4 ms·
Perhaps it's time to go back to 'volunteer' mode and putting everything under open source. That way dedicated hobbyists might have the opportunity to take what
by vermontdevil 13y ago
Perhaps it's time to go back to 'volunteer' mode and putting everything under open source. That way dedicated hobbyists might have the opportunity to take what Armadilo to the next level without dealing with NASA's bureaucracy.
Just a thought. I'm sure there's a reason it won't happen though.
- georgemcbay 13y agoThat would be nice, but it would only directly be of use to very dedicated hobbyists with a lot (millions/USD) of money to burn on their hobby and lots of time to deal with regulations (and I don't say that in the typically dismissive libertarian way, as I believe FAA and other regulations as they relate to launching rockets of significant size are a good thing to have even if they probably go overboard).
- jlgreco 13y agoI don't know if they have been dealing with stuff that would be covered by it, but ITAR might be a problem for open sourcing it all. " (a) Rockets (including but not limited to meteorological and other sounding rockets), bombs, grenades, torpedoes, depth charges, land and naval mines, as well as launchers for such defense articles, and demolition blocks and blasting caps. (See § 121.11.) http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/itar/p121.htm http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/itar/p121.htm They were apparently working on sounding rockets? Not sure.
- vermontdevil 13y agoWould be nice if FAA would set up an experimental rocketry like Experimental Aircraft segment. I understand realities of our govt paranoia will not allow it happen. It's a shame. Homebrew cars, motorcycle, airplanes etc have a long tradition in the US and we benefited enormously from that. Rockets are a natural next step. Or we won't have Zefram Cochrane ;)
- jlgreco 13y agoI'm normally against this sort of thing on principle, but I think there is actually a legitimate concern when it comes to rockets. The only real difference between rocket technology and missile technology is intent. This said, I think we are approaching an era when the publicly available rocket science becomes "good enough" for effective missile use, rendering continued restriction pointless. Currently the North Koreans have some serious trouble getting stuff up there (a single satellite, orbited very poorly), so the restrictions for rockets actually seem effective, but once they've figured it out (and it is only a matter of time), then I don't think there will be much point to continued secrecy. It would kind of be like China trying to keep the silk worm under wraps today. That cat is out of the bag.
- JabavuAdams 13y agoI don't know how much rational arguments enter into it. The U.S. State Department has consistently avoided going to court on ITAR questions, because some of its pronouncements seem clearly unconstitutional. They'll never let it be tested, though. There was a case where a civilian IMU, or some-such was used in a civilian aircraft and then later used in a military missile. Because of the missile use, it fell under ITAR and the U.S. aerospace firm that was using it in the civilian vehicle was fined. This seems like a retro-active law which is unconstitutional. It was easier for the firm to just pay the fine, rather than litigate. I'm lazy, and this is anecdotal, but this story seems to be well known in new-space circles.
- jlgreco 13y agoWell, I would say that rationality and constitutionality are two unrelated issues. It seems quite probable that it is unconstitutional. The general idea of restricting rocket technology as long as there are "baddies" that still don't have it seems reasonable enough though.
- JabavuAdams 13y agoITAR is a perpetual concern for people working in that field. It leads to a lot of grim jokes, but also, presumably, a lot of self-censorship.
- jamesdelaneyie 13y agoI have a sticky note somewhere in the office that say "Open Source Rocket Science". One day I'll get to put a tick beside it, I'm sure of it.