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.

30 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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

  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.

  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/
  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. 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.

  9. "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.
  10. 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?
  11. 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....

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

    wow i didn't know rush limbaugh read slashdot

  13. 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/
  14. 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
  15. 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).
  16. Re:Insane Conspiracies? Hardly! by publicdomain · · Score: 5, Funny

    Score: (-1, Plagiarism)

    --

    J
  17. 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...

  18. 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.
  19. 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?

  20. 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.

  21. 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