Slashdot Mirror


The Tech Aboard the International Space Station

CNETNate writes "With its own file server for uploaded Hollywood blockbusters, a 10Mbps Internet connection to Earth, and around a hundred IBM ThinkPad notebooks, the consumer technology aboard the $150 billion International Space Station is impressive. It's the responsibility of just two guys to maintain the uptime of the Space Station's IT, and they have given CNET an in-depth interview to explain what tech's aboard, how it works, and whether Windows viruses are a threat to the astronauts. In a related feature, the Space Station's internal network (which operates over bandwidth of just 1Mbps) and its connected array of Lenovo notebooks is explained, along with the tech we could see in the future."

183 comments

  1. Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the very long run, after we colonize Mars and possibly the Moon, latency issues will become even more severe. It will be interesting to see whether we will simply give them separate networks or have those networks as part of the internet. If the second occurs, we may need new protocols to deal with the large latency and related issues.

    1. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Obviously just "separate" networks bridged by a few high-speed high-latency links. Exactly like how continents are done now.

    2. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by 2.7182 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Colonize? I think you mean conquer, and enslave the troglodites populations to mine dilithium for our fast than light ships. Hopefully we'll be able to genetically modify navigators for them. Or find some handsome young captains to fly around and defeat gods.

    3. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by DarkFencer · · Score: 5, Funny

      In the very long run, after we colonize Mars and possibly the Moon, latency issues will become even more severe. It will be interesting to see whether we will simply give them separate networks or have those networks as part of the internet. If the second occurs, we may need new protocols to deal with the large latency and related issues.

      We already have networks with latency comparable to round trip Earth/Mars connections. Its called Time Warner Cable.

    4. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by JustOK · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    5. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      except that the "high-latency" networks now are really not that high-latency. When we go to Mars, the latency will be several minutes at best.

    6. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by jank1887 · · Score: 1

      hmmmm... so, what would the 'cost' of spam sent to mars be? and how easy would it be to DoS that single, high latency link?

    7. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Presumably, they'll be connected with ansibles...

    8. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by nicc777 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I suppose they will have some kind of near earth orbit satellite that act as a gateway and it will have firewalls, IDS etc. to offer some protection for the obvious attacks. So the network traffic from this point onward to mars (and beyond) should be largely legit. Then again - I DoS myself sometimes with "legit" traffic in some crazy experiment :-)

      --
      Need an ISP in South Africa?
    9. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The delay in sending or receiving data from Mars takes between three-and-a-half to 20 minutes at the speed of light. "

        How are they coming up with that? I thought it was closer to 90 minutes...

    10. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by srussia · · Score: 1

      In the very long run, after we colonize Mars and possibly the Moon, latency issues will become even more severe. It will be interesting to see whether we will simply give them separate networks or have those networks as part of the internet. If the second occurs, we may need new protocols to deal with the large latency and related issues.

      Quantum entanglement, baby!

      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
    11. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      This is why we need Wormhole tech, even a Wormhole a few microns wide that connects between earth and mars would be able to transmit Trillions of bytes per second if utilized properly....

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    12. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by sayno2quat · · Score: 1

      We are a lot closer to mars than to the sun, and it only takes 8 minutes or so for light to travel from the sun to us (if I remember my 4th grade science correctly).

      --
      Sure I sold you robot insurance. But you were attacked by a cyborg. Not covered.
    13. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by Score+Whore · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's going to vary since both Earth and Mars orbit the Sun. The closest distance is around 55 million km. The furthest is around 400 million km. At 55 Mkm, it's about 3 minutes. At 400 Mkm it's about 22 minutes.

    14. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by Meumeu · · Score: 1

      "The delay in sending or receiving data from Mars takes between three-and-a-half to 20 minutes at the speed of light. "

      How are they coming up with that? I thought it was closer to 90 minutes...

      I may be wrong, but I think they divided the minimum and the maximum distance between the Earth and Mars by the speed of light...

    15. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by TrippTDF · · Score: 1

      We could do something like send a data center pre-loaded with, say, Wikipedia and the content of lots of popular sites pre-loaded, and then when it's possible, that massive server could get the latest news from Earth... not unlike how my iPhone updates with the latest news from the New York Times... it's just that we're sending a lot of static content that won't need to be changed very frequently.

    16. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by nizo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Using it to transport water, food, and air quickly and cheaply would be nice too.

    17. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by 4181 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I thought it was closer to 90 minutes...

      With a martian 1.666 AU x 1.381 AU orbit, and our own slight eccentricity, we could simplistically expect a separation of between 0.365 and 2.682 AU, so with 499 light-seconds in an AU we'd get 182 to 1338 seconds (3:02 to 22:18).

      Funny, but I recall having heard 90 minutes as well (in the form of news reports discussing the time it would take for reports of successful probe landings to be radioed back), but with a speed limit of 7.2 AU/hr, Jupiter is never even an hour away. 90 minutes is about right for worse case Saturn, so perhaps it was the Huygens landing that stuck in my mind.

    18. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by lennier · · Score: 1

      Which we'll answer with our mandibles.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    19. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except most continents are connected via fiber which isn't that high latency. There's one that only has a connection via geosynchronous satellites, which probably more latency than the shuttle has and Slashdot works just fine from here.

    20. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 1

      Indeed. A quick google search on the distance from earth to mars puts it between 3 and 23 light-minutes, depending on their location in their orbits. This ignores something like a huge EM emitter in between the two named Sol. Without a (fragile and expensive) array of lower-ping satellites in between, that puts the roundtime on a single SYN/ACK at six to fourty-five minutes, to say nothing of error correction. With the satellites, you could probably at least send a single http fetch request all at once and simply come back in an hour or so to get the results.

      Most likely, any content in high demand would be mirrored on either side of the split and updated at invervals, and the rest either wouldn't be available or would be batch-downloaded. Probably won't be much in the way of logins across that boundary, however. Server side scripting will also be right out. This will of course rule out a lot of interesting places, but... oh well. Maybe someone on the other side will open a pay service to mirror the site internals and send diffs back and forth to keep the databases updated.

      This is all assuming that there is a large colony on, say, mars. If it's a few people, they'll just beam the porn internet content that they ask for in batches, to be cached locally. They probably won't have access to, say, Digg or Stumbleupon or Facebook or anything, unless it's cherrypicked pretty well.

