On 1/29/2013 4:19 PM, Matt Shaver wrote:
Motivated by Brent's post this morning, I called my contact at NASA, and got hold of him! It turns out he's been working outside his office lately, and we discussed what remains to be done on getting apt4ssx8 released. (just got another call from him as I write this, so progress is trying to be made :) One thing that came up is the need for some statements from interested potential users who could say something like: ********************************************************** If NASA were to release the source code of APTSSX8, it would help my existing US business because ____________________________________. ********************************************************** Unfortunately, I can't use stories about replacing commercial software with free software, or saving license or maintenance fees, because that will be interpreted as hurting US software companies. I have good stories already from Mark Cason and Ralph Stirling, but I could use more with a "US business benefits" focus. In terms of "good" and "bad" stories: - Good: Helping with US education, making US business more competitive internationally, advancing level of US technology - Bad: Helping foreign businesses that compete with US ones, passing tech to foreigners that they don't already have, any sort of help to unfriendly foreign countries, releasing gov SW that would effectively compete with commercially available US SW and thereby economically weaken an existing US commercial enterprise. Thanks, Matt
Matt:My career at NIST was spent trying to help US business be competitive in the global marketplace through the development of needed measurement science, technologies, and standards. I understand completely the climate in which your friend is pressing our case. I was frequently called upon to present sound arguments for our work in these terms, once, even, before Ronald Reagan's new budget director, David Stockman. I never knew I could sweat so much.
Being completely divorced from US business interests now, I can't begin to make a case for them. However, I like the phrases "helping with US education" and "advancing level of US technology".
Consider two trends:1) already 20 years ago, an American business could say "Following the introduction of CAD-NC systems, APT became less and less popular, even though it was still acknowledged that certain categories of parts can only be programmed using APT. Most companies simply elected not to design those categories of complex piece-parts that were not supported by their CAD-NC systems." [Houlihan Manufacturing Systems, 1991 https://cours.etsmtl.ca/sys856/Documents/Acetates/Hiver_2012/Article_APT.pdf]
2) over the past 20 years, American industry has developed increasingly sophisticated multi-axis CNC machinery; machinery which at the same time is increasingly difficult to program up to its potential.
It seems to me a convincing (because it's true, at least so far as I know) case could be made that were advanced APT code resurrected, cleaned up, made usable, and put in the hands of research groups in mechanical engineering departments, there's a good chance that new ways to program these advanced CNC machines could be developed. History shows strong uptake by industry of emerging tools that were developed in university labs, including the first take-up by the US airplane and aerospace industries of APT from MIT.
Unfortunately, fluid circumstances at home leave me unable to contribute more than the thought. Someone else will have to turn it into a proposal for NASA.
Regards, Kent
