Over the past year and a half I have seen Tx/Rx Labs grow from a 300 sqft room to a 4000 sqft lab.  By collaborating with each other, Tx/Rx Labs makes innovation accessible to everyone.  Whether it be learning new skills, accessing equipment, tapping into another member’s knowledge, Tx/Rx Labs facilitates the path to working on technology.  In March, Tx/Rx Labs will be hosting HACK-B-Q, a technology demo series where we will show some of the cool projects we have been working on.  Please show your support for the movement by coming out, and telling your friends.

What’s a Hack-B-Q? Think free B-B-Q with the added bonus of getting to share knowledge with TXRX Members who have expertise in exciting DIY technology projects. And that’s just for starters: There are tons of exciting projects in progress and members with expertise in chemistry, electrical engineering, biology, physics, programming, mechanical engineering, and many others, all of whom are interested in sharing that knowledge for the benefit of the community.





The point of this blog isn’t to talk about the debate in Congress, the point is that regardless of the decisions that are made by the politicians of this country, we will not propel space exploration forward unless we believe that we will end up victorious.  Mohandas Gandhi once said that “a small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history”.  Well I am here to tell you that this paradigm can have both positive and negative impacts.   We are at a cross road in NASA’s history, and where NASA goes from here will not be decided by Congress, but by the dedicated men and women that work at NASA.  If we believe that the end of America’s leadership in space is over, then no amount of money will help us keep that leadership.

Leadership begins with oneself….

Responsibility begins here….

We can not always choose our environment, but we can always choose to do our best.  If NASA is to remain a leader in space and be a source of inspiration to the world, we must stop looking up for leadership and we must start leading up.  We ALL have the capacity to influence our environment for the better, and if we are to remain a leader in space we must take every opportunity to make things better.

That means, that we must end the CYA paradigm that plagues NASA, and replace it with paradigm of personal responsibility.

Imagine how great NASA would be if everyone at NASA took personal responsibility for the quality and safety of the work they did, instead of separate groups being tasked to police the work of others.

Imagine how great NASA would be if when a group’s utility was no longer needed, the leader’s first inclination was not to invent reasons to keep the group alive, but to help those in the group transition to other opportunities that would safely allow the group to be eliminated.

Imagine how great NASA would be if instead of trying to save a dime to do more mission, NASA invested in those who execute the mission so that they can handle more mission.

Imagine how great NASA would be if instead of us pointing the finger at others, we pointed the fingers at ourselves and took the time to see the good in others.

Do the negative things I implied above happen?  Yes.  Do I think they are bad?  No!  I think they are human.  Failure is not only an option, failure is imminent, because we are human.  The question is how do we succeed in an imperfect world where failure is a fact of life?  We do it by remembering that leadership begins with oneself, and that responsibility begins here.  We do it by accepting that NASA’s fate is in our hands, not in the hands of those above us or in the hands of those far away.

We can all help NASA be better, and each of us knows best how we can help.  I encourage everyone to search deep in oneself to find your personal way of helping NASA be better, and I have faith that we will all have the courage to do so when the opportunities present themselves.  The path forward will not be easy, but I have no doubt that we will not only remain leaders in space, we will inspire the world with as much vigor as days gone by.

Eventhough, I agree that lack of proper funding is a major source of problems with the Constellation program, I still think that the Constellation program is a bad strategy for NASA. The reason that I think it is a bad strategy is because there are too many unknowns, too many things that need to be developed that can’t be developed until later in the program (or at the very least verified), and too rigid a box to get it done (it doesn’t help that we also don’t have the proper budget to get this done, but when you add physical constraints it makes life very difficult). Further the long development time, requires us to develop and work on technology that will be severely outdated by the time we get to use it.

What the Constellation program has given NASA is the strong and clear realization that we need to leave near earth orbit and go to the Moon, Mars and Beyond; while providing a clear path to doing it. The goal of going to the Moon or Mars has to remain central to any planning that NASA does.

• What technologies can NASA work on now, so that if we were to fund a program in the future to go to the Moon, Mars, etc it would reduce the amount of time needed to get the project done?