    21. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

      Or they could use teleportation. By the time we are able to colonize Mars, I'm presuming we will have this technology under better control.

    22. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by InsurrctionConsltant · · Score: 2, Informative

      The distance from Earth to Mars varies between 3 and 22 light minutes.

    23. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by Tynin · · Score: 1

      My understanding of our tests of entangled pairs have shown that they propagate at the speed of light. You'd still have the ~3 to ~20 min delay in communications with Mars.

    24. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by ArthurDA · · Score: 1

      I'll bite... What continent?

    25. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by Tacticus.v1 · · Score: 1

      Antartica most probably
      i don't think there is any fibre down there yet (though iirc the french were looking at running some to Dumont d'Urville)

    26. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by ezzzD55J · · Score: 1

      Except most continents are connected via fiber which isn't that high latency.

      It's not the medium, it's the distance.

    27. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by DarthBart · · Score: 1

      No, there's no fiber down there. And even geosynchronous satellite coverage is spotty. McMurdo is the only place far enough from the pole so the regular geosync birds are actually above the horizon. Satellite communication to the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station is via the TDRSS birds in their inclined geosync orbit, meaning they're only reachable for a certain amount of time during the day.

    28. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by drizek · · Score: 1

      They can have Marvin the Martian as their new mascot.

    29. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by Matrix14 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I saw a very interesting talk by Vint Cerf a while back. Apparently he is working with NASA to write the protocols that will be used for the interplanetary Internet.

    30. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      The distance from Earth to Mars varies between 3 and 22 light minutes.

      Odd. If I remember correctly (I was at JPL on the day of the landing) the figure quoted was 40 minutes one-way light time for the distance from Viking1 to DSN receiver at the moment of landing. That was back in 1976, but I don't think the laws of physics have changed that much, and I believe radio signals still travel at the speed of light. And certain numbers do stand out in your memory.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    31. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Rather than speculate about whether you're likely to have remembered accurately, you could look up the maximum distance from earth to mars, which is around 250 million miles, which is 22 light minutes.

    32. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 1

      Apart from when Mars is behind the sun relative the Earth, in which case it would be further away.

    33. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by srussia · · Score: 1

      My understanding of our tests of entangled pairs have shown that they propagate at the speed of light. You'd still have the ~3 to ~20 min delay in communications with Mars.

      Bummer. Interesting line of work though, congratulations.

      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
    34. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by Monty_Lovering · · Score: 1

      Er . . I think if you spent a moment thinking about it you'd realise the 40 seconds was the rough round trip delay.

    35. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by carvalhao · · Score: 1
    36. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quantum entanglement, baby!

      I am the Eschaton. I am not your God.
      I am descended from you, and exist in your future.
      Thou shalt not violate causality within my historic light cone. Or else.

    37. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by FreeFull · · Score: 1

      All you need is a spinning ring of neutronium

      --
      No ascii art.
    38. Re:Issues with such networks generalize to Mars by RESPAWN · · Score: 1

      Colonize? I think you mean conquer, and enslave the troglodites populations to mine dilithium for our fast than light ships. Hopefully we'll be able to genetically modify navigators for them. Or find some handsome young captains to fly around and defeat gods. /me Still mourns for Adonis

      --

      If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

  2. One server? by skgrey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "One of the T61ps is a server, making it a client/server network with a couple of routers and an Ethernet backbone.."

    You're telling me that with over a hundred machines up there that they have a single point of failure for their domain architecture? And it's a laptop? Hey NASA, ever hear of high-availability?

    Granted they probably don't use that many domain resources, but you'd think if they were going to use any specific kind of tech that they would make sure it was redundant. You'd think with how much they spent for this space-station that they'd make an appropriate IT purchase..

    1. Re:One server? by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They'll probably just dosconnect the failed one and plug in another one. Remember the costs per kilo of getting payload into orbit. IMHO, using only laptops makes common sense.

      --
      I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
    2. Re:One server? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the better question is why they have a hundred laptops for a crew of 3-6 max.

    3. Re:One server? by FlyingBishop · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The article doesn't really talk about the evolution of the network over the life of the station. I'd suspect they have all those laptops for the hard disks, since I imagine they're doing a variety of possibly data-intensive experiments up there that can't deal with the latency getting to a hard drive on the ground and back.

      Obviously, they could use external hard drives, but probably couldn't justify a standalone disk without a fully functional PC.

    4. Re:One server? by swanzilla · · Score: 2, Funny

      the better question is why they have a hundred laptops for a crew of 3-6 max.

      One Tang spill could render several laptops useless. Perhaps this is a redundancy measure.

    5. Re:One server? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NAS ? RAIDed 2.5" drive bay enclosure ?

    6. Re:One server? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For the mass of a NAS, you can have an entire notebook. More functionality out of the latter, so that would be preferred.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    7. Re:One server? by Korin43 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe a combination or redundancy and price/power ratio? When you're sending something in to space the weight is more important the price, so it may cost them similar amounts to send up 100 laptops vs 1 huge server, but it's also a lot harder to break 100 laptops and much easier to "fix" a laptop if you have 100 spares (leave the old one in a pile and replace it when you land). One factor might be that laptops are already designed to be light, while weight isn't really a factor for most servers (so they'd have to design their own). Laptops are also designed to deal with bumps, so they may survive re-entry better.

    8. Re:One server? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the better question is why they have a hundred laptops for a crew of 3-6 max.

      3-6 crew maybe, but hundreds of experiments. I think just about every one of the experiment racks has a laptop controlling it these days.

    9. Re:One server? by sayno2quat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except it would 'spill' into a sphere, floating slowly toward the laptop. But you're right in that it would still ruin the computer.

      --
      Sure I sold you robot insurance. But you were attacked by a cyborg. Not covered.
    10. Re:One server? by toopok4k3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Take a look at this video. The Thinkpads are scattered across the whole space station. And as you can see they are pretty much mounted on racks doing something specific.

      By the way, am I the only one thinking the ISS seems to be pretty huge?

  3. The Martian Chronicles by Hybrid-brain · · Score: 0

    Seems a lot closer now then it did before.

    --
    Five words describe me on a normal day. two words describe me the rest of the time. can you guess?
  4. Interesting thought by InMSWeAntitrust · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The max ground distance for unamplified WiFi is about 200km. The ISS orbits between 340 and 350km, therefore I say we all point our collective WiFi antennae up and try and see the first person to connect up to their network. Of course, you'd only have about 90 minutes of access as I recall; the ISS orbits too fast for much more access time.

