Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Record-Seeking Bloodhound SSC Goes Partially Open Source

Posted by timothy on from the alert-homer-simpson dept.

jd writes "I've been monitoring the progress of Bloodhound SSC (the car aiming for the 1,000 MPH record) and it looks like they're opting for some interesting tactics. In April, the car itself went partially open source, with a complete set of schematics and specifications and an invite for engineering bugfixes. According to them, it's the first time a racing team has done this. Sounds likely enough. The latest patches to be released were a tripling in fin size and a switch to steel brakes because carbon fibre would explode."

64 comments

  1. what is a "car"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    These extreme speed vehicles always seemed to me more like an airplane that flies really low and has wheels.

    1. Re:what is a "car"? by Tonyd0311 · · Score: 2

      Exactly! They should stop calling it a car once they have to strap a jet engine to the back of it, that is until I see cars with jet engines driving down the highway while I am driving to work.

    2. Re:what is a "car"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like one with a turbocharger?

    3. Re:what is a "car"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can buy a production jet powered motorcycle. So I think your qualifications are a little too narrow.

      http://www.marineturbine.com/motorcycles.asp

    4. Re:what is a "car"? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Batmobile, fool.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    5. Re:what is a "car"? by phoenixwade · · Score: 1

      Jay Leno owns and drives three street legal vehicles: Motorcycle, Car, and a Pick-up truck, Although I'm not sure the car is on the road yet. http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/jay-leno/4200831

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    6. Re:what is a "car"? by Muros · · Score: 3, Informative

      No they shouldn't. "Car" is an abbrieviated form of the word carriage, which is a wheeled transport device. The power source for motion is not a part of that definition, and I would argue that the difference between a jet engine and a standard modern petrol or diesel combustion engine is smaller than the difference between either of those normal modern engines and a horse.

    7. Re:what is a "car"? by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Split hairs if you like, but it does not fly. It rolls. That, by definition, takes it out of the realm of "aircraft" and places it firmly into the group of vehicles that roll along the ground and are controlled (steered) by their wheels. In other words, cars.

    8. Re:what is a "car"? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Those are still driven through the wheels. This uses a jet to push the body of the vehicle while the wheels are free-spinning, like...an airplane.

      And the turbo in a car only boosts the engine, no mechanical connection to the wheels...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    9. Re:what is a "car"? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I think the distinction he was trying to make is vehicles where the engine creates thrust that pushes the body of the vehicle, vs wheel-driven vehicles. The turbine in that bike drives the rear wheel..

      Most modern tanks have turbine engines too.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  2. What about the NASCAR car of tomorrow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't the plans open? Every team is required to follow them.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_of_Tomorrow

    1. Re:What about the NASCAR car of tomorrow? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Aren't the plans open? Every team is required to follow them.

      I wonder what would happen if I took those plans and started a racing series called "RATZCAR" with them.

      If I get a cease and desist letter, then that means that no, the NASCAR plans are not open.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  3. Re:What a story without pictures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oops. goatse link

  4. Remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This an early alpha which is prone to crashing; it is not recommended for production use.

    1. Re:Remember by Muros · · Score: 1

      I'd imagine anything travelling at 1000mph is prone to crashing.

    2. Re:Remember by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · · Score: 1

      Is this car tripulated? In that case debug after a crash may require forensics, thats how bad ass it is.

      On a serious note, Open Source may have born as a software thing but I hope the same principles and philosophy to be successfully applied to other areas of human knowledge. An open source piece of software may be used by millions but an open source designed bridge (as in bridge in isolated area in a developing nation on a geological tricky zone) being used by fewer people can actually make a tangible difference for them.

    3. Re:Remember by geniice · · Score: 1

      That's pretty much what the patent system does. However bridge designs for anything halfway normal have long since been standardised with designed published. There's even a book bridge designs for boy scouts floating around somewhere.

    4. Re:Remember by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · · Score: 1

      Well, the bridge was an example, but open sourcing other areas e.g. DIY water treatment plants can make an impact being open source and all. My point is that Open Source philosophy is something thats really underrated by the masses because it mostly applies to the IT world, if you can translate that free/free to the tangible world you can have a real OS revolution.

      This is the village bridge, is was engineered by people around the globe, and it's so efficient in the use of resources that the government and contractors couldn't steal more than the 1% of the whole cost.

      Not every problem is a technical problem, human nature needs no spec.

    5. Re:Remember by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There's even a book bridge designs for boy scouts floating around somewhere.

      I'd sure like some more information on this.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Remember by geniice · · Score: 1

      Mostly large scale lashing and ropework projects. This kind of thing:

      http://www.webofroses.com/scouting/pioneering_projects.html

      Designs can get considerably more advanced than those though.