• What technologies can NASA work on now, that can be used as leverage in international partnerships, and commercial partnerships?

Do not be deceived, NASA has a real customer. The customer is the political market. As Mike Coats pointed out, in a recent All-Hands, around every eight years the political party in power changes, and with it comes new direction. Policy defines the priorities that NASA has to be concerned with, and the budget that we have for those specific priorities. Our objective is to explore, WE define that, independently of any policy direction that Congress and the President gives us. When a new direction is given by the President, we get to determine the method of implementing the direction. What we must be able to do is get a significant victory (several preferably) in the pursuit of going to other planets, every time that a new administration and direction is given to us.

For example, with the Constellation Program, the path to get anywhere took too long. Part of the path to the moon could have been to get to the ISS, as a first step, with the CEV capsule, in a method that would have gotten us there before the President was scheduled to leave office.  Scheduling this way would prohibit the project from being stopped by the next President. If we had a second method of getting to the ISS we could comfortably retire the Shuttle, and more funds would have been able to go to funding the path to the Moon or Mars. Also, it is very difficult to argue with success. If we show that we are making progress, the president has less leverage/reason to change the direction. Also, going to the ISS with a new vehicle would have been a great way of getting the public around our mission. Hindsight is 20/20, but this is a lesson that we must learn: there are real timelines (political ones), we must strategize to these timelines.

With the new budget and direction (Robotic Precursor Missions), we could develop a robotic expedition to go to the Moon and return. This would develop critical intelligence, that we have likely lost, in how to return to earth from another planet. By doing it through a robotic expedition, we can minimize the cost of getting this project done. If we do it in such a way that we could one day take cargo to the moon with the capsule, then we could use this project as a stepping stone for new projects in the future (like sending animal experiments to the Moon or Mars). We wouldn’t have to (or want to) develop new rocket technology, it would be wise to use existing technologies to get this done. If it is possible to do it with a stripped down version of the CEV capsule, then we can leverage the work we have already done for the Constellation Program. I don’t know enough, to say if the weight and size (geometric dimensions) would make using the CEV cost prohibitive.

With the “Heavy Lift and Propulsion R&D” money in the budget we could develop technologies that allow us to launch from on-orbit. Launching in space, reduces the amount of thrust and fuel needed to get to our destination. Launching on earth, requires a huge amount of thrust just to move, which causes the launch to go through extreme accelerations. The accelerations cause increased load, which requires stronger structure, which increases the weight. If we launch in space, we can develop rocket technology that has a more steady thrust release. We don’t have to accelerate as fast as we would from earth (we just accelerate for a longer time).   This would reduce the structural strength required (lowering the mass), while still having the ability to get to velocities that get us there quickly.

I guess I will leave with:

We don’t define policy, but we do get to define the approach of implementing the applicable policy. We have to maximize victories needed to explore space, within the political schedule. By showing progress within the political schedule, the policymakers have less leverage to change our direction, increasing the speed that we get to go to the Moon and Mars (or whatever other destination).   Also, the progress helps us get the public around our mission, which increases our chance of getting our budget increased.

In order for NASA to prosper moving forward, it will have to be adaptable, efficient and possibly even prophetic.  Now making this statement is very simple.  Everybody knows philosophically that an organization needs to be efficient and adaptable, but implementation is a much more daunting task.  This time instead of first asking “How do we make NASA adaptable, efficient and prophetic?”, we should ask

“What is needed to make NASA adaptable, efficient and prophetic?”

Below are a few things that I think NASA needs to start building.

1)  Trust from Employees (civil servants and contractors)
2)  Empowerment of Employees
3)  Multi-disciplined Employees
4)  Partnership w/ External Organizations

Trust from Employees

Trust is by far the most important thing that NASA can build between its employees.  With trust invisible walls get eliminated, and everything works faster.  An employee has to know that leadership has their best interest at heart or they will not offer cost saving suggestions, and will not speak up when they see issues that need consideration.  If the decisions that NASA makes cause good employees to fear for their livelihoods, trust will be broken.  When trust is broken, employees best move is always to take care of themselves and bureaucracies form as a result.  Plans can’t get executed without people; therefore, people matter. Without trust between its employees NASA will not be able to succeed moving forward.

