Slashdot Mirror


Hackers In Space: Designing A Ground Station

An anonymous reader writes with some new information on the happenings of the Hacker Space Program. From the article: "At the Chaos Communication Camp 2011 Jens Ohlig, Lars Weiler, and Nick Farr proposed a daunting task: to land a hacker on the Moon by 2034. The plan calls for three separate phases: Establishing an open, free, and globally accessible satellite communication network, put a human into orbit, and land on the Moon. Interestingly enough, there is already considerable work being done on the second phase of this plan by the Copenhagen Suborbitals, and Google's own Lunar X Prize is trying to spur development of robotic missions to the Moon. But what about the first phase? Answering the call is the 'Shackspace,' a hackerspace from Stuttgart, Germany, who've begun work on an ambitious project they're calling the 'Hackerspace Global Grid.'"

23 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. Hack into the ISS. Crash Into Moon. Done! by GiantRobotMonster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Otherwise, why call this hacking?
    Engineering, anyone?

    1. Re:Hack into the ISS. Crash Into Moon. Done! by Trahloc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's cracking.

      --
      The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
    2. Re:Hack into the ISS. Crash Into Moon. Done! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Words change. These words have changed so much, hardly anyone knows what they mean any more.

    3. Re:Hack into the ISS. Crash Into Moon. Done! by GiantRobotMonster · · Score: 2

      Indeed they do. Hjsdfh qeo, gfhe eight!

    4. Re:Hack into the ISS. Crash Into Moon. Done! by eyenot · · Score: 3

      Because. Unless "hack into the ISS" involved "prep and advance a compatriot hacker into the ranks of a national space agency and get them accepted into and lodged in the ISS", the "person on the moon" wasn't the requisite "hacker", it was just some innocent victim of belligerence.

      In this sense, "hack" as you intend to use it -- in the invasive and criminal context -- is a perversion of the form and a stereotype that the hacker community feels unjustly saddled with especially as it hurts their opportunities to research and perform hacks that are beneficial and/or harm no-one, steal nothing, and invade nothing.

      In the article's sense, "hack" as it was used meant the many other possible definitions: "D.I.Y."; "without official clearance"; "not by the usual means, methods, paths, or prevalencies"; etc.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    5. Re:Hack into the ISS. Crash Into Moon. Done! by GiantRobotMonster · · Score: 2

      You are of course correct. I had envisaged swapping places with an astronaut that was due to go to the ISS, swapping out all the video feeds etc with computer generated replacements to keep the swap a secret for as long as possible, before finally boarding the ISS and then trying to reverse park it in the sea of tranquility, but that was a little tricky to fit into the subject line :-). And confusingly, this involves good-old-fashioned piracy in addition to cracking, hacking, and social engineering.

      I do understand the pain of the unjustly stereotyped hacker - this is a decades old debate. Use more specific terminology or be doomed to be misunderstood.
      The part that confuses me is why do I expect more from a language with auto-antonyms? Dusting the cake? Dusting the floor? Ahrghrgrgrhg!

      As for getting into space via unconventional means -- I'm going for a giant trebuchet.

  2. Money by Zouden · · Score: 2

    Simple question: where are they going to get the billions of dollars required to put a man on the moon? The physical world isn't like the software world, where things are often shared freely. Perhaps it'll be a little different in 2034, but I doubt anyone's going to build a lunar module with a 3D printer and some free plans from the internet.

    --
    "A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
    1. Re:Money by srussia · · Score: 4, Funny

      Simple question: where are they going to get the billions of dollars required to put a man on the moon?

      Why, Bitcoin of course!

      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
    2. Re:Money by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 2

      Another question might be: Where will find the hacker that belongs on the moon? Do we send up the person with the highest score on Lunar Lander . Or do simply send up the most annoying hacker we can find to get him away from us? Also we need to make sure this hacker isn't going to turn into a full scale black hat in an unassailable moon fortress.

    3. Re:Money by sFurbo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The question to answer that question is, will it cost billions of dollars? Copenhagen Suborbitals are proving* that space travel can be a hobbyist project. Granted, there is a long way from suborbital to the moon, but just getting where they are now would have been called impossible twenty years ago.

      Another point is that hacker space activity usually is more about the process than the goal. So what if they never put a man on the moon, if they put one in LEO and have fun on the way, that's a win.

      *Pending their actual succes, and assuming the capsule will not burn on reentry.

    4. Re:Money by dave420 · · Score: 2

      What's baffled me is why the craft carries a component gas of air in its fuel so it can force itself through the air, instead of using oxygen from the air while it can, and using wings to make the dense atmosphere help it climb efficiently. I guess materials and manufacturing for that would have been pretty tricky back in the day.

