Slashdot Mirror


The Search for Secret Shuttle Parts

Slashdot readers have been submitting this story about the search for secret shuttle parts with all sorts of insane conspiracy theories attached to their cut & paste of the URL. It's apparently just the box that handled encryption for messages, so of course Uncle Sam wants it back. Quite the needle in a haystack tho.

45 of 375 comments (clear)

  1. Of course they want it back! by funkman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If its for encryption, it probably uses the same technology/techniques that the DOD uses and probably also has military secrets which shoudln't "fall into the wrong hands".

    Spy novelists are salivating right now with such story line.

    1. Re:Of course they want it back! by KludgeGrrl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If its for encryption...

      and if not??? Seriously, should we assume that NASA is being honest about what exactly they are searching for? Without resorting to conspiracy theories, would it make sense for the agency to publicize the specific thing that is missing?

      As soon as the shuttle went down and they started posting messages warning people not to even get near anything that might be from the shuttle, I wondered whether it was indeed due to toxins from the fuel system (which is, I believe what they claimed) or rather something else -- not necessarily anything very sinister, mind you, just run of the mill disinformation.

      Of course, we'll never know. But it sure is fun to speculate!

    2. Re:Of course they want it back! by Rolo+Tomasi · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Dunno ... shouldn't they rely on an inherently secure system, instead of security through obscurity? If so, the encryption wouldn't be compromised by publicizing the encryption hardware. Maybe they'd have to change the keys in related devices, but that's about it.

      Why are they encrypting the messages anyway? I thought the missions were public, and AFAIK, hams have been listening to radio communication between the ISS and the ground for a long time.

      --
      Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
    3. Re:Of course they want it back! by glesga_kiss · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Why are they encrypting the messages anyway?

      Since the loss of Challenger, the shuttle has not carried any commercial payloads. It's all military and other government agencies, so they'd want to use secure comms to get those things set up.

      Also, they'd want to be able to restrict who has access to the remote telemetry feeds and possibly even any kind of remote control systems they have. The last thing NASA wants is for a l33t hax0r to deploy the landing gear while still in orbit! Good encrytion will play a large part in this.

    4. Re:Of course they want it back! by glesga_kiss · · Score: 4, Insightful
      something else -- not necessarily anything very sinister, mind you, just run of the mill disinformation.

      I noticed at the time that the news agencies were making a big deal of the toxins and that people shouldn't touch anything. Then a few days later it was followed up by reports of people in hospital, in a very "we told you so" attitude.

      The chances are though, while there were some pretty nasty chemicals on board, all they wanted to do was to keep the parts in as good a condition as possible. They will be rebuilding and analysing the parts to get as much information on what happened. Let's face it, the main objective of investigations will be to prevent a similar disaster happening again. Good luck to them, I hope they figure it out.

    5. Re:Of course they want it back! by funkman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Obscurity is still a great way to increase security. If the "bad guys" can't even see or hold what we have - that is one layer extra they have to overcome to compromise the system.

      Changing keys in devices is not a trivial ordeal - you need physical transports to every device needing rekeyed. It's time consuming and opens the door for other temporary exploits.

      Obscurity is a good tool but never never never should it be the primary gatekeeper in keeping something secure.

      As for the need for encrypted communication - I am sure there are controls in place that actions to be performed by to the shuttle by NASA on the ground. Wouldn't that be a nice thing to have encrypted and authenticated?

    6. Re:Of course they want it back! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As a former operator of US Army stellite terminals for a special weapons (nuke) unit, I can say positively that the keys get changed *EVERY DAY* at 2400Z. We changed the keys on the satcom unit, the secure phones, the handheld terminal and the EAM stuff every day.

      BTW, the bad guys don't need the hardware to break the messages. During WWII and since, tons of encryption schemes have been broken by math alone. Of course, having the harware to reverse engineer makes the math a lot simpler.