    1. Re:Interesting thought by sakdoctor · · Score: 2, Funny

      Imagine a Beowulf satellite constellation of those.

    2. Re:Interesting thought by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

      So is there a network of geosynchronous satellites that provides its 10 mbps link to the ground?

    3. Re:Interesting thought by vlm · · Score: 1

      Of course, you'd only have about 90 minutes of access as I recall; the ISS orbits too fast for much more access time.

      The orbit is about 91 minutes long.. An ideal ground track is only a couple minutes... talk to the ham radio folks whom use a couple watts to a voice FM signal on an external antenna. The wifi is much faster (needs higher SNR) and has an inside antenna and have a zilionth of a watt, so unlikely.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:Interesting thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TDRSS can operate in the 100s of Mbps in raw data (not IP)

    5. Re:Interesting thought by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Informative

      OK you get two points for +1crazy. Point 1; the ISS completes an ENTIRE orbit in 90 minutes. That means that if you had an antenna pointed straight up, and say you used a moderate gain antenna with a 5 degree beam, you will get just over ONE minute of access before you need to adjust the antenna. You would need a pretty sophisticated ground tracking mechanism to have any hope of keeping the connection alive for more than a minute.

      On to 2. WiFi uses an ack timeout in the microsecond range. This means that for a typically configured transceiver, you are racing the speed of light with that timeout window. The practical limit happens to be around 20 miles, or 32 kilometers. Not quite enough to get you to the ISS.

      Good luck, though!

    6. Re:Interesting thought by vlm · · Score: 2, Informative

      So is there a network of geosynchronous satellites that provides its 10 mbps link to the ground?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracking_and_Data_Relay_Satellite_System

      Up to 48 megs. My guess is 10 megs came about because someone told a journalist, "its about as fast as old fashioned thinnet" whom thought to himself, thinnet is 10 megs, so the journalist says 10 megs.

      And/or there may be a critical link in the path that is, literally, a piece of thinnet coax, or an old fashioned 10 meg only cat5 cable, so the overall path cannot exceed 10 megs.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    7. Re:Interesting thought by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      TFA says that they get a portion of the bandwidth of a Ku-band satellite. If the TDRSS functions at 48Mbps, their 10Mbps is a reasonable fraction of it.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    8. Re:Interesting thought by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      ... I say we all point our collective WiFi antennae up and try and see the first person to connect up to their network. Of course, you'd only have about 90 minutes of access as I recall; the ISS orbits too fast for much more access time.

      It makes one orbit every 90 minutes, so the visibility from a ground station is a lot less than that!

      Maybe you meant 90 seconds? that's more like right.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    9. Re:Interesting thought by cababunga · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Point 1; the ISS completes an ENTIRE orbit in 90 minutes. That means that if you had an antenna pointed straight up, and say you used a moderate gain antenna with a 5 degree beam, you will get just over ONE minute of access before you need to adjust the antenna. You would need a pretty sophisticated ground tracking mechanism to have any hope of keeping the connection alive for more than a minute.

      That would be true if you looked at the orbit from the center of the Earth. From the surface your time window would be in the order of 10 seconds.

    10. Re:Interesting thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the very article you quoted, trying to sound like a badass

      The High Data Rate System transports data rates from 2 Mbit/s to 48 Mbit/s, for specialized missions requiring a high rate of data transfer.

      Therefore the 10Mbps (average?) might be right on, if that's what NASA is choosing to share for this mission.

    11. Re:Interesting thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ku down link for ISS currently operates at 150Mbps... the wiki article information is out of date, in fact a quick google around shows most of the ISS info regarding downlink is out of date. Majority of the down link tends to go to the video system. OCA was 6Mbps back when ISS down link was at 50Mbps (43 after overhead is removed).

  5. "a 10Mbps Internet connection to Earth" by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    With a LOT of lag.

    1. Re: "a 10Mbps Internet connection to Earth" by Talisman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nah, wouldn't be so bad.

      ISS orbits at between 278 km (173 mi) and 460 km (286 mi) from Earth.

      LEO (Low Earth Orbit) satellites orbit at about 400 km, and Geostationary sats orbit at 35,786 km over the equator.

      I'm connected to a GEO sat right now (I'm in the Gulf of Aden atm), and ping time is just under 800ms. Not great, admittedly, but really not bad.

      I imagine NASA keeps their pipe pretty full 24/7 and that might generate some lag, but at their altitude, they are probably getting 300ms ping times or better. It also depends on where your data goes once it hits the Earth station. We had a horrible bottleneck at Eik, Norway so we routed the data through Mirimar, Florida and it lopped off about 600ms from our ping time.

      I'm guessing NASA has a pretty sweet peering arrangement ;)

      --

      "Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
    2. Re: "a 10Mbps Internet connection to Earth" by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Well, Im sure it's better than I used to get playing Quake over a 56k modem.

    3. Re: "a 10Mbps Internet connection to Earth" by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Any lag on that connection probably has more to do with the fact that the ISS is travelling very fast, and less to do with the actual distance travelled. The station isn't *that* far away from us... video communication with it is low enough latency that most people wouldn't even notice the lag... it's not more than about half a second.

      What's really at issue, for ground-based transmitters, is that the station doesn't have line of sight full time. You can handle that with a geostationary sattelite relay to a network of sattelites, though, and some smart routing could send the packets to whichever sattelite has LoS with the station in order to rebroadcast it to the station. Given NASA's preference for doing things on the cheap, though, I think it's more likely that they'd use a protocol that allows for a databurst when you have line of sight, and queues transmits when you don't. Such a system is probably not unlike SMTP, when you think about it... servers try to transmit mail immediately, but if there's no connectivity they'll hang on to it in order to try again later when there is connectivity.

    4. Re: "a 10Mbps Internet connection to Earth" by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually I am sure that the ISS is using TDRS or it's replacment for their link. I would bet that the ISS has at least one geosynchronous bounce at all times.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re: "a 10Mbps Internet connection to Earth" by dotgain · · Score: 1

      In dial-up most of the latency comes from serialization delay, rather than propagation delay. You'd typically see very short RTT times on short pings, and much longer ones for larger packets. You could improve the situation by tuning you MTU down to about 500 (from about 1500) to cut your "lag". It depends on who you're calling, but the PSTN typically has When your latency comes from propagation delay, there's nowt you can do.

