Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Delays, Torpedos, Revitalization
The (cryptographic) wheels of government grind slowly. JOEL-V writes: "In August 2000, the United States Patent Office issued patent #6097812 to the National Security Agency, for 'Cryptographic System.' The patent application was filed in the year 1933, and this invention and patent are actually one version of the famous Enigma machine."
On a similar note, Paul Maud'Dib writes: "The Slashdot crew might be interested in checking out Enigmatic. They have java emulators for the Purple, Sigaba, Enigma, Russian Espionage Cipher and a public domain Bombe. They also have rather lucid descriptions of the various systems used. Interesting reads all."
That which does not kill him makes him stronger. You may recall that some maladjusted script kiddies threw a spanner in the works of the excellent kuro5hin a little while ago. Emmett told you more about the attack and its aftermath shortly thereafter. Looks like it's time for the (all volunteer, cool-content, graphically appealing) kuro5hin to emerge from a quick breather.
pope nihil writes: "kuro5hin.org has an update on their page. things should be back up (according to the update) by Sept 15 or so. check it out." Yes, Go there! Congratulations, guys.
88 bottles of bits on the wall, 88 bottles of bits ... NoWhere Man writes "The bankrupt Iridium venture has received another bid to save the wireless phone company's $5 billion satellite system from being pulled from space and destroyed. A California-based organization named CMC International is offering to pay $30 million to acquire Iridium's 88 satellites and other assets, according to a court filing submitted Friday."
It certainly would be nice if someone could eke out (even a meager) connection from Iridium rather than incinerating the satellites in the atmosphere, but honestly, the Will Burn / Will Fly status of these birds flip-flops enough to put a politician to shame. I'd like them to stay up, if only not to spook other folks from putting data-bouncing satellites up for our browsing pleasure.
In a nutshell, this is the problem with carrying around cavitation weapons. aleclee writes "It now appears that the Kursk was indeed carrying cavitation weapons and that she was sunk by a misfiring rocket. Supposedly, the rocket/torpedo can travel at 200 knots! Details can be found here."
Update: any port in a storm, and this one sounds nice. Patrick Ryan wrote: " Hello, I wanted you to know that CDSA [as mentioned in this slashdot story] has been updated at Intel and now includes a Linux port." Visit http://developer.intel.com/ial/security/ for more information about CDSA, and then the download site for your free-downloading pleasure.
The facts about this case (from sources that all have something to hide)
1) The Kursk didn't have any nukes on board.
This is damn rare. The only time you don't have a nuke sub armed is if you think it might sink in your backyard. Things like inital testing and say testing a new weapon that your not sure about.
2) New stuff tends to be added to flagships first. This sub was the about the same as the US Navy sees the USS Enterprise, its a flagship being the first in its class. The flag ship also tends to play with all the cool new stuff. (Enterprise, Bismark, Titanic). Its amazing how many didn't work out so well.
3) The Russian Navy was hunting for another sub in the area. It had been spotted a short distance from the Kursk just after the accident. There were 3 US subs in the area according to the US Navy.
4) The Russian goverment as well as the US goverment only did the rescue thing in a half assed PR way. I think the US govt knew there was no one alive very quicly. A sub a few hundred meters away can hear the water leaking into another sub. We heard reports about the morse code but what did they say? No one is talking. I suspect it was something like "compartments 1-4 full, leaks into 5,6,7. reactor locked down".
5) In a case where a sub is not going to come back up, the sub crew will distory all sensitve things. This includes codebooks and the like. They use termite which makes it very hard to breath.
6) Don't underestimate a sub crews willingness to go down with the ship. These people are selected for that ability. Its very difficult to find someone smart enough to understand a sub and be willing to die for a patrotic cause at the drop of the hat.
This is damn rare. The only time you don't have a nuke sub armed is if you think it might sink in your backyard. Things like inital testing and say testing a new weapon that your not sure about.
Sorry no. At least on the American side. SALT and SALT II made the existence of "tactical" nuclear weapons on fast attack submarines a thing of the past. I know I was there when we had to take them off our fast attacks.
I don't ever remember hearing whether Kursk was a fast attack or a ballistic missile sub. If it was a ballistic missile then yes it is rare. That's what the damned things are built for.
