Slashdot Mirror
Controlling Space Satellites
Cainxinth writes "The New Scientist reports secure internet servers will blast-off into space for the first time on Thursday with a mission to get as beat up as possible. If the specially-toughened chips survive, they should allow future internet users to control satellites from their desktop." Sparc chips - interesting concept.
Tell me what makes you so afraid
Of all those people you say you hate
The telescope should have fail-safe processes on board to prevent such a thing.
Hubble has them.
Would data stored on board an orbiting server be subject to the jurisdiction of an earthbound nation?
Sincerely,
Vergil
Insects and Grafitti Photos
Bumper sticker: "This is MY Iridium satellite. I nudged it to this orbit fair and square. Iridium abandoned it, and I claimed it. Go find your own bird."
RE: The New Scientist reports secure internet servers will blast-off into space for the first time on Thursday with a mission to get as beat up as possible.
Which means, paradoxically, that because we're expecting to see damage, etc. there will be absolutely no mishap at all that will cause any damage whatsoever to the test machines.
Contrast that with other recent space experiments: the effort through ruthlessly rugged engineering to produce an aborted mission caused by an inability to standardise measurements in metric, the effort through ruthlessly rugged engineering to produce a probe we subsequently lost somewhere around Mars (was it?), never mind the ruthless engineering that went into producing space-worthy O rings on the Space Shuttle...
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Right--the original poster was asking if the sat could be shut down, and the answer is that the sat is pretty much outside of all governmental control once it's in orbit, short of overt acts of war. :) I'm not disputing that parties involved in maritime traffic who are within national borders or territorial waters can't be held accountable under the law.
Of course, I could be misremembering what the original question was.
they should allow future internet users to control satellites from their desktop
"It's already done."
I just saw Enemy Of The State... the NSA was tracking Will Smith and Gene Hackman with desktop controlled satellites. So this technology is already available.
Now, if only I could get a hold of the Supercomputer technology from Superman III -- you know, where Richard Pryor gets his MCSE and then hacks the payroll system and then builds the world's most powerful computer...
Tweet, tweet.
it might have been a little more than 2 feet...one of my friends told me there was no way it would break...so..being the curious person i was...i dropped it. (it was no good anyways.) and it shattered. I was gonna make a keychain from it...i wasn't all that happy with him. his nick is mattH if you want to flame him for me. :)
The anti-salmon
Specifically, these aren't servers - they're testbeds using two Sun Sparc chips among dozens of other devices. All the devices are being evaluated for their tolerance to space radiation. Sure, these chips are used as server CPUs, but they're also useful in avionics and instrumentation. I wager they'll see much more use in the latter two roles.
It would have made an equally interesting and much more truthful article if the author had dug just a little deeper and described how challenging it is to make rad-hard electronics - how tiny details of IC layout can make a device susceptible to low levels of radiation... how the different types of radiation occur in different orbits... the different damage mechanisms for these different radation types... about the South Atlantic Anomaly... how the continuous spectrum of natural radiation is nearly impossible to reproduce in the laboratory, making this the only way to test materials, devices, and surfaces.
I can see the fnords!
A hack that would allow an earth orbiting satellite to somehow collide with the sun would be the mother of all hacks. Not only would the satellite's security system be violated, but so would known physical laws of the universe. Sounds cool!
Also, if someone managed to collide the satellite into the Sun using this super hack, the only outcome would be that the satellite would be destroyed (actually it would burn up long before it ever got close enough to actually collide with the Sun). Its not going to make the Sun supernova and kill us all or anything sci-fi-stupid like that.
However, trying to get an peace officer of one of these countries to arrest someone in the Clarke orbit may be another story.
If I recall correctly, a UN treaty gives equatorial countries certain payments in return for the use of geosynchronous orbits that inhabit their airspace.
*whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"
As far as a satellite is concerned, it doesn't matter if the commands it is issued come from a machine on a TCP/IP-based LAN in a satellite operator's headquaters connected to a satellite dish, or a machine connected to the wider net. What having a SPARC chip on the satellite has to do with things I *really* don't know.