Empowerment of Employees

NASA has some of the brightest and most dedicated individuals.  With such talent, it begs the question why are all decisions still being made at the top?  In a time of disruptive innovation, employees have to be empowered to try things that could make themselves and NASA better?

How does NASA empower its employees?

What if every employee got given $500 yearly to invest in cost-cutting initiatives?   What if the top 10 people that came up with the greatest cost savings, each got an award of $10k tax free?  Now this would empower employees to take initiative, and it would also create an incentive for the employees to be accountable.

What if on top of that, each employee was given $500 more to use with others in a group effort (3-10 people)?  Assuming a similar award incentive as before, this would help larger groups become more efficient while building a collaborative environment.

The final award has to be large enough to be beneficial to the individuals, but not too large that it causes fighting.

Multi-Disciplined Employees

In times of such great disruptive change, not only does NASA have to be adaptable so do the employees.  It won’t always be possible for NASA to employ everybody.  What NASA can do is ensure that every person under its employment has a diverse set of skills and that each employee is given growth opportunities that make them marketable.  Focusing on growing employees might seem inefficient at the onset, but at the end not only does the employee win so does NASA.  As the customer, NASA has a responsibility to ensure that not only civil-servants have sufficient training, but that their contractors also have sufficient training.  Passing the buck, only increases the long-term cost of operation.

Partnership w/ External Organizations

NASA can’t afford to do everything.  NASA simply does not have the resources to do everything on its own; therefore, NASA will have to be a great partner.  In order for NASA to be an effective partner, NASA has to be willing to give.  NASA can’t take the “partnership” idea as a way of just getting more money.  Nobody likes to partner with a moocher.   NASA has to be flexible and willing to listen, or partnerships won’t work.
In the Internet age, NASA will have to be able to “connect” with its partners via the internet easily and without hassle, or communication will be halted.

Conclusion

By creating multi-disciplined, empowered and trusting employees NASA will be able to leverage its internal resources to be adaptable, efficient and even prophetic (wisdom of the crowds).  By developing great, brotherly partnerships with external organizations, NASA will be able fulfill its mission with less of its own resources and account for disruptive change which NASA can’t see coming.

NASA will float or sink based on the ability and effort of its employees (civil servants AND contractors), and its external partners.  If NASA is to succeed it has to edify both its employees and its partners.

I leave you with the following video on innovation management, which relates to adaptability.

The reason I bring this story up is because I think NASA could learn a lot from the simple quote “Hows NOT Buts”.  In NASA it is often that you hear

“but we don’t have enough money”,
“but we are government”,
“but its against the rules”,
“but those are the requirements”,
“but its not my job”, etc….

As enthusiastic and as hard-headed as I am, even I have found myself saying “but” more often.  This act is not acceptable by me, it is not acceptable by those who work at NASA, and it is especially not acceptable for those who have leadership position.  (I like to pick on leaders,  because to me leadership is a position of responsibility not a position of prestige.)  Instead we must be asking “How…?” we can do things.

When I first got here, I didn’t say “but we ONLY have 1% of the federal budget”, I said “Whoah! we have a whole 1% of the federal budget”.  I mean great companies have been started on less than 100k.  What’s wrong with finding ways for NASA to be self-sustaining, and even profitable? “BUT we are government”…well, so is the US Mint.  Even though the US Mint is government they have found a way to be profitable.  We don’t have to compete with industry, actually the best strategy is to work with industry.

When I first got here, I didn’t say “but we are government”, I said “Whoah! we are government” that means unlike business who has to be fiscally conservative in order to survive, we could take more risk (not dumb risk) so that the American economy can profit as well as allowing us to converge to being self-sustaining.

When I first got here, all those buts that I mentioned above were opportunities to solve.  I believe that there are many people at NASA who like me started with eyes wide open, with opportunities abound and have been trained and configured to say “but…” more often.  We owe it to ourselves, to awaken that youthful vigor that saw the opportunities and dared to ask “How?”.  We have the talent and we have the dedication that is needed to perform miracles.  What we need now is to unlearn bad habits, and forget bad assumptions.  We must be willing to question every facet of our operation, with opportunities in mind NOT with fear.  Youthful vigor when added to the wisdom from maturity is a winning combination.