    7. Re:Of course they want it back! by Turbyne · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I don't believe the toxic rocket fuel line. Here's why:
      1. The tanks were nearly empty. This was at an _END_ of a mission. Granted there may have been reserves on board, but what needed to be used was used. The main engines were dry, and what was left was purely maneuvering fuel.
      2. The percentage of the total mass of the shuttle that the fuel occupied is very small. Most of what feel were structural components.
      3. Considering the number of pieces the Columbia broke into, it doesn't seem likely that any of the tanks survived intact, aka sealed.
      4. Heat. IIRC, the shuttle broke up at Mach 18. It turned into a fireball that streaked through the sky. It is logical to assume that much of the fuel had burned away (or chemically changed) once it contacted the plasma around the vehicle.
      5. Wind. Skydivers jumping from 10,000 feet (2 miles) experience wind above 100 mph. The shuttle hit the atmosphere at supersonic speeds. Any remaining liquid would likely evaporate during the fall. Even if the liquid boils at 500C, the speeds at which the components were traveling would create dynamic pressures so low that any liquid in contact with the boundary layers would evapaorate. In short, liquids traveling at that speed would cavitate. Simpler reason: the liquid would blow off.
      6. IIRC, the shuttle broke up 20 miles above the earth. According to standard atmospheric tables, the air pressure would be 0.32" Hg, 1% of that at sea level. Lower air pressure makes it easier for liquids to evaporate.

      My .02
      --
      ~A'Ëq'i4d)^'$ÊSÈòB
  2. eBay? by BibelBiber · · Score: 5, Funny

    Before you start searching the ground start looking on eBay. Maybe its easier to find stuff there....

  3. Secret Government Property???????? by rot26 · · Score: 4, Funny

    You have to be kidding.

    Secret Government Property?

    They should have disguised it as an 8-track tape player.

    --



    To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    1. Re:Secret Government Property???????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      Disguise?

      It is an 8-track tape player.

    2. Re:Secret Government Property???????? by pr0nbot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Secret Government Property? They should have disguised it as an 8-track tape player.

      Or a copy of Daikatana...

    3. Re:Secret Government Property???????? by scotay · · Score: 4, Funny

      Labels that could keep their secrets unread and unviewed forever:

      Contains The Text of the USA Patriot Act.

      Beaches II: Bette is back.

      Star Trek: Nemesis Collectors Edition.

  4. Bring out the conspiracies. by brejc8 · · Score: 4, Funny

    It was bound to happen. It allways takes a week or so before the theories start popping up.
    Anyway I think it was the Aliens with the Communists conspiering to destroy the Anti-terror pact by exposing that the space shuttle doesnt go into space ata all and instead just flies around the place.

  5. The danger here by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I imagine that what the government is worried about is someone using this device to impersonate shuttle control from the ground. A terrorist's dream...if the shuttle ever flies again, that is.

    1. Re:The danger here by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Interesting
      it's not like there are space thieves who'll come break into the ISS to steal valuables

      I dunno, they're parked in a pretty bad neighbourhood. They might come back to find the ISS stripped and up on blocks.

      And what if the Chinese invoke international (sea) laws about salvage? (Damned unlikely, but eventually we're going to see a lot more law in space.)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  6. Question by damiam · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If the government doens't know of any flaws in AES, Blowfish, RSA, etc., then why would they bother using a "top secret" crypto box instead of just the publicly available algorithms?

    --
    It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    1. Re:Question by Zeinfeld · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If the government doens't know of any flaws in AES, Blowfish, RSA, etc., then why would they bother using a "top secret" crypto box instead of just the publicly available algorithms?

      The box is most likely an Identify Friend Or Foe box. Any encryption of actual data would be handled by the applications sending it.

      IFOF boxes are standard on all military vehicles. The shuttle is a military vehicle as defined by the relevant treaties as it has been used to launch military satelites. It would carry an IFOF box in any case as a matter of course since there is a sizable probability it might end up comming down in non-US airspace.

      One of the alleged features of IFOF is the ability to identify itself to other 'friendly' airborne objects and avoid an attack. For example a passing stinger missile obtained from Uncle Sam by way of the Taleban.

      It is unlikely such a box would have an amazingly complex crypto system. After all you don't want your stinger missile to be doing DH calculations before deciding whether to explode. So there could be some real importance there.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    2. Re:Question by Zeinfeld · · Score: 3, Informative
      Ummm... I thought that a stinger missile uses only infrared guidence [howstuffworks.com].