As far as the operators of satellites are concerned, when a satellite costs millions of dollars, do you seriously think that they're going to let Joe Sixpack send direct orders to a satellite and run the risk of crackers getting into their systems - even if they build a strong-crypto buzzword-compliant secure system, and all orders are sanity-checked by software. When you consider the cost of a satellite and the cost of a technician, it's pretty damn cheap to have a human process requests for usage of satellite resources and let that technician issue the appropriate orders to the satellite.
In any case, I'm appalled that such a crappy article could make it into what I believed was a reasonably reputable magazine. Is it a case of mindlessly regurgitating a press release, or a truly clueless journalist? Either way, the journalist and the section editor responsible should be shot at dawn.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Awesome idea.... demolition derby for satelites...
Sig??? I don't need no stinkin Sig!
Back in the fifties there was a lot of wrangling between the UN and the US about such, and the moon was specifically declared international territory.
Folks around the world thought it was plenty funny, until we actually went there.
*whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"
A good place to look would be the American Society of International Law. I read a while back that they had opinions about how to legally arrest extraterrestrials.
*whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"
Finally, the first step to bring Orbital Lasers to the masses. I've always dreamt of a site that would (perhaps even for a modest fee) allow you to scorch random parts of the world. Maybe laser control could be regulated in a way similar to the moderation system on this site.
This is a joke, right?
I mean, there are just so many smart-assed comments one could make about this, but the statement itself is enough...
Internet users are amused by the dancing hamsters and fake nude celebrity pics -- controlling orbiting space stuff is a BAD IDEA.
---
seumas.com
Actually...almost the opposite I would think...the temperature in the sunlight up there is probably pretty rough, and to top it off there is no atmosphere to carry heat away. We use air or liquid cooling here on earth...what happens when there's no air or liquid to move the heat to?
Telerobotics over the Internet, especially Space telerobotics, is one of the cooler things being done online (it sure beats yet another porn server). Now, though this system doesn't yet allow telerobotic control of satellites, they do leave open the possibility for future flights. Survival Research Labs (www.srl.org) has already on several occasions opened up control of their various dangerous robots to Internet users, at some performances and installations, and it was a lot of fun for all involved. Controlling satellites would be at least as fun - not necessarily giving us control of their thrusters, but cameras and sample-collection arms would be cool.
E-commerce payments for custom satellite photos, though, opens up a whole new realm of spy technology for the business and consumer markets. Just think, punch in your credit card # and take a picture of that neighbor's yard that's all closed-in by a tall fence... Or your competitor's shipping depot... or whatever... Of course, geeks like us will instead (or also) want to buy custom picture of our favorite astronomical body - but I wonder which type of photos they were referring to in the announcement... hmmm...
Finally, I wonder... why aren't they testing a SETI@Home-like system where the satellite collects whatever data it collects, and users download processing software from a NASA ground station, receive data over the on-satellite server, process it and then... either send it to the ground station, or, in some applications, results could be sent back to the satellite and fed into software running on board that determines the satellite's next actions if the user's machine has uploaded some results which impact the task being carried out... THAT would be cool... SETI@Home-type work with real-time feedback loops with the satellites collecting the data... "Hey satellite, we think we found something, look more closely here..."
o/~ we are pissed, we are pissed, we have to resist... o/~ - ec8or
Space falls under maritime law; any assignment of geosynch orbits to countries is purely voluntary on the part of the countries who agree to it. For an analogue, consider sea lanes; certain sea lanes have been traditionally used by one power or another, and other powers avoid those sea lanes (fishing areas, etc.) to prevent conflict. But if you want to sail those lanes, there's nothing in maritime law which says you can't.
Warning: I'm not an international law expert. (In fact, I've got doubts that international law even exists in a practical sense; if I'm right, then the entire argument is very moot.)
If you were ambitious, you could try is a variable linear accelerator, with gradient filters and attenuators - a very expensive setup. But you still are only going to be able to reproduce a relatively narrow region of the energy spectrum.