  3. these guys.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    disclaimer: I'm a satellite telecom engineer.

    What these guys don't know about satellite telecom could fill a swimming pool. "A open, free and globally accessible satellite communications network"? Sure. Except for the free part, it already exists. With a properly designed VSAT terminal (either C or Ku band) anywhere that's not beyond 83 degree latitude can get broadband net access. Why is VSAT service not cheap? It costs $200 million to launch a 6000 kilogram satellite into geostationary orbit, and the satellites lasts on average 12 to 16 years. The $200m satellite has less aggregate data capacity than a fiber optic cable the diameter of a pencil. Installing a 1.2 meter Ku-band VSAT terminal with DVB-S2 compliant TDMA modem (iDirect Evolution series, for example) is not rocket science, but proper service starts at $400/month and up.

    If they're trying to push a large amount of bandwidth through small, cheap low earth orbit satellites I believe they're going to run into some fundamental engineering constraints (satellite power budget, shannon limit, the fact that two axis tracking antennas are expensive).

    1. Re:these guys.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If they're trying to push a large amount of bandwidth through small, cheap low earth orbit satellites I believe they're going to run into some fundamental engineering constraints (satellite power budget, shannon limit, the fact that two axis tracking antennas are expensive).

      They're not. At this point they aren't even looking at bi-directional communication. Stuff like simple downlinks of textual data (news, emergency info, etc). There are already a few satellites that do very similar tasks, like the FUNcube.

      Nobody is suggesting or attempting satellite internet access.

    2. Re:these guys.... by EdIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they're going to run into some fundamental engineering constraints

      Nooo.... they're going to run into some military constraints. Last time I checked nobody "owned" space. There is no sovereignty claiming it as their possession.

      The US government, among others, is already targeting the Internet and shutting down websites over copyright. If they can do that with Internet services running on physical equipment that is actually on the ground in a country then I think they definitely won't give a crap about taking down a "free and globally accessible satellite communications network". Except that won't be done as cleanly as taking down a website. Probably involve some missiles.

      If I was part of this group I would be thinking about ways of subverting existing networks to run Darknets. It's far less likely they will try a scorched earth tactic with those networks and a more productive use of their time.

    3. Re:these guys.... by Trahloc · · Score: 2

      As an expert in this field, what is your response to http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/08/viasat-residential-satellite-broadband-internet-hands-on-video/ ? They claim to be faster and cheaper than previous providers. Far less than $400/mo.

      --
      The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
    4. Re:these guys.... by schnell · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're correct... satellite broadband can be had in the US for far less than $400/month. ViaSat and WildBlue's services (may or may not qualify as "broadband" depending on your definition) start at around $50/month. The GP's citation of $400/month for satellite broadband refers to "business class" VSAT data service. Residential satellite Internet is heavily oversubscribed, often north of 100:1. Also note the Fair Access Policy terms under which you will be throttled for excessive data usage.

      For some use cases, the results will be indistinguishable at the lower price point; for others they will be very different. Think of the difference between the two as being T1 service from a business provider vs. home cable or DSL service.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
  4. Work on the easy stuff first. by B5_geek · · Score: 2

    Step #1) Improve HAM bandwidth for data transmissions to/from space.

    On a good day my old 14.4k modem is faster then the throughput I can get on packet radio.

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    1. Re:Work on the easy stuff first. by drmpeg · · Score: 5, Informative

      What you don't know about ham radio could fill a swimming pool (I love that phrase). Hams have access to all kinds of frequencies that penetrate the ionosphere and have built and launched many satellites. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSCAR The most interesting amateur satellites were OSCAR 10, 13 and 40. These were in high altitude (40,000 km) Molniya orbits that provided many hours of coverage. Two-axis tracking was required, but was so slow that it could be done by hand. The big problem with amateur radio is that commercial traffic is not allowed. That is, no connection to the internet.

  5. sha(ck|g)space by Fusselwurm · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... see, children, the difference between nerds and non-nerds may be as small as the one between 'ck' and 'g'.

  6. OK I was with you until... by tlambert · · Score: 2

    you used the word "kilogram". Everybody knows that only Americans launch stuff, and they launch pounds. Except for Mars explorers, then they launch bricks.