  5. Re:What a story without pictures? by xkuehn · · Score: 1

    The AC speaks truth! (Well I didn't let it finish loading, but the browser was connecting to goatse.ru...)

  6. 1,000 MPH?....! by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

    Not being familiar with this story, I thought perhaps you meant 1,000 MPG - then I RTFA'd. I hope that thing is fly-by-wire with a really smart auto eject seat. The usefulness of a mach 1 car is not clear to me. A 1,000 MPG car would be more productive to aim for (wether possible or not). X-prize maybe?

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    1. Re:1,000 MPH?....! by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

      This is why it sounded familiar.
      http://slashdot.org/submission/1670400/11-Year-Old-Pilots-1325-MPG-Concept-Car

      --
      Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    2. Re:1,000 MPH?....! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This whole land speed record thing is just a generations long pissing match between the UK and the USA.

      And a pretty dam good one at that.

    3. Re:1,000 MPH?....! by MachDelta · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Supersonic cars might not seem practical, but they do pose some important questions about supersonic aerodynamics at ground level (shock front + ground effect = sudden lift) and materials science (wheels, brakes, etc). These are questions we don't really have solid answers to yet, and one day they may prove useful in something more practical, like maybe a supersonic bullet train.
      Mostly though, this is just one of those "where no man has gone before" things that people love to do. Ultimately, it's the same rational behind "first post!"

    4. Re:1,000 MPH?....! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mach 1.5, not just mach 1. I know it seems pedantic (and probably is) but a +50% difference when you're talking about sonic vs supersonic makes some important differences.

    5. Re:1,000 MPH?....! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You know, I don't see the usefulness of art museums, or yachts.

      ITS FOR FUN JACKASS.

      It doesn't have to have a greater purpose.

    6. Re:1,000 MPH?....! by jd · · Score: 1

      Well, not really, since Thrust SSC (their previous car) did 715 mph and therefore was already mach 1. They later discovered that the severe damage to the underbelly would have meant that even a few mph faster would have destroyed the car (and driver) utterly.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    7. Re:1,000 MPH?....! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to disagree, nothing is gained by "first post"

  7. We really need a name by Haedrian · · Score: 1

    Instead of "Open Source" for these sorts of things. Open Source makes me think of Source code, and not 'whats under the hood'

    "Open Schematics" ?

    1. Re:We really need a name by Elbereth · · Score: 1

      Public domain.

  8. I just dont get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't really get this "Open Source" thing. Could somebody help explain with a car analogy? That usually helps.

    1. Re:I just dont get it by Noughmad · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, the car is jet-powered. As you may know, jet engines require large amount of air to operate, that's why they work better at higher speeds, and don't work at all outside the atmosphere.

      To get this large amount of air into the engine, you need to keep the front side of the engine open. It's not hard to imagine that the more open the front side is, the more air will get in, and the more efficient the engine will be.

      So, for years, engineers (you know, people who build engines) have tried to build jet engines to be as open as possible. Traditionally, this was only limited to the literal sense of the word "open". However, in recent years, when the word "literally" also begun to mean "not literally", they started exploring other, less literal ways to make the engines more open. So when jet engine engineers heard talk about Open Source, they thought it's about making the air source more open. And here we are now, with jet-engine-builders trying to get more into their engines by using open source.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    2. Re:I just dont get it by Wordplay · · Score: 1

      Free as in "free flow," not as in "free beer"?

  9. Define "open source"... by starseeker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "All data provided by BLOODHOUND Programme Limited is proprietary to BLOODHOUND Programme Limited. All such data shall only be used for the purposes of education and shall not be used by any party for commercial gain."

    The files are AVAILABLE, but that doesn't make them open source. There's an important distinction. Unless I'm missing it, they don't have any standard license (Creative Commons or otherwise) attached to it right now and they don't sound like they're going to encourage people to use this data as a basis for their own projects. If you can't "fork" the car design and work on your own car it's a bit tough to call it open source.

    That said, this does look pretty cool and the educational aspects of it are legit enough (also would make a good set of test files for any open source project planning to support that JT file format.)

    --
    "I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
    1. Re:Define "open source"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "All data provided by BLOODHOUND Programme Limited is proprietary to BLOODHOUND Programme Limited. All such data shall only be used for the purposes of education and shall not be used by any party for commercial gain."

      The files are AVAILABLE, but that doesn't make them open source. There's an important distinction. Unless I'm missing it, they don't have any standard license (Creative Commons or otherwise) attached to it right now and they don't sound like they're going to encourage people to use this data as a basis for their own projects. If you can't "fork" the car design and work on your own car it's a bit tough to call it open source.

      That said, this does look pretty cool and the educational aspects of it are legit enough (also would make a good set of test files for any open source project planning to support that JT file format.)