So the bottom line is, if you can get an inexpensive launch, it's actually cheaper to toss up a big, well-instrumented bundle of test articles than it is to build a test facility that can reproduce the space environment.
I can see the fnords!
The Defense Department's Space Command keeps track of all the objects orbiting the earth. The early warning system can tell the difference between a missile launch and junk reentering the atmosphere. It is very difficult to bring a satellite down on a specific location. Even if you could, the damage would be minimal.
Sorry, wrong.
Space practically has NO temperature. In order to have a temperature, there must be substance. It's a pretty hard vacuum up there, and there's little enough stuff floating around that it doesn't matter what temperature it is. Vacuum is a very, very good insulator, since the only way to get rid of heat is by radiation. So you actually have the opposite problem.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
I don't know if this is the same chip, but ESA was working on the design and production of a radiation hardened version of the SPARC.
If the "captain" of the "vessel" is ashore, you can bet your butt that they can prosecute.
Surface computers sending or receiving data to such a satellite would be the vulnerable point of inquiry. Unless your transmissions are laser-narrow, they'll be detected. If they suspect you already, they will confiscate what they need to pin the rest of the case.
As an analogy, consider a remote controlled boat packed with contraband. There's several potentially culpable parties: those caught where the contraband left port, those caught where the contraband arrived, and those who were ashore but responsible for the arrangement of said boat.
[
No one has yet build a facility that accurately represents the full spectrum of the space radiation environment. It would be nearly impossible, especially at the GeV particles at the far end of the spectrum - and you need those, both to test for SEE susceptiblity, and to accurately evaluate the effects of High-Z shielding, which can often cause more damage by showering the protected components with secondary radiation produced by ultra high energy flux.
And results obtained with accelerators and isotopes have to be analyzed to reveal the specific damage mechanism, and then those mechanisms modeled to predict what might happen in the space environment. This is by no means an exact science.
Typically, for components used in highly critical applications, like manned space, all three types of tests are done, typically in order of expense.
I can see the fnords!
In leiu of the visible light laser you could stick on an IR focused lamp that shows up REALLY nicely in all but the shittiest CCDs. Your night-vision goggles are going to pick up the lamp pretty well and gives you an advantage in a situation where you're better prepared than said opponent.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Just ask Australia.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
You just wait until *I'm* put in charge of a nuclear death ray satellite. Momma would be so proud.
If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.
Probes ARE reprogrammable, the problem with the Mars probe that ate atmosphere was a miscalculation of an orbital trajectory. Having a server you could update to wouldn't solve shit if your math is wrong. An internet server on a decive with a very small range communication channel would be stupid. That sort of extra overhead wastes valuable processor cycles that could be better used for telemetry or fine motor control. Why would you need to "open-source" analytical readings? A few letters and what-not and you can get access to lots of information from various probes over the past 50 years for "independant analysis".
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
I was not saying that the full spectrum is represented during an accelerator measurement, but it can be adequately simulated. Many years of measurements have been pretty successfully validated.
Depending upon the particles you are talking about, you can certainly get GeV energies...try going to GANIL, GSI, NSCL...true they are not GeV/amu, but you get 200 MeV/amu...which is pretty good.
In terms of the high Z shielding, I would assume that you are talking about proton shielding? Typically High Z materials are used to shield out electrons. Heavy Ions cut through material like butter because they are so high energy (the same reason we see GCRs on Earth).
Proton recoils from high-Z materials do not have much range, so many of them stop in the metallization layers above the device or quickly in the device, not providing enough electron hole pairs to accomplish much.
You are right that it is not an EXACT science, but it is pretty close. Typically a measurement for a device would consist of the following:
- Cross section versus energy measurements at a proton accelerator(s). It might be Crocker Nuclear Laboratory or Indiana University Cycltron Facility or Paul Scherrer Institute.
- Proton total dose measurements at the same proton accelerators.
