Uhm no. Nowhere in the Wikipedia entries for either SpaceX or Falcon 1 is there an association with the Sea Launch consortium. SpaceX was founded by Elon Musk and he is fronting all of the costs associated with the development and launch from his own personal fortune.
Also given the nature of his lawsuit against Boeing and Lockheed, I doubt that he would want to be part of an organization that is run by Boeing. Secondly, the launch is from a facility in the Kwajalein Atoll on solid ground, not from a SeaLaunch platform.
You're kidding right? What a wonderful idea! Let's replace the RCC with depleted uranium (U-238)which is 70% denser than lead and as a bonus a pyrophoric on a vehicle that is traveling at Mach 25 when it re-enters the earth's atmosphere. Why don't we just go ahead and replace the RCC with C4? The result would be the same and we would save money. Ditto with manufacturing the main engines out of U-238.
Apart from ICBMs, I don't know of any military vehicles that would survive the harsh re-entry conditions that the shuttle is asked to endure every mission. Hmm, maybe we should use the same materials that are used to help ICBMs survive... oh wait, that would be reinforced carbon carbon.
This isn't Star Trek, we don't have anti-gravity devices, nor magical force fields that would protect the vehicle. This really is rocket science and it is tough and risky.
The filter cannot be broken in the same sense that one cannot crack time-tested public-key encryption functions such as those already used for Internet commerce and banking applications. In that aspect, it's essentially a bullet-proof technology.
Professor Ostrovsky (cited in the article) has written in the past about public key encryption with keyword search (PEKS). Here's the abstract as well as the paper itself (warning PDF file).
INAC (I'm Not A Cryptologist), so take my comments with a grain of salt. Given enough time and resources (i.e. distributed processing) any system including those based on public-key encryption can be compromised (unless we're talking about one-time pads or quantum cryptography - and we're not).
Sometimes though it isn't necessary to break the algorithm, just find ways around it. It's the equivalent of installing a bank vault door on your front door, but leaving the windows open. Does the bad guy have access to the machine that this algorithm is to be run? Could he correlate increased CPU activity/ network output with say the list of open files and the current file pointer locations on that machine? Does the implementation encrypt the message and then do the comparison or does it decrypt the filter and then run the filter against the plain text leaving the filter briefly exposed in memory?
What about potential abuses? Who has control of the keyword/filter selection and what is to prevent a rogue agent from changing the filter from "nuclear AND improvised" to "cross-dressing AND senator"? etc, etc, etc.
Nothing more dangerous than to tell your wife that you are leaving your day job to devote your time to playing World of Warcraft and then actually do it.
Nuclear terrorism, global warming, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. are nothing compared to the wrath of a pissed off woman.
This is just plain not going to happen. The satellite/aeronautical/test community is running out of spectrum as it is with more systems and systems of systems coming online. You're going to see proposals coming to the
2007 ITU WRC (World Radiocommunication Conference) to allocate even more spectrum for these areas.
Simultaneously with these proposals, are studies being conducted to greatly increase the amount of data that can be sent and received with the existing spectrum and to reduce if not eliminate inefficiencies. Of particular interest is the DoD-sponsored study on the INET (Integrated Network Enhanced Telemetry) architecture.
BTW, satellite receiving stations do *not* have to make use of dishes. Some amazing things are being done with small phased array antennas.
You are correct of course. In the case of the space shuttle, it's just easier, cheaper, and safer to encrypt the entire uplink using the existing crytographic device and its corresponding hardware key. The cost of the integration of a command authentication mechanism using a crypto signature with the existing shuttle hardware and software would be prohibitive.
As with most things in life, the correct answer is "it depends". All NASA communcations to/from the shuttle are NOT necessarily encrypted but can be. Uplink from the ground to the shuttle always is encrypted (we don't want someone sending bogus commands). In addition, the crew has the option of disabling all commands coming from the ground. Direct downlink from the shuttle to the ground can be encrypted but that is not always done. It depends on the mission configuration. DOD-based classified missions back in the 80s always were encrypted on both the uplink and downlink.
There are also other communications paths between the shuttle and the ground. Indirect communications, known as forward and return links via, TDRSS are always encrypted.