But please don't run around telling people that all subs carry nuclear weapons. There's enough FUD out there about submarines as it is.
They use termite which makes it very hard to breath
Yuri! release the termite! Da, must eat wooden book before Amerikanski come. Ohhh... the termite is eating, it's farting, I can't breath.
OK, I know, you meant thermite, but it still made me chuckle when I saw it.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
First off, the Kursk was a flight II Oscar (NATO-designation) SSGN. Check Jane's for more info. In other words, it was the same type of submarine as later-mode US Los Angeles and UK Trafalgar submarines. It was an ANTI-SHIP submarine. The Oscars Don't Carry Nuclear Missiles. Although technically possible, both SALT I and SALT II forbid nuclear weapons on attack submarine cruise missiles, and generally frowed on nuclear ASW weapons such as SUBROC (this was an area of contention, but both sides generally didn't carry anti-submarine nukes).
Secondly, how reliable is the Sunday Times for stuff like this? They might be better than the Times-Mirror, but then again, I don't exactly trust people like CNN and CBS to get it right either. Smells like a reporter is making this a sensationalist story from nothing.
Another technical detail here: there were two explosions: one of about 100kg TNT force, and one about 15 times stronger 2:15 later. The first is in line with an explosion of a torpedo propeller propulsion system or a compressed-air torpedo launch system (or collision, or whatever). The second is in line with either a rocket motor or warhead cook off. A couple of things to think about:
By far the most likely scenario to date is a malfunctioned torpedo launch (regardless of what type of torpedo) which blew out the torp tube and either started a fire in the forward torpedo room or short-circuited a bunch of stuff that led to either a warhead cookoff or rocket fuel explosion in one of the SS-N-19s.
While testing a new cavitation torpedo might be the immediate cause, I wouldn't point to them as being the general problem until a lot more info comes to light (which is unlikely until they raise the Kursk, and probably not even then). Indeed, if what Jane's and others are saying, it could easily have been a bad launch system itself, and whether shooting a Cav Torp, SS-N-16, or torpedo wouldn't make a difference.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
'"The weapon is very clever; it uses propellers to boost it out of the sub, then a rocket kicks in at a safe distance, burning liquid propellant," said one British expert.'
Clever? sounds like a Roadrunner cartoon to me...
AdFuel
Actually, the USN is in the process of converting four SSBN-726 class subs to SSGNs (Specifically, I believe it's USS Ohio, USS Michigan, USS Florida and USS Georgia). They will replace their Trident missile tubes with cluster lauchers that carry 5 Tomahawk Anti-Ship or Land-Attack missiles. This will make them ideal for offensive operations agains enemy surface forces or shore targets. Although this has typically been the role of the Ticonderoga-class cruiser (CG-47) and the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (DDG-51), subs like these could remain on station for months at a time without logistic support, providing a strong tactical deterrent. In the event of war, they could defend themselves against enemy fast attacks (or other SSBN/SSGN-type subs like the Oscar-II) using Mk48 ADCAP torpedoes, and beach assaults would be augmented by the Zumwalt-class (DD-21) land-attack stealth destroyer.
If violence isn't solving your problems, you're not using enough of it. - MAJ Misato Katsuragi
end comment */
(end comment) */ }
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
I think it reasonable to assume that a torpedo striking a sub from outside would sink it; that's what they are designed to do. An outside explosion has lots to interfere with its mission: water pressure slowing down the explosion, gases dispersing in the ocean, cylindrical hull shape tending to resist the explosion.
In theory, a 100kg warhead might be enough to generally sink a Soviet sub. In reality, it has been long-recognized that the 100kg warhead on the US Mark 46 LightWeight Torpedo is completely insufficient to sink a Soviet sub like the Oscar, unless you get lucking and get a stern hit which happens to pop the drive shaft seals. The multiple hull and equipment arrangement provides for quite a bit of "armor" protection. The standard US Mark 48 ADCAP torpedo used on US subs has a 150kg warhead which uses a shaped-charge director much like a HEAT round (in effect, producing a much larger explosive force) to get much better 1-shot-1-kill potential, but even then, the general feeling is that the first torp hit slows the sub down and makes it a sitting duck, then you pump an additional 1 or 2 into it to sink it.