I know that we can do great things!  NOW lets get it done!

The Hackerspace provides people a third space (work-space, home-space, the hackerspace) where they can invent/develop new technologies, develop new skills, master old skills, collaborate with other like minded individuals to create something that is better than what they can do on their own, and much more.  The Hackerspace is Thomas Edison on steroids and I believe it will change the way technology is developed in the future.  It is still a dream but imagine having access to a nanotechnology lab or a biosynthesis lab.  Having the infrastructure that would give individuals access to experiment in high-tech work such as nanotechnology, biosynthesis is still somewhat far from occurring, but not a far fetched goal.  Why is it not a far fetched goal?  Simple, because more solutions can be generated when more people work on a problem.  Sure, many of these solutions will not produce fruit, but the mere increase in solutions will make the advancement of new industries exponentially faster.  Advancement of new industries is profitable; therefore, I believe that sponsorship of Hackerspaces will be looked at as a profitable investment for leading companies and institutions.

Why Hackerspaces?

The term “open-source”  and “crowdsourcing” is huge now a days.  Right now these terms generally refer to work that is done virtually for software applications.  These terms do not generally refer to crowdsourced hardware development.  I believe that hackerspaces will one day play a role in making crowdsourcing of hardware a reality.

In recent history, software development has gone through leaps and bounds in capability because of the low cost required for an individual to start developing software.  This low cost has provided individuals the ability to create dot com start-ups such as Google, Microsoft and Amazon.  Countless other individuals have contributed to the industry in various different ways as well.  Today, we are at a pivot point where microprocessor technology and software technology is developed enough that it is becoming extremely inexpensive to develop automated systems that integrate the computer user with the physical world (i.e. robots, home automation,etc).  The development and implementation of this technology is no longer required to be completed in institutions that have ungodly amounts of money to do the research and development.  Instead, motivated individuals will be able to enter the market cheaply by joining a hackerspace, and using the group’s infrastructure to develop new inventions and hardware technology.  I believe, that lowering the entry point to developing this technology will allow the robotics industry and other hardware technology to have an explosion in development in the not too distant future.

It doesn’t stop there…

A few groups across the world have already started working on the technology to make it possible for every household to have a small manufacturing plants, in much the same way many houses today have small printing presses in their homes (aka printers).  The most notable of these groups are the makers of the RepRap and the Makerbot.   The RepRap is a rapid-prototyper with the long-term goal of eventually developing a RepRap iteration that can fully replicate itself.

The Makerbot is also a Rapid-Prototyper, which was derived from the technology that was used to create the RepRap.  The Makerbot was developed at the NYC Resistor (one of the original Hackerspaces in the United States).  The goal behind the Makerbot is to create a rapid-prototyper that is affordable and easy to use by everyone.

As this technology develops and becomes main stream it will eventually be possible for one day to allow most homes to have a small manufacturing plant, that is metaphorically equivalent to the printer and the printing press.

When this technology develops I believe that Hackerspaces will evolve to give members even more capability than what is currently readily possible, because the concept behind Hackerspaces is to provide infrastructure necessary to work on projects that couldn’t easily be worked on with the personal resources of one individual.

How can Hackerspaces help NASA (aka Space Exploration)?…

In order for space exploration to prosper and become cost-effective robotic technology will need to be created and adapted to develop infrastructure that is necessary for human space exploration and industrial exploration.  Concepts like those behind the RepRap, will be required to be further developed so that it is possible to automatically manufacture goods as needed in space.  The RepRap technology in part has driven the conception of a previous future technology I proposed in “Future Tech: Spider-bots dial Home”.  I imagine developing Spider-bots that can manufacture themselves, manufacture other things and can also be used for surveillance and exploration.  Now if the technology required to do space exploration is developed in open-source/Creative Commons type methodologies, then groups of people will be able to work together in Hackerspaces, Universities and Industry to propel innovations forward that are created at NASA making space exploration cheaper.