- Cross section versus LET measurements at a heavy ion facility. It might be Brookhaven National Labs, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Texas A&M, National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory, GANIL or GSI.
With these measurement results, it is not difficult to make a pretty good assessment of the space environment response.
This does depend on a couple key issues though:
1) You have people making the measurements that know what they are doing. I can't tell you how important this is.
2) The utilization of the device is pretty close to the space application.
3) You don't cheap out. For instance, many people like to use Alpha sources to make a quick and dirty measurement...this is essentially useless in many instances. The range of the particles is short, there is an LET distribution...just plain bad. Also, people like to use Cobalt 60 gammas to make their total dose measurements; there are a number of devices where this will just not work: optocouplers, LEDs, solar cells etc that experience displacement damage effects and other devices where the reasons are not so clear...but the impact is quite clear. You must make measurements with the best simulation possible: if you are flying at LEO, then make proton measurement, if you are flying at MEO, then electron measurments (for total dose) may make more sense. While electrons and gammas are similar in many respects, there have been instances where deviations between electron and gamma response have been observed.
Many people think 500 to 2000 an hour is expensive for the accelerator time, but they don't realize how expensive it would be if that critical component fails in space at a cost of $100s of millions of dollars.
I guess the bottom line issue I had with your post are as follows:
- Most radiation effects testing should NOT be done with isotopes and I like to think is not...the true numbers are anyone's guess because no one knows what measurements everyone in the area is making.
- The second point is that it is not true that putting a space experiment up is cheaper or better. In terms of cost, a design and launch is very expensive; you would be lucky to get a trivial space experiment up on a satellite for under $100K.
Also, they do NOT necessarily provide a good measurement. The sample size is very small (typically 1 or 2). The space environment conditions are very poorly known on a short time scale, so to be useful the mission must be for a long time (5 to 10 years, in which time the technology becomes out dated). You can make the conditions better known by putting dosimeters and particle detectors on board, but that raises the cost significantly. Finally, you will only know the results for one type of environment (in the case of STRV, a GTO/HEO type orbit). These results will not provide much use in terms of a LEO type orbit (the first or second most common type of orbit).
The best use of a space experiment like this (and this is what STRV is somewhat about) is to make dosimetry and particle detector measurements (the (S)REM instrument is on board, I don't remember about the CREDO particle detector) in space in real-time with observations of device performance, and ALSO make ground measurements. This allows us to improve the modelling of these effects from ground measurements. This is not cheap, but it does advance the state of the art somewhat if done correctly.
MPTB tried to do this, but really the results have been less than spectacular so far. The data is not as freely available as it was supposed to be and many of the researches are not looking at the data correctly. The data from the ELDRS experiment is a good example of that. The experiment was essentially a failure because it failed to prove ELDRS either way.
If you are interested in continuing this discussion, you can email me at tempacc99@hotmail.com
The artical says it has a one year mission. I wonder how long it will last. History of satalites suggests either a 20 years (Pinoner or voyger anyone?), or a couple weeks. Barring liftoff disasters of course. Of course being in earth orbit does intorduce some drag, but even still many things have been in space longer then their designed mission.
Tell me what makes you so afraid
Of all those people you say you hate
Instead of PK'ing people's avatars in a massively multiplayer game you'd get to destroy real satellites from the comfort of your home! Sure it'd probably cost more than $10 a month, but watching the fruits of your work streak through the upper atmosphere makes every penny worth it.
The line for this starts behind me....
Midwatch Industries
- comm layers (CCSDS and a new jointly developed protocol for TT+C)
- lots of sensor, battery, and PV technologies
- and of course the rad-hard SPARC
This is a great way to work on risk reduction for the next generation of cheapsats. Bravo!
Great! This is just fabulous.
With internet servers going up in satellites, the next thing you know, the earth's orbit will be clouded with porn servers.
I launched a pc-104 with a wireless modem and solar cells, streaming Elton John's "Rocket Man."
I got a cease-and-desist order from the RIAA branch on Mars, but Iridium went belly up before I could fight the jurisdictional issues in court.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.