Now imagine that same explosion inside the ship. Nice closed container (for a while :-), inside of a cylinder not resisting as well as the outside, no water to slow down the gases.
Assuming the explosion was in the torpedo tube after it had been loaded and armed (which is much more likely than while loading), the loaded torpedo tube is not really "inside" the sub. It's more like in a flooded airlock adjacent to the ship's hull. Yes, more destructive than hitting the outside of the double-hull, but nothing like an interior explosion.
Even inside, a lone (assuming no subsequent explosions) 100kg explosion in the forward torpedo room shouldn't sink the sub. It's not a big enough explosion to cause more than the first 2 (at most) compartments to flood, which comprise of about 25% of the total inside space. Oscars have a least 9, plus significant bouyancy tanks. Cripple the sub, yes. Cause it to loose the ability to surface, most likely not. Even wrecking the forward bow planes wouldn't be sufficient. The problem here would be time: the 2:15 between 1st and 2nd explosion really wouldn't be enough to regain control of the sub to start to surface.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
The Kursk was an SSGN, which means it's a Guided Missile submarine. Its function in life was not to destroy other submarines (attack boat) or to hide and launch ICBMs (ballistic missile boat, "boomer"), but rather to launch its SS-N-19 "Shipwreck" cruise missiles at American aircraft carriers. The USA does not operate SSGN's, due to the lack of a foreign carrier threat, which is probably why Americans have such a problem understanding that the Kursk was not a ballistic missile submarine. The SS-N-19 missiles don't have the range to reach targets deep within the USA like the ones on the Delta-III and IV do.
The patent office did not take 66 years to issue this (or any) patent. With a patent on an invention that is classified, patent is issued in the eyes of the patent office once that invention is declassified.
I'll assume this is RIAA propaganda pasted to slashdot, but WTH, I'll take first crack at debunking (sorry about the length):
;-).
>A typical music fan who buys a CD might use that CD at home, take that CD in the car, make a tape of that CD,
I thought the RIAA hated being able to "duplicate" music via taping. Doesn't seem right. And the idea of being able to use it in more than one place without licensing? Doesn't jive either.
>That's probably why most consumers, when asked, describe CDs as a good value.
Show me the proof.
>At the same time, when asked directly whether CDs cost too much, some consumers will say yes! Why the contradiction?
...Because your lame-ass biased study simply couldn't fudge the results enough to say otherwise legally? Again, not enough proof.
>While the RIAA does not collect information on the specific costs that make up the price of a CD
Must be hard to comment on the following then, huh?
>there are many factors that go into the overall cost of a CD -- and the plastic it's pressed on, is among the least significant.
But you just said you knew nothing! You say one thing then the other. Even the government has a hard time contradicting itself in the same paragraph.
>Of course, the most important component of a CD is the artist's effort in developing that music.
Very wholeheartedly agreed.
>Artists receive royalties on each recording, which vary according to their contract, and the songwriter gets royalties too.
I don't know about you, but don't most bands write their own songs nowadays? It isn't like you go to the dime shop, buy some lyrics, and put music to them, right? So that's half that price gone.
>In addition, the label incurs additional costs in finding and signing new artists.
...And if they didn't do that they wouldn't be a label. They would be bankrupt. Face it: Labels MAKE their money with signed artists, so why complain?
>Once an artist or group has songs composed, they must then go into the studio and begin recording. The costs of recording this work, including recording studio fees, studio musicians, sound engineers, producers and others, all must be recovered by the cost of the CD.
Sure, I have no problem with that. Lets say this is real expensive, $100,000. Now a lot of albums that cost that amount sell 1,000,000 copies (albums that sell less aren't likely to have authors that can or labels willing to foot a big bill). That's $0.10 per copy.
>Then come marketing and promotion costs -- perhaps the most expensive part of the music business today.
You mean being played at NO cost on the radio isn't enough? You mean you have to advertise like everyone else? Holy s**t! Can you imagine the horror? That must be why my RadioShack phone cost $20... without that advertising it would be like $1 right? (no... advertising really shouldn't be the LARGEST concern in price [I would hope])
>For every album released in a given year, a marketing strategy was developed to make that album stand out among the other releases that hit the market that year. Art must be designed for the CD box, and promotional materials (posters, store displays and music videos) developed and produced.
