Slashdot Mirror
NASA Open Sources Aircraft Design Software
First time accepted submitter sabre86 writes "At the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics Aerospace Sciences Meeting in Nashville, NASA engineers unveiled the newly open sourced OpenVSP, software that allows users to construct full aircraft models from simple parameters such as wing span and fuselage length, under the NASA Open Source Agreement. Says the website, 'OpenVSP allows the user to create a 3D model of an aircraft defined by common engineering parameters. This model can be processed into formats suitable for engineering analysis.'"
There doesn't seem to be a Linux port at the moment?
Bazillions of Slashdotters will begin posting their submissions. Each one with an enormous ego "Mine is better!".
Is the output Makerbot compatible? I want to use this to design a next generation super jumbo for my Makerbot!
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
When you are on welfare, you need all the help you can get. Much like the rest of the U.S.A. Kinda hard to pay your engineers with food stamps....LOL!
Isn't anything released by NASA necessarily public domain?
All I can get from the website/wiki is thats its a tool that processes things, which is kind of vague.
I found this paper via google:
http://www.mae.virginia.edu/meclab/images/AIAA%20Paper%20--%20VSP.pdf
Not a goatse link, honest.
If you remember the microsoft flightsimulators of the 80s/90s you could list specs and it would make you a plane, like make me a plane with a 50 foot wingspan and then you would attempt to fly it. This is pretty much the same idea for spec'ing a plane but instead of simulating flying it, it dumps out a file containing the model that you can do "whatever" with. Something like clippy for aerospace cad "so you seem to be trying to make a twin engine turboprop, would you like a wizard to help with that?".
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
It is open source though.
I tried, big, fast, pretty...
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
As someone who is into foam-built RC aircraft I am excited by the possibilities of this software. Electronics not included, a plane costs me about $10 to build. While I've built enough planes that I can just 'wing it' (See what I did there?), It would be fun to use this software to design RC planes...
Is it easy to convert to Lego Digital Designer format?
I'm sure Iran will find this very helpful for designing their drones.
I say we use the opportunity to entirely redesign all planes, small and large, with a focus on some method to save lives in the event of mechanical/electronic failure, damage, or other cause of a plane crash.
Fighter pilots at least get the option of an ejection seat, so why have we dragged our heels in the dirt for so long by not finding a way for passengers of jumbo jets to survive catastrophe? As for small planes, I've seen parachutes for the plane itself, but I don't think that ever went anywhere or if it was even all that practical.
So, why don't we get NASA or DARPA or whoever to offer a prize for re-thinking aircraft design to save lives? We need to push past the stagnation in this area of technology and press Boeing and others to move forward.
ummmm.. bad on me.. undo!
Now the terrorists can design their own aircrafts, well done.
Why does NASA, a government agency, claim copyright on software?
And why does NASA release software under a non-free license?
It's not that hard. Use an existing license. Stop inventing your own licenses that conflict with truly free collaboration.
Dude, no offense but passenger planes are already extremely safe. Your lifetime odds of dying in an auto wreck are around 200 times greater than your chances of dying in a plane crash.
And what do you suggest anyway? Perhaps we can ALL get ejection seats! In an emergency the ENTIRE CEILING of the passenger cabin will blow off. Then row by row we can all watch our fellow passengers shoot into the air as the explosive bolts in their chairs go off. Or perhaps they can just hand you a chute and open the door if things go South?
The truth of it is that in most any scenario where the plane is going to crash, there is not going to be a realistic way to exit the aircraft in mid-air. For that reason I'll say-
NO THANKS.
I understand the GPL issues, but I am uncomfortable giving this to the North Korean government for starters.
Public disclosure isn't always best for the public. Just saying.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain with all your metadata.
LOL. If NASA can open source this--why wont the gpu vendors give us their docs!?!
Just sayin'....
I just made a F-330 from stargate with oversized engines. It'll use the lucas gate and do the kessel run in under 7 parsecs
And why does NASA release software under a non-free license?
