have the resources to make things happen yes. But i am not just going to throw my business out there for the world to see. I want a good team together, then we will talk the finances.

[Robotbeat]

You got $$$$?

Exactly.

The difference between the software open-source movement and a potential aerospace open-source movement is the enormous difference in cost. Computers are practically free. Writing and running a program is essentially free (well, takes a lot of time to write). Making a significant rocket costs thousands of dollars at the amateur level. To make something that is even approaching something NASA may be interested in (such as a VTVL testbed or cubesat) costs a minimum of $100k, if you're lucky. A commercially viable spacecraft is going to cost millions, while a commercially useful application can be made using only time and a computer.

There's an open-source hardware movement going on at thingiverse.com because of the introduction of cheap 3d printers which can print out plastic, but rockets can't be made just out of plastic.

Who knows what the next century will bring, but there's a long road ahead.

bmlbrandsllc, Join the arocket mailing list. It's the next best thing (and they did have an open-source project to make a rocket igniter, but the project now seems to be dead):
http://www.arocketry.net/forum.html

FWIW, I am making a rocket igniter myself and am blogging the efforts and will likely post the source code for the microcontroller that controls the whole thing (probably only a page of code... incredibly simple stuff) plus detailed calculations on different qualities and probably a full parts list, but that's still a ways off from anything close to a full up open-source orbital rocket or something like that.

[apace]

You want open source space flight? Why not simply join http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/ ?

[Robotbeat]

You want open source space flight? Why not simply join http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/ ?

...who are also on the arocket mailing list.

[Namechange User]

"Private space exploration" does not really make sense in the hear and now.  In order for it to be private, there has to be a business case - even if the technology to do it was availalbe and "open source" to any and all. 

Without that business case and without that value proposition, there would be no rationale to invest the money to go anywhere because there is no promise of return on investment. 

I firmly believe that for the forseeable future, true space exploration (i.e. boldly going where no one has gone before -  or where a dozen people went a half-century ago) will be the domain of governments who have the will to do so. 

That does NOT mean that companies will not be intimately involved.  It will just be under the direction or funding of a government(s). 

[Jim]

Thats a pretty forward question Jim. I have the resources to make things happen yes. But i am not just going to throw my business out there for the world to see. I want a good team together, then we will talk the finances.

My point was generic, an answer to "Why not bring them together and let brililance shine?"   

Unless you have access to resources of 8 figures, then it is pointless to even form a team.

[Robotbeat]

Thats a pretty forward question Jim. I have the resources to make things happen yes. But i am not just going to throw my business out there for the world to see. I want a good team together, then we will talk the finances.

My point was generic, an answer to "Why not bring them together and let brililance shine?"   

Unless you have access to resources of 8 figures, then it is pointless to even form a team.

6 or 7 figures means it's not impossible to imagine a cubesat-scale probe to study, say, the Earth's ionosphere, magnetosphere or even the solar wind (as a secondary payload on a GTO trajectory). Difficult, not impossible. A "team" in that case would be probably all volunteers.

Manned + orbital? Nope. 8 or (most likely) 9 figures, maybe.

[go4mars]

Do you have specific problems in mind to solve? 

[bmlbrandsllc]

No specific problems in mind. Just listening to what everyone has to say and weighing my decision based on that.

[JohnFornaro]

(1) Welcome to the forum by the way.  If you are a space enthusiast this is the right place to be!

(2) I see no reason why an open source project wouldn't be a neat idea, maybe it would spark some innovation or at least be educational in value.  It is very unlikely that any commercial companies would share much of their secrets though, for legal and competitive reasons.  So you won't get ULA or SpaceX to teach you how to build their engines.

(3) I am interested in what you are proposing here though.  Some kind of idea exchange between space enthusiasts could be helpful as long as they are economically/technically viable.

(4) Exactly. A think tank, a collaboration of ideas that may or may no mold itself into something viable.  It may not all be open source, it may just be use of open source.  I am just convinced collaboration is the key.

(1) Tough crowd has already begun speaking, eh wot?