Uhh, like again, no s**t. Without a "gimmick" you can't advertise. That's the way it works. Don't whine about it.
>For many artists, a costly concert tour is essential to promote their recordings.
From what I hear this is where most artists MAKE their money. Costly? Only for the people buying the tickets. If you aren't making enough to cover the cost of the concert, charge more. That's how everyone else works.
>Another factor commonly overlooked in assessing CD prices is to assume that all CDs are equally profitable. In fact, the vast majority is never profitable.
Again, agreed. That's how other things work, and have worked for years (books, magazines, movies come to mind). Deal with it. Books have by providing a "cheap" way to get a book (paperback). Time to provide a cheap alternative to CDs: The internet (where box art doesn't cost so much
>Between 1983 and 1996, the average price of a CD fell by more than 40%.
I'm willing to bet the price of TVs has fallen a lot since 1940 too. Too bad no one had a TV in 1940 [and therefore they were a speciality item, costing $$$], and no one I knew had a CD player until *I* got one in 1988 (or so). Since 1988 the price at my local shops has increased by about 50%.
>If CD prices had risen at the same rate as consumer prices over this period, the average retail price of a CD in 1996 would have been $33.86 instead of $12.75.
Are you telling me that the $0.75 cokes in the vending machine cost $0.25 in 1983? According to my records the price index is NOT just under 3x 1983 prices.
And if you can find me a more then 20 CDs at a local shoppe for $12.75 in 1996 (hell, or even now) then I'll show you a liar.
>While the price of CDs has fallen, the amount of music provided on a typical CD has increased substantially...
Yes, now they offer 80 Min. CDs because of higher laser tolerances. This extra 6 minutes over a 74 Min. CD is "substantial". What would the amount of music you can put on a DVD equal? Would you even have a word for it?
>...along with higher quality in terms of fidelity...
You mean my CDs now have 24 bits resolution than 16, or they now sample at 52 kHz rather than 44.1 kHz? Change in fidelity == change in standard != the same old CD format. An out and out lie.
>...durability,...
Yes, now CDs are manufactured properly and don't get laser rot. Otherwise I wonder where the difference is (they have always been made from polycarbonate, right?). Thank you for making them properly. If you are charging me more for a working product, then you are screwing me over.
>...ease of use...
A total complete out and out amazingly STUPID lie. How has ease of use improved? The CD format has remained unchanged. To make it "easier" you would have to change the format, making it not work with CD players. ie: You don't have a CD.
(And if you think that you can get away with saying players are easier to use because of the RIAA, well, show me an RIAA brand CD player).
>...and range of choices, including multi-media material, such as music videos, interviews and discographies.
Wait up a minute here. When CDs were first produced there was less room for "cover" art and no "sleeve" art. Now you have a cheap way to fit these back in (as digital data on the CD) and you think that means you can charge MORE?
>Content of this type often requires considerable production expense and adds a whole new dimension that goes beyond conventional audio.
Yep. That's what I said. Use the extra room on the CD like you would the sleeve for the records you always used to make so "cheaply".
>In contrast, CD prices are low compared to other forms of entertainment and one of the few entertainment units to decrease in price...
Decrease in price? Over what period? Since their inception or in the last decade?
>...even though production, marketing and distribution costs have increased.
Life's a bitch, huh? Looks like you have everything against you. Consumers to buy your product. People who make it for you. Radio stations to play it for you. And then they go and slap this "inflation" tax deal on ya. What a bummer. I feel for ya.
Quoted from USA Today (are they still in business? I don't live in the US): "consumers don't seem to balk at the rising price of fun in this strong, family-friendly economy."
Sounds like something one might say during the Regan or Bush administration. What is the date of this mystery article anyways? And what person wrote it?
>The prices of other forms of entertainment have risen, on average, more rapidly than has music or consumer prices, with most admission prices for other forms of entertainment having increased more than 90% between 1983 and 1996.
You mean movie theaters? Yeah, they are a rip off. But they are STILL cheaper than a CD. And movies cost a hell of a lot more to make than a CD, and are a hell of a lot more likely to fail (In my B movie experience).