      The use infrared guidance to find the target. They may use IFOF to identify non-tagets.

      I can't find any authoritative source like Jane's that lists this capability. However the idea of denying ordinance to the enemy has been known for years. The term 'spiking his guns' refers to the practice of carrying soft copper nails into battle to drive into the touchports of any captured weapons to stop them being used against them if the tide of battle turns again. Alternatively they might be used to prevent weapons that are about to be lost being turned against them (a less likely occurrence since the guns would usually be aimed in the wrong direction).

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  7. What?? by sharkey · · Score: 4, Funny
    CmdrTaco wrote:

    Slashdot readers have been submitting this story about the search for secret shuttle parts with all sorts of insane conspiracy theories attached to their cut & paste of the URL. It's apparently just the box that handled encryption for messages...

    A Slashdot editor actually READ a submitted article, and posted comments that seem reasonable and logically thought out?

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  8. Doesn't sound that big a deal by DrXym · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Any system that requires the encryption system to be secret can't be that much good. I can understand why they want to find it, but worst case is they switch over to another system of which the US must have dozens of suitable candidates.

  9. you would think that... by g4dget · · Score: 4, Interesting

    people would have learned by now that putting "Secret Government Property" on a box is not a good idea. Write "Spectrographic Differential Analyzer" on it and everybody will just think that it's a really boring and useless piece of scientific equipment and leave it alone.

    1. Re:you would think that... by Rip!ey · · Score: 3, Funny

      You would think that people would have learned by now that putting "Secret Government Property" on a box is not a good idea. Write "Spectrographic Differential Analyzer" on it and everybody will just think that it's a really boring and useless piece of scientific equipment and leave it alone.

      Either that or a /. geek would find it and immediately start pulling it apart to see how it worked. Then they would *never* get it back.

    2. Re:you would think that... by Rorschach1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey, we've got tons of 'Secret Government Property' at work... but a spectrographic differential analyzer, THAT's something I could use in my garage.

  10. "Secret Government Property" by twoallbeefpatties · · Score: 5, Funny

    And of course, there's no better way to keep people from being interested in opening a little black box than to write "Secret Government Property" on the faceplate.

    --
    Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
  11. Insane Conspiracies? Hardly! by Drunken+Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    NASA has put forth numerous lies about the space program, such as spreading the idea that the "Moon": is not a ridiculous liberal myth.

    It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)

    Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.

    Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!

    Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.

    I don't believe a word spewed from the mouths of those bureacrats.

    --
    Have you been stalked by Seth today?
  12. This is a little discouraging..... by MrByte420 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you have a box and it performs encryption, then in this day and age the security of future transmissions on this box (oh say, to keep terrorist froming saying "Ok shuttle, now lets fly into the sun") should not be reliant on the security of the box itself! This is the same failed tatic that took out the Germans in World War II and DECSS; its security by obscurity. A combonation of public key cryptography to exchange symetric keys to do quick 3DES should be more than adequate for the lenghth of time that the shuttle mission is over and hence time to choose a new key!

    --
    If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
    1. Re:This is a little discouraging..... by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Interesting
      If you have a box and it performs encryption, then in this day and age the security of future transmissions on this box (oh say, to keep terrorist froming saying "Ok shuttle, now lets fly into the sun") should not be reliant on the security of the box itself! This is the same failed tatic that took out the Germans in World War II and DECSS; its security by obscurity.

      That is pure dogma. The biggest enemy of security is dogma in place of thought.

      The Germans had good reason to use security through obscurity. At the time there were NO ciphers available that were not vulnerable to analysis. It would not have taken an insane amount of additional computing power to break the allied codes. They were only slightly better by modern standards.

      The enigma codes were broken in part because the Allies captured several enigma machines and code books. But the Germans knew that it was likely that this would happen. The Enigma system had been designed to be resistant to such attacks. It failed because it had one non obvious flwa - a letter never encrybecpted to itself and the operators were indisciplined.