How can Hackerspaces help Industry?…

The idea that the greatest innovation occurs outside the walls of an institution was made famous and profitable by Proctor and Gamble.  By working synergistically with the crowd, industry will be able to maximize innovation that exists outside their walls.  This partnership will profit both the individuals with the innovative ideas and the companies that take the idea from conception to market, or hack the concept into a different use that the original innovator never even thought of.  Helping develop hackerspaces and the tools necessary for crowdsourcing hardware development gives industry a source of innovation at the fraction of the cost of in-house innovation (it is a win-win).

Further, Hackerspaces provide a place for employees to further develop their technical skills, or the outlet to develop new technical skills.  The skills that can be developed at Hackerspaces, with the community, will likely be much more readily applicable to their daily work than knowledge gained by going to the university.  Hackerspaces, won’t ever replace the university, but they provide a hands-on learning experience that extends the experience gained from the university.

Disclaimer…

Hackerspaces are relatively new and their reach modest.  Perhaps my claims about the future of Hackerspaces are premature, but that is the potential that I see and that is why I am so passionate about helping make hackerspaces work.  It will be fun to see the dream of Thomas Edison on steroids come to fruition.

Help!

Hackerspaces around the world need motivated members and donations to make the dream possible.  If you want to help or join, I encourage you to look up a hackerspace near you at (http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/List_of_Hacker_Spaces) to join or donate.  If there isn’t a hackerspace near you, perhaps you want to start one.  If so, there is a lot of information at hackerspaces.org on how to get one started.  New hackerspaces are starting up quite often.  If one is not available locally, make sure to go back to the list of hackerspaces to see if one is starting up near you.

Warning: This is an idea of how to meet our mission to explore space, bring enthusiasm to the general public all while helping expand the space market. Some of the ideas are based on things that are already developed. The depth to which this train of thought can take us is not complete and requires your input to get there.

What would it be like if you could control a spider-bot in Mars from your home computer? You could use it to explore Mars (or any other planet) as if you were actually there. Wouldn’t that be fun? I think so! That is why I think it would be awesome if NASA helped spearhead an initiative to create the infrastructure necessary so that one day any citizen could log on to their computer to explore space virtually.

Now I know some of you will think this is too expensive and it can’t be done. I disagree, and I think it can be profitable to our economy. NASA has already done a lot of work on spider-bots. This work can be leveraged to make it possible so that one day (not 100 years from now, but 10-20 years from now) we could easily choose to explore space virtually through the eyes of one of these spider-bots.

This post will go through the technological infrastructure that is necessary to make it feasible, and the method of developing the spider-bot to increase its versatility.

What is necessary?

The first thing that is necessary is the Satellite infrastructure so that the person in front of his computer can communicate with the spider-bot. This is critical, because if we do this right there is a high potential that industry will be able to use this work to expand space exploration beyond anything that is written in this post. That is why any Satellite infrastructure that is created must have the ability to have ultra-fast connections with earth. The satellite network must be able to communicate with earth instantly with high rates of data at any time. The satellite network must be flexible enough to be able to increase its bandwidth when and if industry demands it to be increased. (Hint: radiation issues that need to be considered on earth (for health reasons) don’t necessarily need to be considered in space where there is nothing there, so we can experiment more in space.)

The reason that creating a strong satellite/communications infrastructure in space is necessary is because it is more cost effective to explore space and also to build infrastructure for human space flight through the implementation of robotic technologies. In the future, companies won’t send humans to mine for resources, they will send robots. However, the ability to send robots is limited to whether they can communicate with these robots. Further, if we plan to have human exploration of Mars, it is prudent to send robots to build the infrastructure that humans will use. All this is becoming feasible/practical now that computer computation capability is nearing the capability dreamed about in science fiction. (Hint: Building this infrastructure is a high cost investment that will ultimately lower the operations cost of space exploration.)

The Dao of the Spider-bot

The spider-bot is cool because of the flexibility that it allows. You could easily add wheels to some of the legs and it becomes a car. You could make it walk on two legs (if you can figure this out) and it emulates a human with four hands (that is better than a robot that emulates a regular human). You could use four legs as a base and use two to build and work on things. Heck you could add another pair of legs and increase its versatility even more. Let us just say the spider-bot is pretty cool, because of the flexibility inherent in its design.

