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?
The link you're looking for is
http://www.openvsp.org/zips/OpenVSP_2.0_community_src.zip
They do not distribute a pre-compiled packaged linux version. Download source, compile, install locally, or wait for the inevitable Debian package to be created (assuming its "open source" license is DFSG free, I have not bothered to analyze it in detail)
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
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
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
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...
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.
Or they could just buy a copy of X-Plane for $79. Don't laugh, it's fscking phenomenal. Uses parametric airfoil designs and lots more. I'd be willing to bet some serious coin that the X-Plane designer is way better than OpenVSP; certainly X-Plane is going to be much more mature, it's been around forever.
Not affiliated, just a VERY impressed user.
I've just read the license; it all looks pretty standard to me. It's got a requirement for source code distribution alongside binary distributions; it doesn't appear to require that modifications are licensed under the same license (but see below); there's a patent waiver; and there's a number of non-binding clauses that shouldn't be there at all. It's all pretty muddy and unclear.
The only suspicious bit is that there's a requirement that modified versions of the software are labelled as such in a changelog, and that modifiers must be identifiable. This may violate the Debian Dissident Test. However, it doesn't define what 'identifiable' means. It may be possible to argue that a pseudonym would do. You'd have to ask someone who actually knows.
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
Fighter pilots may suffer injury, but at least they have a better chance of living than passengers of a jumbo jet.
You do realize that even with ejection seats, just flying a fighter plane is far more dangerous than flying in a jumbo jet?
What do you think that the airplane designers are doing? The aircraft industry is incredibly safety conscious. That's one of the reasons that everything is so expensive. The whole plane parachute is used on Cirrus airplanes and has saved some lives. Seats have been designed to protect people in impacts up to 26Gs. You can get seatbelts with airbags installed.
Every aircraft accident (at least in the U.S.) is investigated. The goal is to find out what caused the accident and how to prevent it. NASA has a program called ASRS which encourages pilots to report anything that might impact safety.
Please do a little research and see what is being done before accusing people of dragging their heels in the dirt.
un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
I looked it up. The NASA Open Source Agreement 1.3 is OSI certified, but the FSF deems it non-free.
Since NASA World Wind is in Debian's nonfree repository, I assume that would be where this will go too.
"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."
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2011/04/msg00075.html
I was talking about the X-Plane designer, not just the flight sim itself. The designer allows you to enter airfoil shape, engine thrusts, weights, etc. You almost have to be an aeronautical engineer to properly design a plane from the ground up. It's that sophisticated. Meanwhile, the actual flight sim behavior is based upon the entered airfoil designs and airflow calculations, so when you're flying in X-Plane you're basically flying in a software wind-tunnel (plus random weather settings).
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
Hahaha! fighter seat ejection is done with explosive charges, usually works (when it doesn't kill or horribly maim, which it sometimes does) for a man in his 20s in top shape but would kill at least a quarter of civilian passengers. You're going to have a jumbo jet with hundreds of charges in the passenger cabin, what could possibly go wrong....let's see, terrorists would thank you for obviating the need to smuggle bombs, malfunction of system could crash the plane, there's more but I'm laughing too much....