      AFAIR, the ability to fork is more of a "free-software" requirement. IIRC, there are a number of licenses which allow for release of source code, but not forking of that code.

    2. Re:Define "open source"... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The files are AVAILABLE, but that doesn't make them open source. There's an important distinction.

      No, there is NOT an important distinction. Open means specifications are available for the purpose of interoperability or just study, period, the end, Bruce Perens' and the OSI's attempts to redefine the word "open" notwithstanding. This is specifically why we needed the term "Free" for software; open was already taken and it already meant something. The oldest recorded use of the word was for Caldera OpenDOS, where it meant something closer to a "shared source" license. Anyone could get the source but there were some limitations placed upon the code.

      If you can't "fork" the car design and work on your own car it's a bit tough to call it open source.

      No, you can't call it Free, although you can call the plans free.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Define "open source"... by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      You're confusing "open source" with "free/libre/free-as-in-freedom/Free."

      "Open source" encompasses many things, and one of the things that falls under its umbrella is "source that is available to view."

    4. Re:Define "open source"... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      This is specifically why we needed the term "Free" for software; open was already taken and it already meant something. [..] No, you can't call it Free, although you can call the plans free.

      That's bullshit. Look at the definition for "free software". Do you see any capitalization of "free software" outside of grammatical usage like titles or beginnings of sentences?

      Free was already in wide use as "free as in no price", a point of much debate in choosing a name for "free as in freedom" software, and a source of constant confusion for people not familiar with the movement.

      "Open source" was not in wide use at all except for in the intelligence community. "Open" vs proprietary never had a precise definition. The term "open source" was defined and promoted into wide usage by the OSI, and then co-opted by people who wanted to get on the bandwagon.

      If you're going to criticize "open source" as a term, you should apply the same criticism, if not more, to "free software".

      If you can't fork it, it's not open source. Period.

    5. Re:Define "open source"... by jd · · Score: 1

      Exactly, which is why I specified "limited open source" to differentiate it from the more generic concept.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    6. Re:Define "open source"... by jd · · Score: 1

      Exactly. There's many a license that is generally accepted (even by the OSI) as Open Source that doesn't permit free-as-in-freedom usage. Parallel to that, academia has long considered the contents of the articles to be "open" (ie: there's no restriction on knowledge, there's no restriction on copying, etc) but not "free" (ie: you can't plagarize - ie: produce a fork of - a research paper). If there's a definition of "open source", then the academic one is the one that is the most universal.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    7. Re:Define "open source"... by afidel · · Score: 1

      Microsoft called theirs shared source which is probably a good description.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    8. Re:Define "open source"... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The term "open source" was defined and promoted into wide usage by the OSI, and then co-opted by people who wanted to get on the bandwagon.

      The term "open source" is first used in print by Caldera for OpenDOS. I could give a fuck if the OSI promoted it into wide usage. I and others were using the term before the OSI existed. I had a bunch of friends at SCO which was using the term even before that.

      If you can't fork it, it's not open source. Period.

      Congratulations on sucking Bruce off most consistently.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Define "open source"... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      The term "open source" is first used in print by Caldera for OpenDOS. I could give a fuck if the OSI promoted it into wide usage.

      And "free software" was in use before FSF came around, which you conveniently ignore. Who gives a fuck about some abandoned OpenDOS project that was quickly reverted to closed source? Their "open source" announcement appealed to the success of the Linux model, but Linux was "open source" under FOSS model, which contributed greatly to its success.

      Congratulations on sucking Bruce off most consistently.

      Congratulations on being a total douche bag.

    10. Re:Define "open source"... by jd · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but I'm mysteriously not going to follow their lead. They might have patented the term.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    11. Re:Define "open source"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They really ought to use the OSHW license [0] like Open Moto X [1] does.

      [0] http://freedomdefined.org/OSHW
      [1] http://openmotox.org

    12. Re:Define "open source"... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Who gives a fuck about some abandoned OpenDOS project that was quickly reverted to closed source?

      Anyone trying to actually figure out who coined the term and thus who has a right to define it. Which is not the OSI.

      Congratulations on being a total douche bag.

      If that's what it's called when you insist on being correct instead of being a fanboy, then I guess I'm a douche bag. Good thing I'm here, because you stink.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Define "open source"... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Anyone trying to actually figure out who coined the term and thus who has a right to define it. Which is not the OSI.

      An issue which you completely ignore for free software. This is the second straight reply you've done this. Also, just because a term was used in a minor fashion doesn't mean it can't take on a different meaning.

      If that's what it's called when you insist on being correct instead of being a fanboy, then I guess I'm a douche bag.