      The reason that security through obscurity is bad is it leads to complacency. But it is not the only way people can become complacent. As recently as 1992 I was arguing with UNIX sysadmins on comp.sys.computing that shaddow passowrds were necessary for UNIX since crack etc. were a real threat. Oh no came the reply you are ignorant, you don't understand, you are promoting security through obscurity.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  13. box explained... by pelvismaximus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ok, the veil of secrecy is off - it's a black-box text conversion device. To encrypt communications, it takes the first letter of the word, moves it to the end of the word, and adds an "ay". This type of encryption is also going to be replacing CSS for DVD's, so there's a lot of money being poured into finding it now. ;) Shhhh....

  14. rush? by dlockamy · · Score: 4, Funny

    wow i didn't know rush limbaugh read slashdot

  15. That's it! by SuperDuG · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's not that the Columbia exploded over Texas and the world lost Seven extremeley talented scientists. It was a conspiracy to further the 1980's star wars program.

    Sometimes I think people need to realize that even with all the "straight-talk" and analyzation ther were seven people burned alive that didn't do anything wrong except want to explore the unknown and make strives for science. These seven people were family members, friends, teachers, and of a rare breed of astronaut who had joined the handful before them to enter space. Many have been lost in the name of science and discovery, but to assume that maybe they're lives were lost in vain would be to me one of the worst things ever.

    Take a step back, realize what's being said and move on, they're collecting the wreckage because someone or a whole lot of someones are going to be losing their jobs because of this. NASA does everything right, and this was something done wrong. For every scientist in NASA there are thousands at the door ready to take their place and for every astronaut there are thousands ready to take their place. NASA is the home of the eleet and the best of the best, failure or mistakes are not taken lightly.

    --
    Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
  16. Russians Can Help, But Can't Sustain ISS Alone by reallocate · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No "escape pods" are attached to ISS. One Soyuz craft, capable of ferrying down 3 people, is docked at the station. Russia is obligated to swap out that Souz every 6 months.

    Russia also uses their unmanned Progress craft to send up small amounts of supplies on a regular basis, and to remove some of the station's waste. The craft then burns up on re-entry.

    Using the Russian craft effectively limits the station's capabilities. Since the Soyuz is the only way to get the crew off the station in an emergency, that means no more than 3 people can be onboard, which is about one-half the intended crew complement, I believe. Fewer people means fewer results.

    The cargo-capacity of Progress, only a small fraction of the Shuttle's, is simply insufficient to resupply the station in the long term.

    And, of course, remember that tthe station is not yet complete. Only the Shuttle can do that job.

    Don't forget that the Shuttle's intended design was crippled by the Nixon Administration's budget crew and that, ever since, the U.S. has been operating a human space flight program that manages to combine lack of direction (no President since Kennedy has provided even an ounce of space leadership) with rigidity and feigned purpose.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    1. Re:Russians Can Help, But Can't Sustain ISS Alone by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The essential issue with the Shuttle is that it has no real mission. Just try to answer this question: Where is the shuttle supposed to go?

      The notion of creating cheaper, safer ways to get into orbit is, of course, a no-brainer. Would you want to create more expensive, dangerous paths to orbit?


      If I understand correctly, a few factors made the shuttle look like a good idea when the program was intiated:
      • It was supposed to be cheaper than disposable boosters.

        In principle, this seems reasonable, as you don't have to throw away the investment made in building the craft. In hindsight, we know that the added complexity and maintenance requirements overwhelmed this advantage, but this wasn't necessarily obvious going into the project. People evidently still believe that the goal is attainable, as proposals for reusable craft are regularly floated.

      • Facility cost was supposed to be much lower.

        The cost of the support facilities for the shuttle are amortized over the shuttle launches taking place. At the original proposed launch frequency - on the order of once a week or more, if I recall correctly - the impact on payload cost of paying for the launch and maintenance facilities would have been much lower.

        Unfortunately, this required a craft reliable and easily maintained enough to launch on a weekly basis, and enough people willing to pay for shuttle payloads to launch at that frequency.

      • The shuttle is very useful for moving humans to and from orbit, and letting them do things there.