    6. Re: "a 10Mbps Internet connection to Earth" by Kjella · · Score: 1

      LEO (Low Earth Orbit) satellites orbit at about 400 km, and Geostationary sats orbit at 35,786 km over the equator.

      I'm connected to a GEO sat right now (I'm in the Gulf of Aden atm), and ping time is just under 800ms. Not great, admittedly, but really not bad.

      I imagine NASA keeps their pipe pretty full 24/7 and that might generate some lag, but at their altitude, they are probably getting 300ms ping times or better.

      If they're also using EM like radio and not bongo drums, the speed is exactly c. So assuming all other things alike, they'll have 118ms less lag than you, thus more like 650ms than 300ms.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re: "a 10Mbps Internet connection to Earth" by Truth+is+life · · Score: 1

      Nope, they use the TDRS satellites, which themselves are a partially-military program, to communicate with the ground.

    8. Re: "a 10Mbps Internet connection to Earth" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      We consistently get 650ms latencies on our satellite network hitting a Geo stationary satellite. I imagine with the proper setup they could see latencies as low as 150ms witch is very reasonable. Even with a 650ms latency you can barely tell the lag on a phone call

    9. Re: "a 10Mbps Internet connection to Earth" by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      PPP MTU usually defaults to something puny like 296. Only SLIP users ever really had to think about this that much. Quakeworld was great on a fast modem, a modem connection can have tolerably low latency.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. Hmm by Jeek+Elemental · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Crew members aboard the ISS can request specific films and TV shows to be uploaded to a central file server, which they can then watch on any of the Station's laptops."

    Space pirates!!

    1. Re:Hmm by sajuuk · · Score: 1

      I predict that the MAFIAA's next target shall be NASA.

    2. Re:Hmm by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


      "NASA, can you beam up Zombieland.2009.R5.ScENeGr0up.avi? That shitty TS is driving us nuts!"

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    3. Re:Hmm by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Informative

      Space pirates!!

      Not necessariily; they could be getting the movies with the MPAA studios' blessing. It's only "piracy" if the copyright holder doesn't give permission.

      I know, "woosh" and all that.

    4. Re:Hmm by dfxk · · Score: 2, Funny

      And we thought the dvdrips were coming from Russia.

    5. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no no no....it's pirates... In.... SPPPPPPAAAAAACCCCEEE

    6. Re:Hmm by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      Space pirates!!

      Fry: Space pirates?
      Leela: You know... pirates, but in space!

    7. Re:Hmm by pyr02k1 · · Score: 1

      Talk about going overboard with this offshore server buisness... Jeez

    8. Re:Hmm by lennier · · Score: 1

      Boskone has infiltrated to the core of our organisation! Where's Erisia's Lens we need it?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    9. Re:Hmm by bberens · · Score: 1

      I wonder if TPB could rent some rack space on the ISS.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    10. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical the only place the RIAA cant get you, is the place where you can get free legal movies.

  7. Why does it have to be a blockbuster? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

    > With its own file server for uploaded Hollywood blockbusters...

    Is that a mission requirement? If they upload a foreign film or "Ishtar" will the entire file system crash? Will they get in trouble if they watch "Dark Star"?

    1. Re:Why does it have to be a blockbuster? by khallow · · Score: 1

      If they upload "The Star Wars Holiday Special", LEO will be contaminated for decades.

    2. Re:Why does it have to be a blockbuster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that a mission requirement? If they upload a foreign film or "Ishtar" will the entire file system crash? Will they get in trouble if they watch "Dark Star"?

      Sadly, yes. You see Hollywood blockbusters, while not being good quality, are at least not grounds for war. War? With who you ask? The aliens who would receive the same signals.

      It's all part of the Tycho Treaty. Sections 9371-96854

  8. It's very sad by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's very sad, with the real high tech shit aboard the ISS, that consumer grade electronics are featured as 'the tech of ISS'.

    1. Re:It's very sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's radiation hardened consumer grade electronics you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:It's very sad by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      That's Slashdot for you. The CNet article is titled "Interview: The Space Station's IT guys".

    3. Re:It's very sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because "consumer" grade computers are high tech. . .

      The reality is that all you need is a few laptops to run everything on the ISS. Consumer grade product have better real world testing than any home-cooked solution, they are a ton cheaper and easier to boot.

      What is sad about the fact that apart from extreme data analysis, a laptop can do all that the ISS needs?

    4. Re:It's very sad by Shane112358 · · Score: 3, Informative

      As someone who works in space flight hardware, I will state what I think is obvious to most slashdotters: These are not just "consumer grade electronics." True, they were based heavily or solely on an existing consumer product, but they have to meet a very stringent set of requirements to operate in space. *They need to cool themselves effectively despite having no gravity, which means heat doesn't rise and you lose all naturally convective heating *They need to be radiation hardened to mitigate against bit flips and the like due to radiation particles *They need to meet specific reliability and usability requirements driven by spaceflight And lastly, with everyone complaining about how the government wastes money, do you really expect that it would be better for NASA to contract out development, design, testing and building of a one-off product (laptop, camera, MP3 player, camcorder, PDA, etc) where it isn't necessary?

    5. Re:It's very sad by The+Yuckinator · · Score: 3, Informative

      FTFA:

      "You'd be surprised at how many computers would survive on the ISS. I can't think of an occurrence when we've have a computer fail from the radiation itself. It may reduce the lifetime of how long we can keep the equipment in orbit, but most of the time the failures are just like the ones here on the ground -- we'll have a hard-drive failure or we'll have an application problem and end up reloading the machine."

    6. Re:It's very sad by Shane112358 · · Score: 1

      ...which is why I said, "they were based heavily or solely on an existing consumer product." But they still have to meet the requirements. You can't just buy an HP off the shelf and say, "Alright, here is our ISS laptop." It has to meet specific requirements first.