>By all measures, when you consider how long people have the music and how often they can go back and get "re-entertained" CDs truly are an incredible value for the money.
Can't agree. Proof? You have none, did I hear? Too bad.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
I recommend the St Petersburg Submarine Club
.Why contribute?
EVEN A FEW BUCKS CAN HELP (shouting intended)
I'm not asking all the impoverished students etc reading this to contribute: but if even one person from Silicon valley can give 1 hour's pay, it would measureably help. Russia's a 3rd world county, even a single buck can go a long way.
Why this bunch?
It's composed of former Russki Submariners, who can be expected to know who's most in need.
It's genuine - at least 1 Australian reporter has actually visited them. No Maffya, No Bureaucracy.
These guys, on pitiful pensions, have already given what they can to transport the Kursk families to Severmorsk - sort of like getting people from Tucson, Philadelphia and Portland to Norfolk.
e-mail from them follows. After some thought, I've not included their e-mail address. Anyone interested in it can e-mail me at mailto:aebrain@dynamite.com.au.
Sorry, I just have visions of some clueless script kiddie spamming or DOSing them on a whim. At least this way, they'd have to do 10 seconds of research beforehand.
Zoe Brain - Rocket Scientist
Correspondent bank:
BANK OF NEW YORK
SWIFT: IRVT US 3N
Beneficiary bank:
INKASBANK, ST. PETERSBURG
SWIFT: INKS RU 2 P
ACCOUNT: 890-0260-963
Beneficiary: 40703840200029000028
SUBMARINERS CLUB,
SAINT PETERSBURG LINIA 9, 50, V.O.
ST. PETERSBURG
(DONATION TO THE KURSK CREW FAMILIES - DOBROVOLNIY BEZVOZMEZDNIY VZNOS NA BLAGOTVORITELNIE TSELY, PRODAZE NE PODLEZIT)
Zoe Brain - Rocket Scientist
With ill-considered technology patents. If the one-click patent hadn't been granted until 2066...
Steven E. Ehrbar
The number of full-length CDs manufacturers shipped to the U.S. market is at an all-time high, growing 6.0% from this time last year, totaling an impressive 420 million units in just the first six months of 2000. ...Moreover, market momentum continues to climb as the dollar value of CD product grew 9.9% from this time last year to nearly $5.7 billion which suggests once again, that consumer demand for music in the form of a CD remains the mainstay.
Shipments of singles in all formats dropped sharply in the first half of 2000 as speculation over competing music sources continues to swirl. Singles shipments dropped 45.2% from 41.5 million units in midyear 1999 to 22.7 million in '00. Dollar value of singles shipments went from $165.5 million in midyear 1999 to $93.3 million this year.
By the way, you can contribute to a fund for the families of the crew at the Russian Embassy. Some of these folks scraped together the cash to pay for milk-run train tickets to get to the Kursk's home port, while Putin was on vacation. Only now are the authorities trying to help out, but in Russia as well private charity seems to be taking over where the bureaucrats can't seem to do the right thing.
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
A torpedo that moves by wiggling?l
My mind must be fried, because that statement struck me as absolutely hysterical. I guess the mental picture was too much for me.
Anyway, I found this article that was actualy linked to by Slashdot a while back.
www.newscientist.com/features/features_224813.htm
pretty cool stuff!
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
Just think what it must be like to be a Sony PR droid right now.... all that goodwill you built with the AIBO going down the drain.
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
I found it a little humorous that they made that comment about the Americans being hush-hush about it. If it's true that they do have a cavitation weapon of that nature (even money on that I figure) then the Americans are probably scared shitless and adopting their normal "Uh.. we can neither confirm nor deny any knowledge about the existence of that sort of weapon being owned by us or the Russians." (Did that sound bitter?) And of course the Russians aren't going to admit to having one. They may not be the Soviet Union anymore but old habits die hard. Plus there's no one else in the ocean to play with. =)
I seriously doubt it was a collision. The only ones who'd have an observation sub in the area would be the Americans. And having known a few sub captains, paranoid bunch that they are, I'm sure they stayed well away from everything.
I for one mourn the loss of the crew of the Kursk. Crewing a submarine is not easy and I respect anyone that can tough it out. Especially knowing that the consequences are like what happened.