        I've heard allegations that this was originally supposed to be the shuttle's only job. It's a craft that can go just about anywhere in low orbit, match courses with stations or satellites, transfer crew, perform repairs, retrieve malfunctioning satellintes, and so forth. As a cargo vehicle, it's horrible, but in other respects it's a very flexible and potentially useful craft.

        Of course, its usefulness assumes that there are enough satellites and space stations to require regular shuttle service.

      • It showed technological superiority over the USSR.

        In the political climate of the time, this was important and could be argued to have enough political effect to make it worthwhile to pursue regardless of other merits.


      In short, I think the shuttle falls into the "it seemed like a good idea at the time" category. Assumptions that were made turned out not to hold, and costs turned out to be much higher than expected. Thus, the craft we're now stuck with.

      Space travel is about going someplace. Someone needs to pick a destination for NASA.

      I'm not sure about this. The goal of the manned space program also involves establishing human presence in space. This goal is best accomplished by building more facilities in the areas we can reach easily and know a lot about, as opposed to sending humans to every object we can find. Exploration is a goal too; however, it's not the only goal, and manned expeditions are arguably less useful for this aspect.

      Anything science-related is most efficiently performed by unmanned devices. If we're sending people into space, it's for other reasons than science ("because we think it's cool" is, in my opinion, a valid reason).
  17. Well DUH! by nlinecomputers · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Lets see the space shuttle was designed in part to ferry secret military sats to space. Of course it has an secret equimpment on board.

    What is really funny is that people were surprised that the government reacted so harshly to items appearing on E-bay. And people were suprised when the Men in Black(R) show up demanding the items back.

    --
    Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
  18. Re:NASA blew it up!!! by rand.srand() · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You mean the range safety system? Sorry, well documented.

    The NSDs provide the spark to ignite the CDF, which in turn ignites the LSC for shuttle vehicle destruction. The safe and arm device provides mechanical isolation between the NSDs and the CDF before launch and during the SRB separation sequence.

    The mechanism is installed in the SRB's and the ET. Once away, there is no destruct capability documented. And why document one, but not another?

  19. Re:Insane Conspiracies? Hardly! by publicdomain · · Score: 5, Funny

    Score: (-1, Plagiarism)

    --

    J
  20. "Secret Government" Property? by Theaetetus · · Score: 3, Funny
    That's how I parsed it... Do we have a secret government, and if so, are we required to pay secret taxes this year?

    -T

  21. Some crypto-algorithm details are classified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The ciphers fall into three types. Type 1 are the most classified, details not known. Has ciphers such as BATON, JUNIPER, MAYFLY, CRAYON. Type 2 falls in between, contains stuff like KEA and SKIPJACK, some details known (for instance SKIPJACK is now declassified). Type 3 contains all the rest, roughly Why some of the ciphers are secret is because their design will indirectly reveal ways to attack the ciphers (naturally the ciphers have been designed to resist such attacks). Such ways to attack are known by the designers of the classified ciphers (that means the NSA) but possibly not by the academia. For example, DES was resistant to a form of attack not known previously outside NSA (possibly other intelligence agencies too who use the Echelon walk-around to go around legal restrictions when spying on their own citizens (this means you are country A, you spy inside country B and give the results to the spooks of country A). So having secret ciphers is a matter of protecting the "intellectual property" of the spooks.

    There could also be other technical innovations, as the module is likely made tamperproof. If somebody has more information (or pointers) about the aforementioned classified ciphers, please post it here.

    As for why the shuttle communications are encrypted, could it be because there's some things going on in there you don't want people to know (not ETs but like designing chemical weapons reagents and watching certain countries).

  22. Re:Remember... Finders Keepers... NOT. by Dave+Goldblatt · · Score: 4, Informative
    Let me guess: you're not a lawyer, but play one on TV? The laws of salvage do not apply. In fact, according to the relevant U.N. treaty

    Article VIII

    A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body. Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party to the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish identifying data prior to their return.

    Plus the applicable U.S. code

    "Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or..."

    NASA has never relinquished control of the spacecraft, in case you hadn't noticed.