    7. Re:It's very sad by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      So... Thinkpads aren't consumer grade hardware? Sure, I love mine, but calling 'em space-grade isn't exactly being honest, IMO ;)

    8. Re:It's very sad by sunking2 · · Score: 1

      None of these machines are radiation hardened in any way. For the most part they are indeed off the shelf with the exception of adding some extra cooling fans to accommodate the lower pressure that the station maintains during EVAs, along with a DC-DC adapter to match the stations 28V power. When you consider a 40mz RAD6000 PPC goes for about $300k just for the cpu the cost of specialty hardening a laptop would be way too cost prohibitive. None of these run or control critical systems so it's not a big deal

    9. Re:It's very sad by Meumeu · · Score: 1
      RTFA, they test them but they're not hardened:

      Whenever we go to select a laptop for flying, we have a certification process to determine the best ones. We'll test it for how well it withstands radiation. [The ISS is exposed to as much radiation in a day as computers down on Earth are in a year.] We also test for off-gassing, in case the computer emits chemicals that could create fumes on the Station.
      You'd be surprised at how many computers would survive on the ISS. I can't think of an occurrence when we've have a computer fail from the radiation itself. It may reduce the lifetime of how long we can keep the equipment in orbit, but most of the time the failures are just like the ones here on the ground -- we'll have a hard-drive failure or we'll have an application problem and end up reloading the machine

    10. Re:It's very sad by timeOday · · Score: 1

      It's very sad, with the real high tech shit aboard the ISS, that consumer grade electronics are featured as 'the tech of ISS'.

      Glass half full - isn't it cool we can buy the best processors ever made with hundreds of millions of transistors rolling off multi-billion-dollar production lines, all for a couple hundred bucks?

    11. Re:It's very sad by nizo · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that the ISS is manned by consumer grade people too. Granted they have quite a bit of training...

    12. Re:It's very sad by nizo · · Score: 1

      Plus if there is a problem with radiation inside the ISS, I'm guessing there are worse problems than a dead Thinkpad (yeah, the people aren't radiation hardened either).

    13. Re:It's very sad by Truth+is+life · · Score: 1

      If you needed to radiation-harden these laptops, you'd need to radiation-harden the astronauts, too. The protection of the Van Allen belts and the structure of the ISS itself should provide adequate coverage without any special measures.

    14. Re:It's very sad by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As someone who works in space flight hardware, I will state what I think is obvious to most slashdotters:

      First, "works with space flight hardware" != "works with the ISS's COTS based network". Second, what is 'obvious to everyone' is frequently wrong.
       

      These are not just "consumer grade electronics." True, they were based heavily or solely on an existing consumer product, but they have to meet a very stringent set of requirements to operate in space.

      First off, don't be coming here and making false claims of authority - and then getting it wrong. Second off, RTFA.
       
      These are existing consumer grade products. Sure, they're individually screened and tested and have some modifications to their fans and ventilation - but beyond that, they're absolutely identical to what you or I can get off the shelf. (Add one of those aftermarket lap desks with extra ventilation and you have something almost exactly like what flies.) So says not only TFA, but the guys in the Shuttle and ISS program I occasionally correspond with.

    15. Re:It's very sad by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      For the most part they are indeed off the shelf with the exception of adding some extra cooling fans to accommodate the lower pressure that the station maintains during EVAs

      The station doesn't change pressure during EVAs - you're confusing it with the Shuttle. The station has the two airlock modules (one each Russian and American) specifically so that EVA astronauts can 'camp out' in them and get used to a different pressure and atmosphere mix without having to expose the experiments and other crew to those changed conditions.

    16. Re:It's very sad by sunking2 · · Score: 1

      Of which a functioning laptop may want to be used inside of. That's the neat thing about laptops, you can take them where you go. That being said I worded poorly, although I do believe in the initial days of assembly the entire station may have reduced pressure.

    17. Re:It's very sad by Shane112358 · · Score: 1

      So, if you take a consumer grade product, screen and test it, make modifications to it, it's not based solely off an existing consumer product? That's funny. Thanks for helping to prove my point, though.

    18. Re:It's very sad by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      When the electronics, displays, interfaces, etc... are all identical (I.E. all of the primary functionality) are unchanged, and the only changes are to peripheral functions, then to all intents and purposed they are identical to off the shelf consumer grade equipment. "Based on" implies significant functional and operational modifications to primary systems and functionality.
       
      IOW, no. I didn't "prove your point", I showed (as others did) just how wrong you are. You've been exposed as a fraud.

    19. Re:It's very sad by Shane112358 · · Score: 1

      In my mind, modifying the internals of a consumer off the shelf product makes it, by definition, non-identical. You can keep talking all day long, but as long as they change components (not peripherals, but primary components that are required for the product to function) for the specific application of spaceflight, it is NOT identical.

      A fan is not a peripheral function to a computer if the computer fails when the fan fails to do it's job adequately.

      Also, stop being a drama queen with statements like "You've been exposed as a fraud." You're turning a rational and logical argument into a petty one.

    20. Re:It's very sad by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      In my mind, modifying the internals of a consumer off the shelf product makes it, by definition, non-identical.

      That may be true in your mind, but so what? That doesn't make it standard usage. Nor does it change the fact that the guys who actually do the stuff regard them as off the shelf.
       

      Also, stop being a drama queen with statements like "You've been exposed as a fraud." You're turning a rational and logical argument into a petty one.

      It hasn't been a rational argument since your first post - when you falsely claimed to be an authority and to have special knowledge.

    21. Re:It's very sad by Shane112358 · · Score: 1

      Sigh, I didn't say I had special knowledge and the guy in the article didn't say he regarded them as off the shelf, but whatever. I'm tired of this conversation.

  9. but.. by Keruo · · Score: 1

    Do they run linux?

    --
    There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
    1. Re:but.. by dfxk · · Score: 1

      They get viruses, therefore no.

    2. Re:but.. by sh00z · · Score: 1

      Do they run linux?

      The laptops don't, but the new treadmill does.

  10. Pentium 4... by rhsanborn · · Score: 5, Funny

    housing 68 IBM ThinkPad A31 laptops from 2002, each boasting a 1.8GHz Pentium 4 processor, 512MB RAM and a 40GB hard drive.

    It turns out these double as the main heat supply for the ISS as well.

  11. ISS isolated from windows viruses ? by viralMeme · · Score: 1

    There have been several instances when viruses have found their way on to the ISS. How do you try to prevent this?