I'm going to risk a few Karma points but here goes:
You know that anytime the letters A*C*L*U* are used in a Slashdot posting, regardless of the subject at hand, you will get the following within one hour:
1. Swipes at religion
2. Swipes at conservatives (not the same as 1.)
3. Swipes at the United States and its foreign policies.
4. Swipes at the ACLU's position on xxx, where xxx is not related to the subject at hand
5. Counterswipes at 1-4.
To quote Rodney King... "Can't we all just get along?"
I'll admit it... it's been several years. Certainly before the national gun registration legislation went through. I'll leave any comments about just how effective *that* was to a future slashdot topic....:):)
It would perhaps help if slashdot submitters actually read the articles that they refer to first:). This was a report from the National Academy of Sciences recommending that NASA look at this. NASA has not made a decision nor officially looked at this. From the article:
"NASA plans to return astronauts to the Moon by 2018 and later on to Mars. But a round-trip mission to the Red Planet would probably last at least 30 months and carry six to eight people. That would be a hotbed for intense crew relationships, says a report by the ***US National Academy of Sciences (NAS)***.
"With the prospect of a very long-term mission, it's hard to ignore the question of sexuality," says Lawrence Palinkas, a medical anthropologist at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, an author of the report. It reviewed NASA's plans for research to keep astronauts safe and healthy in space - ****but the plans make no mention**** of sexual issues in spaceflight."
Because, say the researchers, certain special states of a system are promoted above others by a quantum form of natural selection, which they call quantum darwinism. Information about these states proliferates and gets imprinted on the environment. So observers coming along and looking at the environment in order to get a picture of the world tend to see the same 'preferred' states.
I don't know about you all, but I'm going to use that as a pickup line
You're question presupposes that us Slashdot nerds actually have enough of a life to:
1) Turn off the computer(s)
2) Date (or more accurately, find a girl desperate enough to go out with us)
3) Turn off the computer(s) and go out long enough to have a serious relationship
4) Marry (nowadays optional)
5) Turn off the computer(s)and actually make kids
6) Give up control of one or more of *your* computer(s) so that the aforementioned hypothetical kids can get on the computer(s) so that later, as you realize there is more to parenting than sitting them in front of a computer screen the entire day, you can kick them off
It's been about 25 years since I looked at it, but at the time the mechanism for global warming went something like this:
Sunlight comes through the atmosphere as visible radiation which is transparent to the CO2 molecule. It strikes the earth and is re-radiated as infared radiation. This is opaque to CO2 and as a result, CO2 absorbs this radiation and holds onto it -- the Green House Effect.
So, how do we control the Green House Effect? There are two, separate distinct ways:
a) Control the amount of Greenhouse gas emissions - the Kyoto protocol (boring)
or
b) Control the amount of sunlight entering the atmosphere, striking the earth and re-radiating as infared radiation (interesting possibilities)
I personally like b) because we can shift the blame for global warming:
1) We can blame the environmentalists for Global Warming. Those pesky clean air laws eventually allowed more sunlight to strike the earth. Allowing factories to continue billowing thick clouds of black soot would OBVIOUSLY lead to a reduction in the amount of sunlight striking the earth's surface - PROBLEM SOLVED.
2) We can blame the anti-nuke crowd for Global Warming. The 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty essentially outlawed atmospheric, underwater, and outer space testing of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons, among their many other wonderful attributes, kick up large amount of dust and debris into the atmosphere which PREVENTS sunlight from reaching the earth's surface. Remember Carl Sagan and his "Nuclear Winter" scenario? Regular distribution of nuclear explosions and carefully placed nuclear charges down volcanoes would keep Global Warming in check - PROBLEM SOLVED
Another avenue to solve Global Warming is to change the albedo or reflectance of earth's surface. The more sunlight is reflected harmlessly back into space rather than absorbed by the earth and re-radiated as infared radiation, the better control we will have over Global Warming. Two Words: Large mirrors. Remember the Bond flicks, "Diamonds are Forever", "The Man With The Golden Gun", and "Die Another Day"? Those films made use of the ol concentrated-sunlight-leads-to-world-domination ploy. Same idea here but in reverse.