    I am not a lawyer, nor do I suffer fools lightly...

  23. Re:Remember... Finders Keepers... by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While it is a crash investigation and it is illegal to withhold what you know, if this top secret piece of decryption hardware fell on your lawn, you legal own it as it is on your property and you have salvaged it.

    Uh, no. You are totally wrong. It's either your property or it isn't -- it's irrelevent if something happens to land on your lawn. If I accidently drop my hedging shears over the fence to my neighbor, it doesn't automatically belong to my neighbor.

    Also note that it's NOT necessarily legal for you to keep something that you find that someone else lost. It's particularly illegal for you to keep stolen goods (like bank robber drops the bag of money and you grab it).

    Also contrary to popular belief, if a package is misdelivered to you, you are NOT entitled to keep it. On the other hand, if someone sends you something without your authorization and then bills you, then generally you are allowed to keep it.

    Local details may vary, of course.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  24. What if the parts wouldn't have fallen to the USA? by tsvk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I suppose it's a good thing for the US government that the crash happened on home territory. When landing, the shuttle passes first over a great deal of sea (Pacific Ocean) and then lots of US soil.

    Imagine a scenario where the geographical circumstances would not be so favourable and the parts of the shuttle would have fallen and crashed into another (perhaps less friendly) country. Would the US kidly ask for the debris to be returned, or would they engage into a secret undercover recovery operation in order to retrieve these top secret components?

    What if this operation would have to be so extensive, that it could not be held secret? To what lengths do you think the US government would go in order to re-acquire the parts?

  25. Re:Remember... Finders Keepers... by zollman · · Score: 4, Informative

    18 USC 641 disagrees with you. That's what you'll be charged with if you keep Shuttle pieces, as The Smoking Gun has cheerfully shown us in the cases of Merrie Hipp and Bradley Gaudet.

    You'll note there's no exception in there for "salvaging" it from your front yard. If it says "U.S. Government Property" on it, I suggest you return it -- but IANAL, so you're free to disregard my advice.

  26. Similar situation with Intelsat 708 by Rorschach1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The launch failure of Intelsat 708 in China a few years back raised some concerns about crypto material falling into the 'wrong hands'. Seriously, you don't need any sinister motives for hunting down classified material... the paperwork alone from its loss would probably be more trouble than a massive ground search. =]

    Here's an excerpt from the Intelsat 708 investigation that might shed some light on the subject.

    The Intelsat 708 Encryption Boards Were Never Recovered

    The Intelsat 708 satellite carried two FAC-3R encryption boards, one in each of its command processor units. These boards are considered Controlled Cryptographic Items by the Department of Defense, and the algorithm is classified "Secret."

    Encryption boards are used to protect the command and control links between the ground station and satellite. They are required even on satellites that carry unclassified U.S. Government communications traffic. These devices do not encrypt the communications traffic that is otherwise processed by the satellite payload.373

    Shortly after the Intelsat 708 launch failure, Loral's Communications Security custodian reported to the Department of Defense that the status of the encryption boards was being changed to "destroyed."

    This was not seen as unusual by Department of Defense, however, because its prescribed policy requires that encryption boards be reported as "destroyed" when they are launched into orbit.

    The Department of Defense did not require Loral to produce any evidence that the FAC-3R boards were in fact destroyed.374

    After recovering debris from the crash site, Loral engineers grossly estimated the percentages of various subsystems and components that had been recovered.375 In that estimate, Loral engineer Muhammad Wahdy estimated that 30% of the command processors were recovered.376 Loral personnel then packaged the debris and shipped it to Palo Alto, where engineers examined the debris to specifically determine if the encryption boards were recovered.377

    That examination determined that the FAC-3R boards were not, in fact, recovered from the crash site.378

    The two FAC-3R encryption boards used on the Intelsat 708 satellite were mounted near the hydrazine propellant tanks and most likely were destroyed in the explosion. Additionally, the two FAC-3R boards had no distinguishing markings other than a serial number, making it extremely difficult to locate them amongst the crash debris.379

    It is not known, however, whether the FAC-3R boards were recovered by the PRC. If they were, it would be difficult for the PRC to determine the cryptographic algorithm that was imprinted on them.