    "Every week we uplink new virus definitions. We uplink and deploy them straight away, so we're running pretty much as up-to-date as we can get. If there ever was a virus, we can pop that computer off the network, isolate it and figure out what the problem is. Even if it needs a complete re-wipe, it's pretty easy to quarantine. But the way our IT is set up, there's a network on board, there's a network on the ground, and they're very isolated from viruses on the Internet."'

    So if it is isolated from viruses on the Internet, why do you need Anti Virus software on the network ?

    1. Re:ISS isolated from windows viruses ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only possibility i could imagine those viruses coming up is through attachments in the E-mail or the 'file server'.

    2. Re:ISS isolated from windows viruses ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if they are running Norton or Macafee, its no wonder they need so many laptops...

    3. Re:ISS isolated from windows viruses ? by Stupendoussteve · · Score: 1

      Just in case?

      Military networks are isolated and still use Anti-Virus, and they have still had some publicized infections.

    4. Re:ISS isolated from windows viruses ? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a job for Linux or Solaris..
      I wonder how many visual basic applications are being run on the ISS. No I am not trolling. A lot of experimental control systems are written in VB because it is so easy to throw together an application.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:ISS isolated from windows viruses ? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I suspect precisely none. The ISS is about the last place you want a 'thrown together' control app.

    6. Re:ISS isolated from windows viruses ? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I bet you would be shocked. I am not talking about life support or navigation but just the code monitors the experiments.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    7. Re:ISS isolated from windows viruses ? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about the code that monitors the experiments too. Years or decades of preparation, millions of dollars spent, operated by someone who didn't design or build it... And you think the experimenter would leave a 'thrown together' VB app in place?

    8. Re:ISS isolated from windows viruses ? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually I had a friend that worked for NASA. A lot of the important software for experiments was written in Java. A lot of the experiments on the ISS are not high demand and in a lot of labs around the work there are a lot of PCs running a lot of VB code. So yes I think that there is a good chance that a good amount of it is also running on the ISS.
      VB is very popular as a control front end because it is so easy to write code in it. I personally hate it but a lot of people write a lot of very useful stuff in VB. Which is a real shame since it ties you to Windows.

      Of course they may be using Matlab. It is a real shame that they are using Windows for everything on the ISS. I would love to see some of the stuff they use released as FOSS.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    9. Re:ISS isolated from windows viruses ? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Actually I had a friend that worked for NASA. A lot of the important software for experiments was written in Java. A lot of the experiments on the ISS are not high demand and in a lot of labs around the work there are a lot of PCs running a lot of VB code. So yes I think that there is a good chance that a good amount of it is also running on the ISS.

      Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Just because 'a lot of the software written in Java' does not justify the leap to 'therefore there is a lot of VB code'. And don't you find it odd that your friend knows they use Java - but not whether or not they use VB?
       
       

      It is a real shame that they are using Windows for everything on the ISS. I would love to see some of the stuff they use released as FOSS.

      I hate to break this to you - but FOSS is agnostic about which OS the software was written to run under. People can and have released FOSS for Windows.

    10. Re:ISS isolated from windows viruses ? by Jared555 · · Score: 1

      Unless it was something created by someone on the ISS (unlikely of course) as a thrown together addition to an experiment/something to interpret the results

  12. Windows viruses are more virulent in space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some theorize it is the cosmic rays. Others point out that most times ISS is the only location for space spammers to target and inevitably one of the astronauts punches the monkey.

  13. Wow by charliemopps11 · · Score: 1

    68 laptops? That's kind of baffling. I can understand having older equipment, it costs a ton of money just to lift a few pounds into orbit. But why so many? and wouldn't you think NASA would have contracted out for customer laptops that weighed less? You'd think companys would have given them away for free just to boast their equipment was used in space.

    1. Re:Wow by TheKidWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Each module probably has it's own laptop per experiment. Not to mention stored laptops for when the space shuttle crew comes on board.

      These systems are most likely being used for data input/output and monitoring of experiments. It would be silly to do everything from one computer.

    2. Re:Wow by Stupendoussteve · · Score: 0

      NASA found the lighter weight of the Macbook Air was negated by the associated Apple taxes.

    3. Re:Wow by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      My own unsubstantiated and random guess? Perhaps they send a laptop up with each astronaut and just leave it in orbit when he/she leaves?

    4. Re:Wow by sunking2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      NASA requires you to use the thinkpads. Not that they are anything special other than they have gone through a battery of tests and have a few mods to help with cooling and power requirements. Offer them all you want for free and they'll say no. The main reason for so many are that each one more than likely is dedicated to a single use. If you have 60 experiments, then you have 60 laptops. It's quite a bit of effort and paperwork to certify that any application you need to run on a laptop plays nicely with everything else. Even if your program is a whopping 100kb controller for some piece of equipment. This is done because you typically don't have a whole lot of overlap between who is supplying the experiments so cross testing is difficult. The last thing you want to do is try to fire up an experiment, not have it work and then have to waste everyones time figuring out what isn't playing nice with what. It's just easier to dedicate a whole laptop.

  14. I smell some... by nicc777 · · Score: 1

    copyright violations... What special privilege do they get from the RIAA etc. I want it too!

    --
    Need an ISP in South Africa?
    1. Re:I smell some... by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 0

      I imagine the RIAA has no jurisdiction in space. Perhaps TPB should consider hosting on the moon.

    2. Re:I smell some... by nicc777 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but they still need to rip the stuff here on earth, right?

      --
      Need an ISP in South Africa?
    3. Re:I smell some... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The copyright holder retains exclusive public performance rights. This legal copyright compliance requirement applies to any business, doctor or dentist offices, schools, hospitals, public libraries, daycare facilities, parks, recreation departments, summer camps, churches, private clubs, prisons and lodges, etc. This legal requirement applies:

      I don't see a "space stations" on there...

      and the 68 thinkpads is naturally used as a de/coding cloud.

    4. Re:I smell some... by Jared555 · · Score: 1

      It is fair use when you rip the stuff on earth and put it on your backup server on the moon. The question is if it is covered by law when you send a remote command to start sharing it from the moon.

  15. How can they upload movies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There is no legal way to get the movie off the DVD - they have to be breaking CSS to do it, which as we all know, is against the law. And the Fed Govt would never break their own law. Or does Hollywood provide NASA with special digital editions of the films just for NASA?

    1. Re:How can they upload movies? by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Right, there is no way to legally watch a digital copy of a movie without a DVD. Except for Netflix, Amazon, iTunes, On Demand cable tv, lodgenet...

