Barron Stone

DoD DIGITAL ENGINEERING I love it when DoD leadership steps out in front of the media and so clearly articulates the INTENT and VALUE of Digital Engineering approaches. Col Matt Strohmeyer nailed it. CUSTOM COMMON OPERATING PICTURE (COP) VIEWS FOR EVERY MISSION/LEADER "Instead of a single, standardized, god’s-eye-view, Col. Matthew Strohmeyer said Monday, the goal of GIDE is a constantly evolving ecoystem of different applications, analytics, and interfaces, customized to different users at every level, from four-star theater commanders to mid-grade staffer officers to junior leaders on the battlefield, that will all draw — in different ways — on the same vast pool of data, shared across the different armed services worldwide." POWER OF CLOUD COMPUTE CUSTOM COP SERVICES “the goal is not necessarily to create that one COP that can see essentially everything we have … one Common Operating Picture to rule them all,” the colonel continued. “We need to have a heterogeneous mix of mission applications to get after all the things that we are doing.” Digital Engineering Ecosystems should be typified by numerous vendors being present in an environment that is both collaborative and competitive. Each brings their People, Process, Technology mojo so the government can have access to the right tool for the right purpose. One size does not fit all and there is more than enough work for all of us to do. We're better together. OPEN-SPEC APIs TO LINK DATA & COP CAPABILITIES "Instead of a single super-standard for all data, Strohmeyer suggested, a more practical solution might be mandating Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) that automatically translate between otherwise incompatible systems. In fact, before an organization is allowed to “play” in the GIDE experiments, he said, they must provide “open and common access to data,” whether through an API or another automatic translation tool." See my post 2 days ago on this topic: https://lnkd.in/gahF6KQj AGILE APPROACHES "Adaptability requires rapid feedback from a wide range of users, so Strohmeyer’s team has accelerated their already blistering pace, adding smaller weekly workshops to their ambitious quarterly experiments" "In fact, part of the GIDE philosophy — inspired more by Silicon Valley startups than Washington bureaucracy — is an eagerness to “fail fast.” Sometimes known as “agile” development or DevSecOps, the basic strategy is to put nascent tech in the hands of real users, let them test it until something breaks, fix it quickly, and then let the users test the updated iteration until that breaks too." https://lnkd.in/g2HTRWuu

2

Fancy automating legacy C to Rust translation? If so, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) would like to hear from you. It has announced its TRACTOR program and is kicking it off with a proposers day on 26th August with the goal of "to provide information on the TRACTOR technical goals and challenges, address questions from potential proposers, and provide an opportunity for potential proposers to consider how their research may align with the TRACTOR program objectives. The TRACTOR program aims to achieve a high degree of automation towards translating legacy C to Rust, with the same quality and style that a skilled Rust developer would employ, thereby permanently eliminating the entire class of memory safety security vulnerabilities present in C programs." https://lnkd.in/e4kqNECn #c #rust #embeddedsystems #programming

5

2 Comments

Often I hear, "Reso, if you have UFO science, you need to show me a UFO before I believe you!" These are dumb demands to be honest. Should I magically 'pull' or pluck a #CTPcraft from the very aether of C-domain, itself? Many demand I should! * We are not an AI company. * We are not a watch company. * We are not a phone/webapp company. * We are not an apparel company. * We are not a "Hello Kitty!" company. #CTPtech is #deeptech. Entirely new field of science to pioneer, ourselves. ENTIRE #NEWSPACE PARADIGM CTP Gravitic Propulsion is NOT going to be achieved without extensive research and resources behind us. This is NOT a new subject (https://lnkd.in/gdaCDpth), however, we know what it takes to make it work. Arguments? Elon has NOT yet taken us to Mars. Even 'starship' (is not a starship - is a rocket) is still in trails and 'testing'. There is no 'proof' Elon can take us to Mars. These are 'faith-based' investments. Support for CTP must be considerate the same. We can make CTP Gravitic Propulsion (CTPGP) (https://bit.ly/3HZBdYu) work! (https://lnkd.in/gxFT5gZg) #newscience #newinnovation #newtech #futuretech

1

1 Comment

Also, many small-minds (yes, small minds... Nikola Tesla himself used this term often - this morning I consider this term fittingly appropriate whereas CTP matters are concerned) come at me from the get go... "Where's your proof?" "Where's your evidence?" "Where's your prototypes?" All while selectively dismissing over 2 years of posts history, citations, and more... and completely TUNING OUT - the most important criteria when it comes to #deeptechstartup #deeptechstartups... deeptech doesn't require preexisting prototypes to already exist to be valid. Certainly does NOT if we were to use AI as a comparison or metric. Now today? AI is MULTIBILLION industry. The same will be for CTP. ________________________________________ Deep tech "Deep technology or hard tech is a classification of organization, or more typically startup company, with the expressed objective of providing technology solutions based on substantial scientific or engineering challenges. They present challenges requiring lengthy research and development, and large capital investment before successful commercialization." - (https://lnkd.in/g22--zGv) ________________________________________ AI has taken over 20 years of #research and #investments to get to where it is today LONG BEFORE we got to the point of #ChatGPT, #AIimages, #AI in music, and other commercial applications many #AIstartups and #investors are cashing in on NOW - today: decades AFTER initial #funding and research commenced PRIOR and PREVIOUSLY (not to mention there will likely be an #AIbubble in the near future - where many #AIstartup FAIL and will produce NOTHING of #ROI or commercial realization (similar to dotcom crash). Not ALL of #AI is a 'sure thing' regardless of what many presently believe. CTP is similar as a #newscience and #privatescience. Yes, CTPSci is by name CTP ventures IP. CTP is not 'publicscience' or #opensource in any way shape or form. CTP is NOT LIKE 'other #startups' or 'other #science' or 'other research'. I also ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to be treated as 'just some other Joe/with some other 'theory'.' I don't need to chase down leads or dismissive minds that just attempt to put CTP out of their mind entirely. Many cannot bring their mind into the higher places of 'where' CTP comes from. This is a good thing AFAIC and fittingly appropriate. Drazen himself solved Newton's, Einstein's, and Tesla's unsolved works (each) by himself - without any funding or investments behind him. Future implications of CTPSci Sciences - are worth billions regardless of any the dismissals and yes SMALL-MINDED attitudes I still often encounter (especially on social media and certainly #LinkedIn or #X as well). NOT JUST TRADE SECRETS - CLASSIFIED RESEARCH NOT ONE ASPECT of #CTPGraviticPropulsion research will be shared with the public. ALL of the CTP Propulsion research is PRIVATE, EXCLUSIVE, and will be/is HIGHLY CLASSIFIED. Period. There are NO OUTSIDE COLLABORATIONS ON/WITH INTERNAL CTPR&D.