Personally, I have a deep love and respect for Canada (including Quebec) and her people, based on spending many years up there and would live and work up there if presented the opportunity. However, before you start immigrating to Canada in massive droves, understand what you are getting into.
Freedom of Speech? Canda has a wonderful section in its criminal code prohibiting willful promotion of hatred against identifiable groups (s. 319(2))
http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/limitations/r_keegstra.html for an example.
Just Google on "willful promotion of hatred" and "Canada" for examples on how this statute is being used. If I were to utter the phrase "Slashdot readers really need to get a life and maybe a girlfriend". That theoretically could fall under the Criminal Code:).
Then of course you will have to stomach:
Lower wages
Higher Taxes:
>50% of your income between Federal and Provincial taxes (if you're a technogeek like me and get paid for it)
Last time I looked, 9% Provincial sales tax (depending on the province) + 7% Federal GST on goods purchased in Canada.
Then there is of course the politics. If you like politics in the U.S. you will *love* them in Canada. Watching the proceedings in the House of Commons gives new meaning to the phrase "spirited debate".
Do you like unions in the U.S.? You'll love them in Canada. Think about what it means when the nurses go on strike, or the postal service, or...
I could go on. Like any other country, Canada has its good as well as bad points. Make sure you understand what those are and can live with them before you pack up your bags and go.
If you are considering a career as either an Air Force pilot or an astronaut (and who wouldn't be?), LASIK surgery is an automatic disqualification.
Air Force Pilot
How do I become a pilot?
Air Force pilots are generally officers who compete for the pilot training slots. Air Force flight training has strict vision requirements. The vision requirements are 20/50 for pilots and 20/200 for navigators. Vision for both must be correctable to 20/20. Applicants who have a history of Photo Refractive Keratectomy (PRK), Radial Keratotomy (RK), or Laser In-Situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) are ineligible for aviation duty.
No, any type of surgery to improve visual acuity, e.g. radial keratotomy, photorefractive keratectomy, LASIK, etc., will disqualify you for the Astronaut Candidate Program...
Slashdot Mirror
Uhm no. Nowhere in the Wikipedia entries for either SpaceX or Falcon 1 is there an association with the Sea Launch consortium. SpaceX was founded by Elon Musk and he is fronting all of the costs associated with the development and launch from his own personal fortune.
Also given the nature of his lawsuit against Boeing and Lockheed, I doubt that he would want to be part of an organization that is run by Boeing. Secondly, the launch is from a facility in the Kwajalein Atoll on solid ground, not from a SeaLaunch platform.
OK, I admit it ... you snookered me. Congratulations, it doesn't happen all that often, but you got me real good :):):)
You're kidding right? What a wonderful idea! Let's replace the RCC with depleted uranium (U-238)which is 70% denser than lead and as a bonus a pyrophoric on a vehicle that is traveling at Mach 25 when it re-enters the earth's atmosphere. Why don't we just go ahead and replace the RCC with C4? The result would be the same and we would save money. Ditto with manufacturing the main engines out of U-238.
... oh wait, that would be reinforced carbon carbon.
Apart from ICBMs, I don't know of any military vehicles that would survive the harsh re-entry conditions that the shuttle is asked to endure every mission. Hmm, maybe we should use the same materials that are used to help ICBMs survive
This isn't Star Trek, we don't have anti-gravity devices, nor magical force fields that would protect the vehicle. This really is rocket science and it is tough and risky.
Professor Ostrovsky (cited in the article) has written in the past about public key encryption with keyword search (PEKS). Here's the abstract as well as the paper itself (warning PDF file).
INAC (I'm Not A Cryptologist), so take my comments with a grain of salt. Given enough time and resources (i.e. distributed processing) any system including those based on public-key encryption can be compromised (unless we're talking about one-time pads or quantum cryptography - and we're not).
Sometimes though it isn't necessary to break the algorithm, just find ways around it. It's the equivalent of installing a bank vault door on your front door, but leaving the windows open. Does the bad guy have access to the machine that this algorithm is to be run? Could he correlate increased CPU activity/ network output with say the list of open files and the current file pointer locations on that machine? Does the implementation encrypt the message and then do the comparison or does it decrypt the filter and then run the filter against the plain text leaving the filter briefly exposed in memory?