GNU's specific complaint: "The NASA Open Source Agreement, version 1.3, is not a free software license because it includes a provision requiring changes to be your “original creation”. Free software development depends on combining code from third parties, and the NASA license doesn't permit this."
NASA's actual terms: "Each Contributor represents that that its Modification is believed to be Contributor's original creation and does not violate any existing agreements, regulations, statutes or rules, and further that Contributor has sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this Agreement."
The GNU complaint seems somewhat bogus. By claiming to be the creator, i.e. the copyright holder, and providing the mandatory change logs there is an audit history. NASA has a clear paper trail and a clear assignment of the right to use, modify and distribute from the copyright holder. The Linux kernel being locked into GPL v2 seems to suggest that NASA has thought this through more than the GNU folks did, or perhaps learned from the mistakes of the GNU folks.
Making a 3D skin model and making a real jet are two totally different things. Not to mention the academic information behind this can be openly found and used; I doubt they are adding much theory that isn't already known.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Why does NASA, a government agency, claim copyright on software?
And why does NASA release software under a non-free license?
It's not that hard. Use an existing license. Stop inventing your own licenses that conflict with truly free collaboration.
Use an existing license. Stop inventing your own licenses that conflict with truly free collaboration.
The issue is that a license like the GPL is discriminatory to certain business models, namely those that keep source code changes private. The problem is that such discriminatory terms are inappropriate in a taxpayer funded project. Taxpayers who chose to make derived works and keep the changes private should be allowed to do so.
If you fund a project yourself you have every right to make that project GPL based. However if you seek taxpayer funding you have to be fair and accommodating to all taxpayers, even those you disagree with.
Huh, the GPL doesn't forbid you from keeping changes private. It forbids you from distributing changes without source. If you don't distribute, there is no problem.
Furtheremore, Whatever, GPL isn't the only free license. Use a BSD-style license or any other license without copyleft.
I still don't understand how an agency of the US government can claim copyright, though. Usually what happens is that the government subcontracts to individuals and are then bound by the copyright claims of those individuals. How is NASA getting away with this?
The issue is that a license like the GPL is discriminatory to certain business models, namely those that keep source code changes private.
Huh, the GPL doesn't forbid you from keeping changes private. It forbids you from distributing changes without source. If you don't distribute, there is no problem.
And there is no business model so your point is not on topic. ;-)
Furtheremore, Whatever, GPL isn't the only free license. Use a BSD-style license or any other license without copyleft.
Agreed.
I still don't understand how an agency of the US government can claim copyright, though. Usually what happens is that the government subcontracts to individuals and are then bound by the copyright claims of those individuals. How is NASA getting away with this?
The contracts established between NASA and the individuals or subcontractors could include some sort of "work for hire" type clause where copyright is assigned to NASA? Much like the Regents of the University of California held the copyright on all the code written by professors and students back in the day.
I've always wanted to know how NASA can say that I can't come in each time I try to walk into their hallway, I mean, how can an american agency own a building?
The issue is that a license like the GPL is discriminatory to certain business models, namely those that keep source code changes private.
Huh, the GPL doesn't forbid you from keeping changes private. It forbids you from distributing changes without source. If you don't distribute, there is no problem.
And there is no business model so your point is not on topic. ;-)
Sure there is. It's part of many organisations' business models. To take one heavy-handed example, Google. They grab Linux-based source code, create their own internal distribution, and use it to power internal development and massive servers that are turning in a pretty penny.
The NASA terms require the contributor to identify themselves as the creator, i.e. the copyright holder, and to also submit a change log. This statement and the log are the paper trail. Note that the NASA terms also define the rights to use, modify and redistribute. If you just grab someone else's code you are a licensee not a copyright holder and do not have the authority to agree with NASA's terms. Only the copyright holder can agree to NASA's terms.
... It's part of many organisations' business models ...
But not the business models I was referring to. I wrote "certain business models", not "all business models".
You may find this enlightening:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government
Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
Wait, are you telling me we can download planes now? Sweet! Yes, RIAA, I totally would download a plane.