1

Career update: After several years as Gravitics' Chief Engineer, I'm pivoting my career in a new direction. I met some amazing people in my time there and I'm wishing them all the best as they deliver on exciting contracts with great partners. In an attempt to be at least mildly interesting, here are some quick questions and answers. Q: What are you going to do now? A: I don't have a new job lined up but I'm excited about work myself and David McComas have been doing to refresh Space Steps (more soon). Q: Why now? A: There are multiple reasons. One, we moved to D.C. to support Emily's promotion and I'm now far away from the action. Two, I've been working 60+ hours a week for the last 6+ years and the move feels like an opportunity to take a mini-sabbatical. And, three, Gravitics is in a transition period from "startup mode" to "we've got great contracts, now let's focus on execution". I love execution but it feels like a good time to make an exit as new managers with new culture come in. Q: Would you consider a job offer? A: For the right team with the right vision that lets me live where I'm living, yes. But mostly I expect to continue working pro bono education efforts in the near term. Q: You were mission architect of Orbital Reef from its inception and then you were Chief Engineer at Gravitics. What are your thoughts about space stations? A: I lean towards optimism but there are choppy waters. In short, NASA and congress need to accelerate their funding or risk losing a generation. It's not a matter of technology or know-how; it's that there isn't a way to profitably run a space station without NASA as an anchor tenant. I believe that NASA's strong signal would also spur even greater private investment. The funding profile has been better lately and folks already know about the business case shortfalls without NASA's support so I'm not being particularly insightful. I've got lots more opinions about how to technically optimize space stations and satellites but those are probably not well suited for a LinkedIn post. Q: Any other insights? A: I think the industry messed up in the 2000-2015 years with the way they sidelined junior talent so that the seasoned experts could continue to run things a little longer. Although it's understandable why a for-profit business would want to continue the status quo, I've repeatedly observed a dearth of talent in their 30's to 40's relative to the previous and following generations. So, even while I observe the difficulties in finding hardcore subject experts, I'm buoyed by the folks younger than me who have been getting back to fundamentals with hands-on experience. I think the 2030's are going to be even more incredible than the 2020's have been. Bonus insight: I was excited by the recent announcement by the US that they're going to loosen up ITAR/EAR a bit. All the best, -Bill

165

24 Comments

💥 Rocket Facts! 💥 #61:  Ballistics 101: Thrust If you read both the last two #RocketFacts, you need to walk to the nearest mirror right now, look yourself in the eyes, and ask “what the hell am I wasting my weekends on this shit for?”  If your reflection answers back, “because rockets, crayons, and moderate profanity are fucking awesome,” then you’re gonna like this third installment of Ballistics 101.  We’ve already discussed how solid propellant burns and creates pressure in a combustion chamber.  Now it’s time to get spicy. Rockets, like me, know that when things start getting hot and pressure begins to build up in the nethers, it’s thrustin’ time.  Unlike me, though, rocket thrust works on the same principles as blowing up a balloon and letting it fly around the room.  Both have chambers full of gas at a higher pressure than the pressure on the outside.  Both have an opening that allows that pressurized gas to exit the chamber.  As the gas exits, the balloon or rocket react by traveling in the opposite direction.  That’s Newton’s Third Law of Motion in action, and explains rocket thrust in a nutshell.  In retrospect, and counter to my initial assertion, I think it also explains me in a nutshell.  Rockets tend to require a little more kick and a little more control than party balloons – or I – do, but the physics principles that dictate how much thrust is coming out the back end are pretty much the same. In its simplest form, thrust is just the product of chamber pressure, throat area, and thrust coefficient, as highlighted in a lovely shade of purple in the super-technical image below. Throat area is the smallest flow area that the gas needs to pass through on its way out of the chamber, where, under the right conditions, the flow will “choke”, or transition to supersonic velocity.  (Note: choked flow is not typical in party balloons or buttz, but I welcome any stories to the contrary.) Thrust coefficient is a convenience factor that lumps a lot of physics into a single term that makes the thrust equation look pretty (just look at that purple box below! 😍).  Effectively, it’s a measure of how efficiently energy from gas expanding out the nozzle is captured and converted to thrust, or as Bose and Pandey eloquently put it in their “Analysis of Thrust Coefficient in a Rocket Motor,” it “signifies the degree to which the thrust is amplified by the nozzle.”  The real equation is a visual clusterfuck, full of chamber pressures and nozzle exit pressures and ambient pressures and nozzle expansion ratios and gammas raised to gammas over gammas and squared and square rooted.  It’s a damn mess.  Definitely some Ballistics 102 shit.  Way cleaner to just lump it all together for now and just call it “Cf.” In the next edition, we gon’ get into impulse – how much total pushin’ our rockets give the cushion. #rocketfacts #stemuncensored

141

18 Comments