What about potential abuses? Who has control of the keyword/filter selection and what is to prevent a rogue agent from changing the filter from "nuclear AND improvised" to "cross-dressing AND senator"? etc, etc, etc.
A bigger menace to society than even software patents is the slashdot effect. One freaking minute after the story is posted, Groklaw is down.
Nothing more dangerous than to tell your wife that you are leaving your day job to devote your time to playing World of Warcraft and then actually do it.
Nuclear terrorism, global warming, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. are nothing compared to the wrath of a pissed off woman.
This is just plain not going to happen. The satellite/aeronautical/test community is running out of spectrum as it is with more systems and systems of systems coming online. You're going to see proposals coming to the 2007 ITU WRC (World Radiocommunication Conference) to allocate even more spectrum for these areas.
Simultaneously with these proposals, are studies being conducted to greatly increase the amount of data that can be sent and received with the existing spectrum and to reduce if not eliminate inefficiencies. Of particular interest is the DoD-sponsored study on the INET (Integrated Network Enhanced Telemetry) architecture.
BTW, satellite receiving stations do *not* have to make use of dishes. Some amazing things are being done with small phased array antennas.
http://ast.faa.gov/files/pdf/Human_Space_Flight_NP RM.pdf
You are correct of course. In the case of the space shuttle, it's just easier, cheaper, and safer to encrypt the entire uplink using the existing crytographic device and its corresponding hardware key. The cost of the integration of a command authentication mechanism using a crypto signature with the existing shuttle hardware and software would be prohibitive.
As with most things in life, the correct answer is "it depends". All NASA communcations to/from the shuttle are NOT necessarily encrypted but can be. Uplink from the ground to the shuttle always is encrypted (we don't want someone sending bogus commands). In addition, the crew has the option of disabling all commands coming from the ground. Direct downlink from the shuttle to the ground can be encrypted but that is not always done. It depends on the mission configuration. DOD-based classified missions back in the 80s always were encrypted on both the uplink and downlink.
There are also other communications paths between the shuttle and the ground. Indirect communications, known as forward and return links via, TDRSS are always encrypted.
I'm going to risk a few Karma points but here goes:
... "Can't we all just get along?"
You know that anytime the letters A*C*L*U* are used in a Slashdot posting, regardless of the subject at hand, you will get the following within one hour:
1. Swipes at religion
2. Swipes at conservatives (not the same as 1.)
3. Swipes at the United States and its foreign policies.
4. Swipes at the ACLU's position on xxx, where xxx is not related to the subject at hand
5. Counterswipes at 1-4.
To quote Rodney King
I'll admit it ... it's been several years. Certainly before the national gun registration legislation went through. I'll leave any comments about just how effective *that* was to a future slashdot topic ....:):)
Really? I take it you've never been to Prince George, BC or Alberta or Winnipeg or ...
Depends on what province you move to ...
It would perhaps help if slashdot submitters actually read the articles that they refer to first :). This was a report from the National Academy of Sciences recommending that NASA look at this. NASA has not made a decision nor officially looked at this. From the article:
"NASA plans to return astronauts to the Moon by 2018 and later on to Mars. But a round-trip mission to the Red Planet would probably last at least 30 months and carry six to eight people. That would be a hotbed for intense crew relationships, says a report by the ***US National Academy of Sciences (NAS)***.
"With the prospect of a very long-term mission, it's hard to ignore the question of sexuality," says Lawrence Palinkas, a medical anthropologist at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, an author of the report. It reviewed NASA's plans for research to keep astronauts safe and healthy in space - ****but the plans make no mention**** of sexual issues in spaceflight."
"You reproach us with planning to do away with your property. Precisely; that is just what we propose."
:):):)
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
So how is the revolution going comrade?
Because, say the researchers, certain special states of a system are promoted above others by a quantum form of natural selection, which they call quantum darwinism. Information about these states proliferates and gets imprinted on the environment. So observers coming along and looking at the environment in order to get a picture of the world tend to see the same 'preferred' states.