    2. Re:How can they upload movies? by cashman73 · · Score: 1
      And the Fed Govt would never break their own law.

      Wanna bet? How many laws did President Bush break during his term of office?

  16. Got UUCP? by winkydink · · Score: 4, Informative

    Once upon a time, large portions of the internet were "store and forward."

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:Got UUCP? by Jared555 · · Score: 1

      In some ways they still are (buffers in equipment, etc.) but it just happens so fast you rarely notice it

  17. "mankind's first permanent space colony" by tlambert · · Score: 3, Informative

    "mankind's first permanent space colony"

    Someone needs to tell Mark Harris that the ISS is scheduled to be deorbited 1Q 2016 before he moves in to his condo there.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station

    -- Terry

    1. Re:"mankind's first permanent space colony" by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      With him being such an intelligent being, I recommend we tell him, after he moved to his condo there! ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    2. Re:"mankind's first permanent space colony" by SashaMan · · Score: 1

      This weekend I moved, and I always have a hard time throwing out old stuff. You know, an old palm pilot I haven't used in years, CRT monitors, close I don't wear anymore (or never really wore much in the first place), etc. I just feel guilty dumping stuff when there's nothing really wrong with it.

      Then I though about how we spent tens of billions on the space station, only to throw it away a couple of years after it was finished, so subsequently I felt fine about throwing 3/4 of my closet in the dumpster.

    3. Re:"mankind's first permanent space colony" by mundanetechnomancer · · Score: 1

      ...I felt fine about throwing 3/4 of my closet in the dumpster.

      most of it, not really even worn
      when you could have donated it to charity

  18. ISS spotting by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

    The ISS is usually only visible for a few minutes, between 5 and 10 if you are lucky. But for anyone interested in trying: http://www.heavens-above.com/ Don't forget to give it your location.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    1. Re:ISS spotting by rockNme2349 · · Score: 4, Funny

      a few minutes? you will at least be able to see it for several degrees.

      --
      Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
    2. Re:ISS spotting by ggvaidya · · Score: 1

      If you've got a Twitter account, Twisst is a wonderful service which will send you a message, giving you about a day's warning to the next overpass. Since it gets your city from Twitter, it directly gives you a time and direction to look towards. It's a lot of fun, and very easy to remember to watch out. Check it out.

  19. In space, no one can hear you subpoena. by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

    Each piece of equipment has to be claimed. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/07/1644216

    If all the astronauts say "not my country's server," then it isn't under any jurisdiction. (or protection, which means the MPAA is quite welcome to go shut it down if they can get there).

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  20. Unaddressed question by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What happens to these laptops when they are decommissioned? They mentioned these thinkpads are from 2002 (which makes them the same vintage as the ones I use for myself at home); will they be sold off when they are replaced? I would love for my next laptop to be one that spent several years in orbit!

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Unaddressed question by NevarMore · · Score: 1

      I've got one.

      It didn't exactly reach orbit, nor was it on the ISS, but it did have a big pile of explosives strapped to it and pointed at the sky.

      There are also some, uhh, g-force and thermally induced stress fractures.

    2. Re:Unaddressed question by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Ope they have ECC ram to deal with cosmic rays :/

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:Unaddressed question by spectrokid · · Score: 1

      Return vehicles are used for astronauts and important stuff. Not to fill up Ebay. My guess is they wil end up as waste in a supply vessel (like the EU Jules Verne) and burn on re-entry.

      --

      10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

    4. Re:Unaddressed question by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      What happens to these laptops when they are decommissioned?

      Perhaps your definition of "unaddressed" is different from mine. FTA:

      A 2007 report from the US Government Accountability Office suggested that failed laptops are 'tossed overboard to be burned up in the atmosphere'. Is this true?

      "We don't just throw them out an airlock! We have had failed laptops in the past where we put them on a Progress vehicle [an expendable Russian cargo spacecraft used for disposing rubbish] and that does burn up in the atmosphere. But we don't always do this, it depends on the failure. If it's something we want to investigate or have the engineers have a look at, we'll try to return that laptop on board the Shuttle."

      The following section suggests there are no 'decommissioned' laptops:

      "For the most part with the laptops, we don't have to change them. They already do everything we need them to do, so you might only see a new laptop going on board every four years."

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    5. Re:Unaddressed question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was it running Vista and you decided to permanently "solve" the problem?

      Sort of a "Bang! Zoom! Straight to the Moon!" solution?

    6. Re:Unaddressed question by dissy · · Score: 1

      will they be sold off when they are replaced? I would love for my next laptop to be one that spent several years in orbit!

      Not to dash your dreams of owning one of their laptops, but can you imagine the killing those could make at an auction?
      (Normally I would say on eBay.. but screw eBay)

      I'm sure there are people out there that would value the fact they have been in space for so long, and/or are ISS left overs, that they could fetch a nice price on that alone.
      This would be true for most any hardware they bring back come to think of it.

      It would be funny to see what percentage of their next mission was funded from auctioning off parts of the last mission :D

    7. Re:Unaddressed question by khallow · · Score: 1

      Return vehicles are used for astronauts and important stuff. Not to fill up Ebay.

      How many dollars per kg is this "important stuff"? My view is that you probably can get several thousand dollars per kilogram for a used laptop. I doubt there's much up there with that sort of value, including the science experiments.

    8. Re:Unaddressed question by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      Return vehicles are used for astronauts and important stuff. Not to fill up Ebay.

      How many dollars per kg is this "important stuff"? My view is that you probably can get several thousand dollars per kilogram for a used laptop. I doubt there's much up there with that sort of value, including the science experiments.

      Laptops are worth more than the astronauts.

    9. Re:Unaddressed question by khallow · · Score: 1

      Laptops are worth more than the astronauts.

      Even on the Soyuz, they have cargo space for returning stuff other than astronauts (what's called "downmass"). It's not 30 something tons like the Shuttle, but still up to a few tons, I gather, for the Soyuz.

  21. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  22. ISS colocation facility? by kimvette · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hey, I have an idea! Maybe thepiratebay.org could relocate their servers to be colocated on the ISS. I think the upper stratosphere is out of the Swedish court's jurisdiction! ;)

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    1. Re:ISS colocation facility? by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      But not out of reach.

      There's a launch complex in northern Sweden.