    Reverse-engineering of a damaged board would be even more difficult. Any successful reverse-engineering would be resource intensive for the PRC.

    If the PRC were able to determine the cryptographic algorithm contained on the FAC-3R board, it would gain insight into the state of the U.S. military in the 1960s, although such algorithms remain in use today.380

    When the National Security Agency designs and recommends algorithms for use in equipment, it assumes that the equipment will be lost or compromised sometime during its operational lifetime. The National Security Agency relies on unique cryptographic keys for each separate satellite to keep command and control links secure. Because the FAC-3R boards on Intelsat 708 were uniquely keyed, the National Security Agency remains convinced that there is no risk to other satellite systems, now or in the future, resulting from having not recovering the FAC-3R boards from the PRC.381

  27. Re:Addendum by Rorschach1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't see how most of that is a problem... it's covered pretty clearly in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. But then, I haven't read the book. (Yeah, practical concerns like getting out without a ladder are certainly an issue, though!)

    You can read the text of the treaty at http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/outersptxt.h tm - the relevant part is Article V:

    States Parties to the Treaty shall regard astronauts as envoys of mankind in outer space and shall render to them all possible assistance in the event of accident, distress, or emergency landing on the territory of another State Party or on the high seas. When astronauts make such a landing, they shall be safely and promptly returned to the State of registry of their space vehicle.

    In carrying on activities in outer space and on celestial bodies, the astronauts of one State Party shall render all possible assistance to the astronauts of other States Parties.

    States Parties to the Treaty shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the Treaty or the Secretary-General of the United Nations of any phenomena they discover in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, which could constitute a danger to the life or health of astronauts.

  28. Not UFO's, but flakes of metal in the air filter by @madeus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was watching the incident which lead directly to the withdrawal of publicly accessible 24 live (non encrypted or artificially delayed) audio visual broadcasts from space - I used to have a constant feed streaming where I worked and at home (as I also had a permanent connection at home too).

    If you'd actually seen the broadcast you'd know it had nothing to do with UFO's or 'Space debris being pushed around by thrusters' as you put it (this is related to an entirely different reported incident and has nothing to do with why they cancelled some of the live a/v feeds, it didn't even happen at the same time). Additionally, the concern astronauts expressed about the space debris was not that it might be a UFO, but rather it might be part of the ISS or the shuttle which was, to them, of much more immediate concern.

    I remember the actual incident quite vividly and it had everything to do with dust and small particles, some of which were suspected to be metallic by the crew, being pushed around by the air filters on board the ISS - as it was this which lead to complaints from the crew.

    Needless to say, the crew were not happy about this situation - particularly as a complaint regarding this issue had already been made, yet it had been seen to be ignored by mission control. NASA ground control attempted to disregard the importance of the complaint, they even seemed to doubt it's credibility (I hypothesise that in such an incident some ground staff may have downgraded the severity of the complaint in the own minds and put down to the perception of an understandable crankiness of a crew living in close, cramped quarters for months at a time).

    It was the appearance of disharmony and complaints from the crew which lead to the decision not to have 24 hour 'live' streaming as it was decided that this was not in the best interests of NASA, or the ISS, from a public relations perspective.

    In their defence, the crew on board the ISS had been wound up even further as the communications to the ground kept breaking up and cutting out due to interference, which forced them to have to keep repeating their report. They also had other on going issues which give them cause for complaint, but I don't remember what they were.

    Personally I do not think they were being particularly cranky - certainly I'd expect to see much more negative retoric in an office environment over issues considerably less trivial than small flakes of metal in the air conditioning, but I can only assume that NASA feels the significance of the project demands a greater sense of sensitivity that most work environments. Overall, I think the withdrawal of the video on these grounds was a mistake, as it has hurt NASA and ISS public relations rather than helped (due the relative triviality of the incident).

    Of course there may be other reasons which lead to the cutting of the a/v feed, but this was the incident and reason cited by NASA at the time...

    * IIRC this happend in the first half of 2000, but I could be wrong about that as I often find I get time periods mixed up.