I don't know about you all, but I'm going to use that as a pickup line
You're question presupposes that us Slashdot nerds actually have enough of a life to:
1) Turn off the computer(s)
2) Date (or more accurately, find a girl desperate enough to go out with us)
3) Turn off the computer(s) and go out long enough to have a serious relationship
4) Marry (nowadays optional)
5) Turn off the computer(s)and actually make kids
6) Give up control of one or more of *your* computer(s) so that the aforementioned hypothetical kids can get on the computer(s) so that later, as you realize there is more to parenting than sitting them in front of a computer screen the entire day, you can kick them off
Sounds like a long shot to me.
It's been about 25 years since I looked at it, but at the time the mechanism for global warming went something like this:
:)
Sunlight comes through the atmosphere as visible radiation which is transparent to the CO2 molecule. It strikes the earth and is re-radiated as infared radiation. This is opaque to CO2 and as a result, CO2 absorbs this radiation and holds onto it -- the Green House Effect. So, how do we control the Green House Effect? There are two, separate distinct ways:
a) Control the amount of Greenhouse gas emissions - the Kyoto protocol (boring)
or
b) Control the amount of sunlight entering the atmosphere, striking the earth and re-radiating as infared radiation (interesting possibilities)
I personally like b) because we can shift the blame for global warming:
1) We can blame the environmentalists for Global Warming. Those pesky clean air laws eventually allowed more sunlight to strike the earth. Allowing factories to continue billowing thick clouds of black soot would OBVIOUSLY lead to a reduction in the amount of sunlight striking the earth's surface - PROBLEM SOLVED.
2) We can blame the anti-nuke crowd for Global Warming. The 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty essentially outlawed atmospheric, underwater, and outer space testing of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons, among their many other wonderful attributes, kick up large amount of dust and debris into the atmosphere which PREVENTS sunlight from reaching the earth's surface. Remember Carl Sagan and his "Nuclear Winter" scenario? Regular distribution of nuclear explosions and carefully placed nuclear charges down volcanoes would keep Global Warming in check - PROBLEM SOLVED
Another avenue to solve Global Warming is to change the albedo or reflectance of earth's surface. The more sunlight is reflected harmlessly back into space rather than absorbed by the earth and re-radiated as infared radiation, the better control we will have over Global Warming. Two Words: Large mirrors. Remember the Bond flicks, "Diamonds are Forever", "The Man With The Golden Gun", and "Die Another Day"? Those films made use of the ol concentrated-sunlight-leads-to-world-domination ploy. Same idea here but in reverse.
Feel free to add any suggestions
Personally, I have a deep love and respect for Canada (including Quebec) and her people, based on spending many years up there and would live and work up there if presented the opportunity. However, before you start immigrating to Canada in massive droves, understand what you are getting into.
a .html for an example.
:).
...
Freedom of Speech? Canda has a wonderful section in its criminal code prohibiting willful promotion of hatred against identifiable groups (s. 319(2)) http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/limitations/r_keegstr
Just Google on "willful promotion of hatred" and "Canada" for examples on how this statute is being used. If I were to utter the phrase "Slashdot readers really need to get a life and maybe a girlfriend". That theoretically could fall under the Criminal Code
Then of course you will have to stomach:
Lower wages
Higher Taxes:
>50% of your income between Federal and Provincial taxes (if you're a technogeek like me and get paid for it)
Last time I looked, 9% Provincial sales tax (depending on the province) + 7% Federal GST on goods purchased in Canada.
Then there is of course the politics. If you like politics in the U.S. you will *love* them in Canada. Watching the proceedings in the House of Commons gives new meaning to the phrase "spirited debate".
Do you like unions in the U.S.? You'll love them in Canada. Think about what it means when the nurses go on strike, or the postal service, or
I could go on. Like any other country, Canada has its good as well as bad points. Make sure you understand what those are and can live with them before you pack up your bags and go.
Would you like fries with that?
Air Force Pilot http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Content/0,1389
Astronaut http://www.nasajobs.nasa.gov/jobs/astronauts/aso/