    -- Terry

  7. I think a little network redesign... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

    Don't think of this as 'free internet in space.' The internet model, with it's simple dumb-endpoint packet-switching, isn't going to work. It's massively inefficient: Every time someone in the UK wants to view a webpage on a US server it gets send, possibly billions of times, through the oceanic fiber. If there is to be hope of getting any more than text through bidirectionally (And it must be bidirectional: Having one operator decide who gets precious capacity isn't in the hacker spirit) then it's going to mean some serious rethinking of networking fundamentals.

    There is an advantage to be had with modern technology though. Storage is cheap. Cheap as dirt. Want to put a few gig in every ground station? Easy. Want to put a few terabytes in the larger ones? Compared to the cost of the radio gear you need anyway, barely adds anything. So I think what should be looked into is trying to shift the internet further towards content-addressible networking and caching (Proper content-addressible hash-based caching, not the evil that is trying to cache HTTP where every access needs to ask the server if the content has changed). Such technologies would reduce the need for expensive bandwidth by orders of magnitude, at the expense of consuming far cheaper storage at every caching node. Magnet links are a good place to start.

  8. They're not thinking far enough ahead by Megane · · Score: 3

    "At the Chaos Communication Camp 2011 Jens Ohlig, Lars Weiler, and Nick Farr proposed a daunting task: to land a hacker on the Moon by 2034.

    I'll be more impressed if they can get someone back from the moon.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  9. Re:Lunar cable car? by tragedy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The moons orbit is oblong, so you'd have to have some method by which the cable length could change. You need a cable strong enough to support its own weight. Gravity drops off as altitude increases by the formula g = 9.8 m/s^2(r/r+h)^2 (r is the radius of the earth and his your height), so it's 100% at the surface (very slightly less if you're at the equator), 96.937% 100 km up, 94.012% 200km up, 85.990% 500km up, 74.730% 1000 km up, 57.955% 2000 km up 37.770% 4000 km up, 19.678%. 8000 km up and so on. Even at geosynchronous orbit altitude (which may or may not be relevant depending on how this cable is being managed) where gravity is 2.287%, the average weight of the 35,800 km of cable to that point is about 15.172% of its Earth weight. Out at 325,000 km, which is about the distance of the L1 point between the Earth and the moon the gravity is .037% of what it is on Earth (not at the actual L1 point where it's cancelled by the moons gravity, this is just an approximation, not taking all forces into account) the average weight of the 325,000 km of cable is still about 1.932% of its Earth weight. So, if you need to stretch a tether out to Geosynchronous orbit, it needs to be strong enough to hold 15.172% of the Earth weight of 35,800 km of material. If the tether masses 1 kg per kilometer, that means it has to be strong enough, at that thickness, to hold the Earth equivalent of .15172*35,800=5431.576 kilograms. Tapering the tether can help, of course, but we still don't have any materials strong enough. For the L1 point, it's equivalent to holding 6279 kg on earth with that size cable.

    Then there's the problem that the moon isn't in a geosynchronous orbit, so you can't tether the cable at a stationary point on earth. The poles aren't stationary, so the best you can do is anchor to tower, built on a train on a huge circular track around one of the poles.

    Of course, the cable doesn't actually need to be a straight line to the moon. If you could make a tether to geosynchronous orbit, you could then have another tether from there to the moon. For that matter, you might be able to build a 60,000 mile tether that circles the earth at slightly greater than orbital speed (maintained by propellant brought up from earth on the space elevator) then attach multiple secondary tethers that loop around the earth towards the poles where they connect to smaller tether rings suspended above each pole with a station suspended in a web in the middle and a variable length tether that need only be a 100 km long or so (and could be supported by dirigibles through a good portion of the atmosphere) that tethers to a polar base station. You could take an elevator up at the pole, then down along one of the loops to the equatorial ring. From the equatorial ring, you could suspend another ring further out, or perhaps just spokes out to additional stations. From one of those, you could potentially even build a tether all the way to the moon and set it up on an orbit that jump ropes the Earth. Of course, the tether all the way to the moon would hardly be necessary. Once you're out to the orbital ring, if it's fast enough, you can just drop off and fall toward the moon, it would be a heck of a lot faster than pulling an elevator car along 400,000 kilometers of tether. At the moon end you could have another space elevator. The one at that end could use the same equatorial ring with polar elevator trick, but the moons smaller size and lower gravity mean that you could actually have a plain old space elevator right to the surface.

    Of course, the above idea might have a lot of problems. Getting that giant orbital lasso trick to actually work might be next to impossible. Also, such a long tether going around the entire Earth is going to have to be carefully designed. It could run into some really interesting electrical effects that could instantly fry it. On the other hand, they could also be used as a method of powering the whole thing. In any case, it's a massive endeavour. You would have to start