(2) Me neither, in principle.  In practice tho, it's a secretive business model, as you point out.

(3) Me too, but doesn't this forum, for one thing, already consitute such an open source?  I have learned so much here, where much knowledge is already available for the taking and some of it available for the asking.   Even more so on L2.

(4) NSF is one of the think tanks you're thinking of.  As to collaboration, that is a good observation.  Had we more political collaboration in directing the country's economic efforts, we'd all be a lot more wealthy.  Life, liberty, pursuit, and all that, dontcha know.  There's nothing wrong with competition in principle, but it is the "insider trading", so to speak, which keeps the collaboration from gelling.  IMO, and YMMV.

I am willing to put what I need to into this field. I believe whole heatedly in it.

Heartedly, presumably.  But belief is not enough.

You got $$$$?

And you set yourself up for this query.  You're willing to put "what you need to" in this field.  If yours is not political grandstanding, then it must be accompanied by a sound idea, a good education, much practical experience, and all that.  Plus, a boatload of money can't hurt.  RobotBeat made some pretty good suggestions.

You're welcome.  Not like I don't have an ego myself.

[go4mars]

If not for nothing more than educational tools for future generations...  I am willing to put what I need to into this field. I believe whole heatedly in it...I have the resources to make things happen yes.

  This website is the best example I have seen of a practical and beneficial goal.  I started out reading and contributing on the Mars Society Forum (which seems to no longer exist), but that is where I first became interested and engaged.  Then I found this site. 

It sounds like you are not sure how to get involved, and where/how funding could be impactful. 

My 2 cents:  I think that your first project which could work toward your goals would be to chat with Chris Bergin (the site's creator and owner) to see how this website could be best protected into the future and expanded.  I would hate to see this forum end up like the Mars Society forum. 

Next you might consider adding a section on this site (or your own) akin to kick-starter or X-prize that allows space companies to either find solutions to their problems or post their problems and allow guys to propose solutions.  Though I suppose itar might disallow some of that.  Sometimes providing the infrastructure (like a website or section on a website) can enable much more than anticipated, and would be relatively low cost. 

If you want to bend metal and actually build things, unless you are extremely wealthy, it would probably be best to be an angel investor into existing efforts of space-technology demonstrators.  Jon Goff's Altius Space Machines company is an example of a company with some good ideas and ambitions, but lack the dollars to be all that they could be.   

   

[Robotbeat]

No specific problems in mind. Just listening to what everyone has to say and weighing my decision based on that.

The first thing you should do is join Arocket. Then, go read the email archive (you have to subscribe to get access).

[bmlbrandsllc]

thank you for the advice. I have joined arocket also.

[RM]

Hello-

RM here of www.rocketmoonlighting.com.

I see posts about my printed engine from time to time here and i thought I should register and introduce myself.   

"Open Source" rockets are something that have been discussed from time to time.  The fact that you're talking about building real hardware adds a challenge which doesn't exist with software.  Collaborating in an open source project requires access to the same "development environment".  With software, this is trivial.  With rocket hardware, its rather expensive and/or requires co-location.  I would love to be able to collaborate with like-minded people over the great Internets - but that's one of the other problems with rocket hardware.  The number of people actually building real rocket hardware is actually quite small - especially if you don't count the HPR and solid guys.

In any case, I would be happy to answer questions or requests.   Not much going happening on the blog these days - things should be picking up soon.

-RM

PS - the amount of money I've spent so far is far less than 6 figures.  But then again, my contributions to date have been relatively modest.

[Robotbeat]

Hello-

RM here of www.rocketmoonlighting.com.

I see posts about my printed engine from time to time here and i thought I should register and introduce myself.   

"Open Source" rockets are something that have been discussed from time to time.  The fact that you're talking about building real hardware adds a challenge which doesn't exist with software.  Collaborating in an open source project requires access to the same "development environment".  With software, this is trivial.  With rocket hardware, its rather expensive and/or requires co-location.  I would love to be able to collaborate with like-minded people over the great Internets - but that's one of the other problems with rocket hardware.  The number of people actually building real rocket hardware is actually quite small - especially if you don't count the HPR and solid guys.