      --
      This is blinging
    2. Re:ISS colocation facility? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Does a catapult launching an elk into the air really qualify as a launch site? ;)

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  23. Internal Network? by Waste55 · · Score: 1

    Can someone define what they mean by "internal network"? Are they still talking laptops?

    Maybe I am thinking too low level, but I thought station was on MIL STD 1553.

  24. Not the tech by hey · · Score: 1

    This article is not about all the tech... just the IT stuff.

  25. Linux 2.6 in a scientfic system on the ISS by slashbart · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Our scientific equipment "Declic" was sent to the ISS last august. It runs Linux and uC-OS II on a whole pile of microprocessors. The Linux of the part of the system that we built was completely custom built based on "linux from scratch". For an interesting read: Linux Journal
    The 2.6 kernel was state of the art when we built it, but we needed its lower latency features.

  26. What a newb... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it just me or did the IT guy from NASA sound like a total technoweenie. I noticed he kept repeating himself using buzzwords...in some sentences he said the exact same thing twice: "There's a server on our network, so it's a Client/Server network" O'RLY? And instead of saying reformat he said reload and rewipe and his "buzzword slang" kept changing...how did such a newb get to work at NASA?

  27. No backup file server? o_O by argent · · Score: 4, Informative

    "One thing that really impacts the crew's day-to-day operations is if the file server itself fails. This forces them to reload the hard drive and re-establish all the network drives and all the apps. They actually have to get out the media and load the image to the hard drive. That's a significant hit for the crew because we can't do everything for them from the ground.

    Jesus Christ, given the cost per minute keeping those guys up there, I'd think they'd at the very least have redundant servers with redundant media.

  28. Reference by zztong · · Score: 1

    "we may need new protocols to deal with the large latency"

    As others have noted, research along those lines is already in progress. Here's another reference:

    http://www.ohio.edu/research/communications/space_communication.cfm

  29. only two guys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tucker and Crawford work at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, as PART of a three-shift team that provides IT support -- 24 hours a day, 365 days a year

    CNETNate might want to update the rather sensational pronouncement of a two person super team.
    Either these two guys are working 12-hours a day, or they are doing Patriot missile guidance programming as a side job.

  30. Colonization Priorities...Space Porn. by geekmux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the very long run, after we colonize Mars and possibly the Moon, latency issues will become even more severe. It will be interesting to see whether we will simply give them separate networks or have those networks as part of the internet. If the second occurs, we may need new protocols to deal with the large latency and related issues.

    Er, Wow. You're worried about network latency and we haven't even put the first human-inhabitable structure on our moon yet. Cripes man, perhaps you should step back just a few parsecs and realize we might just need stuff like an oxygen-rich environment first, for when you want to hyperventilate whilst flogging your Captains Log to Martian Porn some 250,000 miles away...

    1. Re:Colonization Priorities...Space Porn. by zoloto · · Score: 1

      More than one team working in concert to solve a whole package's worth of problems. A different team for: health of the travelers, engineering/physics/telemetry etc (transportation as the overall master team?); localized computer network(s), intra solar communications network (solnet?).

  31. No even close to the front! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Future, I think not! The spacestation is full of outdated network equipment! The Low Rate Data Link telemetry uses a MILBUS-1553, this is one of the most obscure form of network, and has been abandoned in all other areas. I can not tell you what a pain it is to work with. The MediumRDL uses raw ethernet frames (sort of) - and on top of that, CCSDS frames (mostely), but there is no way of making sure packets actually reach there destination. There is also the WiFi and the HighRDL (mostly video), but I am not to familliar with those. Don't think the space station is on the front in any field - only the tried and tested stuff gets fitted. Oh, and the laptops, they are almost outdated before they get certified for use on the space station - it is a very long process. Try searching for SSP 52050 if you wan't to see for your self.

  32. DMCA violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know someone else has pointed to this, but I think it bears repeating:

    article quote: "If the crew wants specific movies, music or TV shows, we can uplink them to the server and they can then access them from any computer."

    If these movies are coming from a DVD format, then DMCA violations are certainly occuring at NASA.

  33. WiFi in space by ChefJoe · · Score: 1

    Wow, so airlines have been hesitant about the idea of wifi and cellphones being on for years and they're running several wifi APs on the space station ? I understand why NASA does this but are planes really that sensitive ?

  34. Interview observations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Had a T61 for a couple years it was an awesome notebook until the GPUs BGA packings solder failed. (Thanks Nvidia!!)

    Its funny they claim to have had viruses and a few sentances later go on to say that hackers can't gain access to systems on ISS..WTF? Maybe not an interactive shell but give me a break.

    Some station control (additude..etc) is also controlled by a thinkpad running x86 solaris. I seriously doubt the IT person interviewed has any knowledge of station critical systems.

    They have a few wireles APs and I swear to god they use 10base2.

    The T61 does NOT have an ECC memory option. I seem to recall most salient radiation problems were minimized by moving to smaller process (less room for alphas to get stuck and and steal electrons?) and being smarter about packaging material which do not lead to nasty secondary reactions but still you'd think ECC memory on a fricking space station would be an absolute minimum requirement in terms of radiation.

  35. Like BSG by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Like battlestar galactica, they need the computers onboard to do their work, but they don't need clustered networked environment.
    They don't need super hardcore stuff up there, yet! So just keep it simple, stupid (KISS)....makes everything easier on everyone.
    Now, they need a more home based system up there and not a corporate scuzi drive raid set up, follow?
    They need to back up their medias, but they dont need raid, they need 100% access, but they dont need networked.
    They need to have access to their info and sometimes things fail, like the server, what do they need a server for, even if they have 2
    or 3 networked computer, you can share stuff through the network without a server....???

    I really do not understand why they make things so complicated, when I have 100% run time at home, with no down time, and don't run servers....so I am sure the real hardcore engineers, that thought this thing up, should be able to do so as well, no?

    1. Re:Like BSG by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      And in the case that a fleet of robots attack, even if they hack into one system, they won't be able to take over the ship through the network!

  36. A new kind of BOFH by jbatista · · Score: 1

    BOFH, meet the new guy, the Bastard Operator From Space.

    --
    My sig is better than your sig.
  37. Software for life support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are life support and other critical things also controlled by windows computers?

  38. Just 2 guys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ROFLMAO!

    - one of the 40+ guys they didn't talk to