      That's what you are when you resort to ad hominem attacks.

  10. 1000 MPH = 1 609.344 km/h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    For every person not using obscure units: 1000 MPH = 1 609.344 km/h

    1. Re:1000 MPH = 1 609.344 km/h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, but everyone knows it as the 1000 MPH record, not the 1609.344 kph record. It's been a holy grail because it's 1000 MPH.

    2. Re:1000 MPH = 1 609.344 km/h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is slashdot. You need to convert that to Libraries of Congress per fortnight.

    3. Re:1000 MPH = 1 609.344 km/h by leenks · · Score: 1

      Eh?

    4. Re:1000 MPH = 1 609.344 km/h by jd · · Score: 1

      No idea. SI specifies speed in meters per second, so hours aren't standard.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    5. Re:1000 MPH = 1 609.344 km/h by troon · · Score: 1

      Library of Congress = 745 miles of bookshelves (source - Wikipedia)

      (1000/745) * 24 * 14 = 451 LoC/fortnight.

      Wow, that's fast.

      --
      Ydco co ,df C erb-y go. a Ekrpat t.fxrapev
  11. No fly-by-wire? by iteyoidar · · Score: 3, Interesting
    From the car's website:

    "How about automated steering, or some kind of ‘fly-by-wire’ computer stabilisation? No – the rules do not allow it, and quite right too in my opinion. In order to be a land vehicle in LSR terms, the FIA rules require that the vehicle is ‘wholly and continuously controlled by the driver’. Even if the rules did allow for a computer system, should we really be running a car that needs a computer (which will be untested in this prototype vehicle) to keep it safe?"

    Kind of crazy that a team developing an open-source supersonic car is afraid of using computer control assistance methods that have been around for decades!

    1. Re:No fly-by-wire? by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · · Score: 1

      Maybe they like to KISS

    2. Re:No fly-by-wire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No-one has been developing control software for cars. Not even supersonic sea-skimming missiles have to contend with their own shockwave, reflected off the water. This is a "flight" regime no-one has any experience with, a leap into the unknown. I can see why you wouldn't like to add complexity, in the form of computer control. The physics are complex enough as it is.

    3. Re:No fly-by-wire? by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      Last I checked most if not all race cars and motorcycles were also "fly-by-human", a lot of the anti-this and control-that we have on commercial cars are so unskilled or inattentive operators can get decent results, not to improve the results of experts.

    4. Re:No fly-by-wire? by jd · · Score: 1

      Very much so. When the team ran Thrust SSC, the supersonic shockwave was actaly etched into the landscape itself. The understanding of physics in

      I've wondered why there's actually so much emphasis in the current design on ground-effect rather than opting for a waverider design. In aircraft, a waverider sits on the shockwave. My understanding is that this produces a much gentler experience for the aircraft with greatly reduced turbulence. Logically, since the reflection does cause extensive damage (as demonstrated by the examination of Thrust SSC later), it would seem to follow that a car that was also a waverider should fare better.

      This is not the approach being used and I'm more than happy to trust that the engineers are far more knowledgable on the physics than I am and that they have run computer simulations for any serious candidates for design, picking the one that works best rather than the one that armchair commentators might assume would be best. This doesn't mean, however, that I don't want to know their reasoning. I'd love to know why they picked the methods they did.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    5. Re:No fly-by-wire? by Skynyrd · · Score: 1

      In order to be a land vehicle in LSR terms, the FIA rules require that the vehicle is ‘wholly and continuously controlled by the driver’.

      Kind of crazy that a team developing an open-source supersonic car is afraid of using computer control assistance methods that have been around for decades!

      Well, since they are trying to set a record, and the sanctioning body (FIA) says "human control only" for steering, then that's what they will do. Fear isn't part of the equation

      There's many, many things that might make the car faster, or better, or whatever. Teams read the rule book, and try and find the "you can't do XXX" sections. Doing XXX will invalidate the race/record.

      Every record that is set - number of hotdogs eaten in 20 minutes, largest weight bench pressed, fastest bicycle from LA to NY - has an official body saying that they certify the record. If you don't do it to those standards, it "doesn't count".

      It's how these things work.

      Automotive records, being 100 years old, have lots of rules. Land Speed racers deal with them..

    6. Re:No fly-by-wire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if the rules did allow for a computer system, should we really be running a car that needs a computer (which will be untested in this prototype vehicle) to keep it safe?"

      I take that to mean the car should be engineered to be unconditionally stable, rather than a design which needs active feedback to keep it from eating itself.

  12. 1000 MPH = 1 609.344 km/h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1000 MPH = 1 609.344 km/h for thus using standard units

  13. Oh I thought it said ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... 1000 mpg. An open source car that did 1000 mpg would be interesting.