In any case, I would be happy to answer questions or requests.   Not much going happening on the blog these days - things should be picking up soon.

-RM

PS - the amount of money I've spent so far is far less than 6 figures.  But then again, my contributions to date have been relatively modest.

When are you going to release CAD files for your regen rocket?

Your project is especially interesting because it is getting a lot closer to what made open-source software possible.

And speaking about having access to the same "development environment" and co-location...

Michael Clive, an intern at XCor, is (along with some other folk) starting a hackerspace (i.e. a place where people share tools and a machine shop... hopefully allowing you to build most anything... includes CNC mills/lathes, a kiln, welding equipment, electronics equipment, etc) at Mojave Air and Spaceport. Hackerspaces are really at the forefront of the open-source hardware movement and have really enabled me (with my modest means) to make significant progress in my own rocket experiments.

(BTW, Mojave is where XCor and Masten and Scaled and Stratolaunch and Virgin's rocket facilities are located, as well as part of Orbital Sciences.)

[Robotbeat]

There are lots of good ideas out there when it comes to open-source projects, but a huge, completely centrally planned theory of the entire world's economy (and political/social structures) is not necessarily needed OR helpful towards those sorts of projects.

The Open-Source farm equipment thing is a good example of something that can yield a practical result without needing this enormous eschatological economic/political system.

I'm all for slowly replacing political ideologues with educated technocrats, but if the 20th Century has taught us anything, it's that we need to be a little more humble with our political ideas or millions of people can be killed. Start small. Design something practical and put it on thingiverse.com or teach someone a technical skill like welding (or learn yourself).

EDIT:And Communism (and, in some ways, Nazi-ism) was, in many ways, an attempt to apply scientific principles to our social system (which the TEDx video claimed had never been attempted). Many, many millions of people died. I'm definitely not saying we should automatically support the opposite (libertarianism? I think that, if rigorously applied, it would lead to feudalism.) or that we can't solve abject poverty and starvation, but we MUST be humble and realize these ideas aren't entirely new.

[Robotbeat]

Oh, and:
http://xkcd.com/1007/

[Chris Bergin]

I can't stress enough this has to be specific to space flight? I think I just gained a headache.

Thread trimmed, as it was way off topic.

[sdsds]

Can you make a compelling case for an open source project intending to produce plans for an intercontinental ballistic missile?  If not, you probably can't make a case for an open source project intending to produce an orbital launcher -- the two are similar enough to make the "source" for one mighty interesting to those attempting to produce the other.

Open source spacecraft on the other hand, that still rely on closed source launchers to reach orbit?  That seems ... less impossible to imagine.

[Jim]

You can remove my comment according to your little forum law's or how you 'interpret' them but i'm appalled you even have the 'authority' of an administrator as your use of power is miss placed I assure you.

Those are only your opinions, which don't matter.  It is his website and he can do as he pleases. 

[Blackjax]

I see it hasn't been linked here yet but if you are interested in people working on the mechanics of how open hardware would work, you might want to check out this:

http://www.openhardwaresummit.org/

I am thinking there might be at least one niche in the space open hardware world which could be worth pursuing, and that is the development of standards & common interfaces for small payloads.  Presently this seems to be happening for the very smallest payloads in the form of cubesats, but I have to wonder if it might also be worthwhile to target the next few steps up from a cubesat class as well Nanosatellites -> Microsatellites -> Minisatellites.   Basically looking for ways of making the whole range of smallsats cheaper, easier to develop, and easier to integrate by developing cubesat style standards.

[Prober]

Hello-

RM here of www.rocketmoonlighting.com.

I see posts about my printed engine from time to time here and i thought I should register and introduce myself.   

"Open Source" rockets are something that have been discussed from time to time.  The fact that you're talking about building real hardware adds a challenge which doesn't exist with software.  Collaborating in an open source project requires access to the same "development environment".  With software, this is trivial.  With rocket hardware, its rather expensive and/or requires co-location.  I would love to be able to collaborate with like-minded people over the great Internets - but that's one of the other problems with rocket hardware.  The number of people actually building real rocket hardware is actually quite small - especially if you don't count the HPR and solid guys.