How do we develop the functionality of the spider-bot? The first step to developing the spider-bot is to develop the basic mechanics of the spider-bot so that it allows the most flexibility for upgrades in actuator technology and micro-controller technology (CPU). Once the basic mechanics is developed, the infrastructure should become open-source for all technologist enthusiast can hack the hardware to make it better than it was ever deemed possible. This should be further enhanced by creating a prototyping version of the spider-bot that can be sold in the free market for around $200-$500 bucks. This prototyping version would basically be a “toy” by the standards of NASA, but it would also be an inexpensive replica that amateurs could hack and improve on. Opening the infrastructure of the space spider-bot, with the double punch of creating a prototyping spider-bot would quicken the development of future generations of the spider-bot. Creating a prototyping spider-bot will also help create the economies of scale necessary to lower the costs of developing the spider-bot.

1^st Generation Spider-bot

The first generation spider-bot would not necessarily ever launch. The first prototyping spider-bot would likely be the “development” model. We could use the App model made famous by Apple, so that developers can work off of the “development” model to do mundane tasks in your home or any other cool thing that would provide incentives for developers to work on the spider-bot.

2^nd Generation Spider-bot

By creating a market of development in the work that NASA is doing, we have a lot of infrastructure to work off of. We can use that work to create an inherently more flexible and robust spider-bot. Darwin had his fun with the 1^st generation and the 2^nd generation is that much better for it. Now this is going to be the version that will likely be ready for prime time.

Moving Forward

Once the satellite/communications infrastructure is developed and the spider-bot development is advanced enough. Companies will find ways to leverage these technologies to open the market of space exploration. First, as stated previously they will send robots to mine for goods, or maybe it will just be a company that caters to giving “the space experience” to enthusiasts on earth. Then eventually the technology will develop enough so that I or you can log on to our computers to control our own robot so that we can make it do what we want it to do. (I am an optimist, I know, but that is cool!)

This is the part 2 of the Barriers to Innovation Video, Pathways.  The video was originally posted on Wayne Hale’s Blog.  I didn’t work on this project but I am very proud of the work the team did to put this together.   I have to admit that I am a bit jealous.

Today I was trying to see the new NASA video “Pathways” on Youtube and I followed the related videos to the “Tom Peters: Innovation is Actually Easy!” video.  Now Tom Peters made a statement  in this video that really made me think:  

“Benchmarking is stupid.  Why is it stupid?  Because we pick the current industry leader and then we launch a 5 year program, the goal of which is to be as good as whoever was best 5 years ago 5 years from now. “

Please take the time to read this again.  We at opennasa have used Google and P&G as benchmarks of what NASA should do and be like.  We have effectively asked “How do we we make NASA as great as Google/P&G?” We should instead be asking :

• What can we do to make Google and P&G want to be like NASA?  
• What can we do so that one day future CEO’s dismiss NASA’s success as “They are only that successful because they are government funded, and they can take more risk…we can’t take those risks in industry” ?  
• What can we do so that businesses compete to work with NASA, at a reduced cost, because of the high ROI (Return on Investment) inherent in working with NASA?  
• What can we do so that working for NASA is the #1 choice to work for from college graduates?  

Right now I don’t have any answers to these questions, because I have been too focused on helping get NASA to a state that is “tried and true” as shown by the examples of Google and P&G.  

If we truly want to be innovative we have to push to be better than the rest.  

“The leader is the leader precisely because he did something remarkable.  And the remarkable thing is now taken – so it’s no longer remarkable when you decided to do it.” — Seth Godin, Fast Company / 02.2003

There is no doubt in my mind that this can be accomplished; if we add faith and resolve to innovation.  The people that work with/for NASA are the smartest and most creative workers on earth — believe it.  

(I saw the “Pathway” video, and I absolutely loved it.  It is like a fantastical dream come true.  I mentioned it because it is what led to the above video, but I think it is best if someone who worked on it blogs about it.)