But would you fly in it? :-)
I've been trying the build for a while. Its a bit user-surly. The documentation for Linux is this: "There are no pre-compiled Linux binaries produced at this time. In order to run OpenVSP on Linux, you must compile it yourself."
And thats it. Nothing in any readme anywhere else. You need to get fltk (an easy build), opennurbs (I think an easy build), and then you need to get cmake and then attempt somehow to build it (documentation is quite scarce on where to put what, etc.). I've seen a lot of builds that require a lot, but at least they give you hints or pointers on what to do. Here, they chuck some source code at you. If its even runnable, can be made to work in this environment, whatever, is your issue.
"If Recipient distributes or redistributes the Subject Software in
any form other than source code, Recipient must also make the
source code freely available, and must provide with each copy of
the Subject Software information on how to obtain the source code
in a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for
software exchange."
Sounds copyleft to me.
It explicitly specifies that export restrictions remain in place .
Of course, if it's available, if someone in North Korea wanted it, it's not clear that they would bother following trivial details like the license agreement.
But then, it wouldn't be much harder (hypothetically) to get a binary gratis distribution--or hack into NASA.
Besides that, it sounds like it doesn't really offer you a full "aeronautical engineer on your desktop". That might be something to worry about--if it were more than common knowledge in the art, and more than any other readily available solutions, etc.
Can the 3D data models this SW generates be fed into a machine that cranks out a physical model? With RC aircraft becoming so cheap, it might be cool to use the SW to design a craft that can be rendered in matter, then outfitted with the RC parts. Maybe some RC derbies could use standardized mechanics in different bodies, competing purely on the body design.
--
make install -not war
And there is no business model so your point is not on topic. ;-)
You might want to ask the woman next to you for her signature.... I think you're way out on a limb there and Shirley Maclaine's signature might be the only benefit.
Google, IBM, eBay, BBC, etc, etc - a very long list of small enterprises who make money on the back of GPL (greater and lesser version) that you've probably never heard of, and can be excused for not being able to research.
Here's another obscure one that some taco cowboy rode into retirement.. You were probably a big authority in primary school - but we've all got this internet thing now, you can check stuff with it.
Google, IBM, eBay, BBC, etc, etc - a very long list of small enterprises who make money on the back of GPL (greater and lesser version) that you've probably never heard of, and can be excused for not being able to research.
Actually the problem is that you have missed the context of this discussion. Since we are discussing software that is being *distributed*, in-house undistributed software is an irrelevant tangent. Whatever Google is doing in-house is irrelevant to the issues that NASA faces in distributing this software.
China, in particular.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Because China will implement replacements for it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
What's wrong with this place? Plenty of posts below the above raving about licences and nothing apart from the post above about building it.
Anyone else get stuck on building "ScriptMgr" in "vsp" and did you find a way around it?
X-Plane now has the ability to use lessons learned by the opensourcing of OpenVSP to improve itself.
Actually the problem is that you have missed the context of this discussion.
You could hurt your back lugging those goalposts around all the time. See if you can find a company in that list that doesn't distribute the code. Do you even have a fucking clue what the GPL is? HInt: it's useless unless distribution is involved.
Just because you can argue the toss (or how many angels can party on the head of a pin) doesn't mean you should.
So I looked at the code in github. It appears to be C++ and not FORTRAN! How can any self-respecting aerospace engineer use this? FORTRAN is what we were taught, not C++.
... for funding billions of dollars of development and then having your government simply open the keys to the kingdom.
Those in China, Pakistan, Russia, India, etc. will benefit tremendously from the technology, nevermind the fact that nothing will be shared back in return. Nevermind the fact that one day your country will find itself behind by giving these countries a huge leapfrog start, only spending their money on new additions, not baking "from scratch".
I'm hoping your government will also open up the software used for the tax system, defense planning, and more - why stop at NASA stuff? I mean, if something being useful to other countries that may not like us, or being sensitive, is not criteria for keeping it under wraps, why draw the line anywhere?
Taking a brief look at the source code posted on github for OpenVSP at http://github.com/OpenVSP/OpenVSP, I have to wonder if NASA software engineers have a high rate of suicide versus other occupations. SCARY!