In any case, I would be happy to answer questions or requests.   Not much going happening on the blog these days - things should be picking up soon.

-RM

PS - the amount of money I've spent so far is far less than 6 figures.  But then again, my contributions to date have been relatively modest.

I was very impressed with the progress of your fine project (put me on the order list).
from and article I read.....

"[RM] tells me his engine cost less than $2000 to make. If just 10 people wanted their own engine from a ‘group buy,’ the price would drop by more than half. If you’d like your own 3D printed rocket engine"
edit: more info

[Prober]

Thats a pretty forward question Jim. I have the resources to make things happen yes. But i am not just going to throw my business out there for the world to see. I want a good team together, then we will talk the finances.

My point was generic, an answer to "Why not bring them together and let brililance shine?"   

Unless you have access to resources of 8 figures, then it is pointless to even form a team.

I was shocked today with the efforts of this team Jim.   They have produced a very low cost "open Source Rocket".

More on this later......

[Prober]

Hello-

RM here of www.rocketmoonlighting.com.

I see posts about my printed engine from time to time here and i thought I should register and introduce myself.   

Great stuff your doing RM !!!








not bad for less than $2000 dollars.

[Prober]

You want open source space flight? Why not simply join http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/ ?

These guys are great.   

Wanta be engineers can no longer rant.....the cad files are all available.
From the pressure hull to the electronics, etc.

If you can do it better than take the files and do it.

[A_M_Swallow]

I hope they do an engine test on the ground to check that it actually starts before the next sea launch.

[Prober]

I hope they do an engine test on the ground to check that it actually starts before the next sea launch.

so much in the news hard to follow everything.   This project is very active however with a clockdown to the next launch-test.

TM65 Test - November 11
"The TM65 LOX/ethanol rocket engine is the biggest and most powerfull engine we have build so far. During this test we will verify that the engine can survive a burn at 125% nominal thrust."

[QuantumG]

I regularly see amateurs building actuated ball valves, and small rocket engines.

I never see them selling them. Why?

[Prober]

I regularly see amateurs building actuated ball valves, and small rocket engines.

I never see them selling them. Why?

fun in the making?

Looks like someone in Russia gets the idea.

http://www.3device.ru/node/67

[jtrame]

I regularly see amateurs building actuated ball valves, and small rocket engines.

I never see them selling them. Why?

Liability?

[Prober]

I regularly see amateurs building actuated ball valves, and small rocket engines.

I never see them selling them. Why?

Liability?

thought that as well.

[Robotbeat]

I regularly see amateurs building actuated ball valves, and small rocket engines.

I never see them selling them. Why?

fun in the making?

Looks like someone in Russia gets the idea.

http://www.3device.ru/node/67

That's not someone in Russia. That's an American guy who made those. Rocket Moonlighting blog, google it.

[Prober]

I regularly see amateurs building actuated ball valves, and small rocket engines.

I never see them selling them. Why?

fun in the making?

Looks like someone in Russia gets the idea.

http://www.3device.ru/node/67

That's not someone in Russia. That's an American guy who made those. Rocket Moonlighting blog, google it.

I know, see my post a few above.   Excellent little project this "moonlighter" has.

[Robotbeat]

I regularly see amateurs building actuated ball valves, and small rocket engines.

I never see them selling them. Why?

fun in the making?

Looks like someone in Russia gets the idea.

http://www.3device.ru/node/67

That's not someone in Russia. That's an American guy who made those. Rocket Moonlighting blog, google it.

I know, see my post a few above.   Excellent little project this "moonlighter" has.

One question I have is if the 1000lbf engine is small enough to fit in the build-volume of a DMLS machine.

...If you're listening, RM.

[QuantumG]

I regularly see amateurs building actuated ball valves, and small rocket engines.

I never see them selling them. Why?

Liability?

Damn lawyers.