The Search for Secret Shuttle Parts 375
Slashdot readers have been submitting this story about the search
for secret shuttle parts with all sorts of insane conspiracy theories attached to their cut & paste of the URL. It's apparently just the box that handled encryption for messages, so of course Uncle Sam wants it back. Quite the needle in a haystack tho.
Spam (Score:3, Funny)
Of course they want it back! (Score:5, Interesting)
Spy novelists are salivating right now with such story line.
Re:Of course they want it back! (Score:4, Interesting)
and if not??? Seriously, should we assume that NASA is being honest about what exactly they are searching for? Without resorting to conspiracy theories, would it make sense for the agency to publicize the specific thing that is missing?
As soon as the shuttle went down and they started posting messages warning people not to even get near anything that might be from the shuttle, I wondered whether it was indeed due to toxins from the fuel system (which is, I believe what they claimed) or rather something else -- not necessarily anything very sinister, mind you, just run of the mill disinformation.
Of course, we'll never know. But it sure is fun to speculate!
Re:Of course they want it back! (Score:5, Insightful)
I noticed at the time that the news agencies were making a big deal of the toxins and that people shouldn't touch anything. Then a few days later it was followed up by reports of people in hospital, in a very "we told you so" attitude.
The chances are though, while there were some pretty nasty chemicals on board, all they wanted to do was to keep the parts in as good a condition as possible. They will be rebuilding and analysing the parts to get as much information on what happened. Let's face it, the main objective of investigations will be to prevent a similar disaster happening again. Good luck to them, I hope they figure it out.
Re: Of course they want it back! (Score:2, Interesting)
> The chances are though, while there were some pretty nasty chemicals on board, all they wanted to do was to keep the parts in as good a condition as possible.
That's sort of what I thought too: scare us into doing the right thing. However, a day or two ago we started getting reports of animals in the area showing strange syndromes (swollen tongues and necks) that may or may not be related to the wreckage. Maybe more scary story, maybe a genuine problem.
Re:Of course they want it back! (Score:4, Interesting)
My
Re:Of course they want it back! (Score:4, Insightful)
Why are they encrypting the messages anyway? I thought the missions were public, and AFAIK, hams have been listening to radio communication between the ISS and the ground for a long time.
Re:Of course they want it back! (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the loss of Challenger, the shuttle has not carried any commercial payloads. It's all military and other government agencies, so they'd want to use secure comms to get those things set up.
Also, they'd want to be able to restrict who has access to the remote telemetry feeds and possibly even any kind of remote control systems they have. The last thing NASA wants is for a l33t hax0r to deploy the landing gear while still in orbit! Good encrytion will play a large part in this.
Re:Of course they want it back! (Score:3, Insightful)
So surely, signing of commands is more important that encryption of commands.
Re:Of course they want it back! (Score:3, Informative)
Changing keys in devices is not a trivial ordeal - you need physical transports to every device needing rekeyed. It's time consuming and opens the door for other temporary exploits.
Obscurity is a good tool but never never never should it be the primary gatekeeper in keeping something secure.
As for the need for encrypted communication - I am sure there are controls in place that actions to be performed by to the shuttle by NASA on the ground. Wouldn't that be a nice thing to have encrypted and authenticated?
Re:Of course they want it back! (Score:4, Interesting)
BTW, the bad guys don't need the hardware to break the messages. During WWII and since, tons of encryption schemes have been broken by math alone. Of course, having the harware to reverse engineer makes the math a lot simpler.
Re:Of course they want it back! (Score:3, Informative)
However, it is possible for the government to make both obscure and secure systems, because they have their own large pool of talented cryptographers: the NSA.
Some crypto-algorithm details are classified (Score:3, Interesting)
The ciphers fall into three types. Type 1 are the most classified, details not known. Has ciphers such as BATON, JUNIPER, MAYFLY, CRAYON. Type 2 falls in between, contains stuff like KEA and SKIPJACK, some details known (for instance SKIPJACK is now declassified). Type 3 contains all the rest, roughly Why some of the ciphers are secret is because their design will indirectly reveal ways to attack the ciphers (naturally the ciphers have been designed to resist such attacks). Such ways to attack are known by the designers of the classified ciphers (that means the NSA) but possibly not by the academia. For example, DES was resistant to a form of attack not known previously outside NSA (possibly other intelligence agencies too who use the Echelon walk-around to go around legal restrictions when spying on their own citizens (this means you are country A, you spy inside country B and give the results to the spooks of country A). So having secret ciphers is a matter of protecting the "intellectual property" of the spooks.
There could also be other technical innovations, as the module is likely made tamperproof. If somebody has more information (or pointers) about the aforementioned classified ciphers, please post it here.
As for why the shuttle communications are encrypted, could it be because there's some things going on in there you don't want people to know (not ETs but like designing chemical weapons reagents and watching certain countries).
Re:Of course they want it back! (Score:2, Informative)
eBay? (Score:5, Funny)
Secret Government Property???????? (Score:4, Funny)
Secret Government Property?
They should have disguised it as an 8-track tape player.
Re:Secret Government Property???????? (Score:5, Funny)
It is an 8-track tape player.
Re:Secret Government Property???????? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Secret Government Property???????? (Score:5, Funny)
Or a copy of Daikatana...
Re:Secret Government Property???????? (Score:5, Funny)
Contains The Text of the USA Patriot Act.
Beaches II: Bette is back.
Star Trek: Nemesis Collectors Edition.
Bring out the conspiracies. (Score:5, Funny)
Anyway I think it was the Aliens with the Communists conspiering to destroy the Anti-terror pact by exposing that the space shuttle doesnt go into space ata all and instead just flies around the place.
Re: Bring out the conspiracies. (Score:2, Insightful)
> It was bound to happen. It allways takes a week or so before the theories start popping up.
I think we could generate a timeline for the public response to certain kinds of disaster. From 9/11 and the Columbia accident the newscoverage seems to be:
Day one: news anchors all day; admit they know nothing and just keep repeating the same rudimentary facts over and over. A few unfounded rumors will start creeping in as the day progresses.
Day two: the news anchors yield to the talking heads; they don't know anything either, but they pretend they do. Bullshit rules.
Day three or four: the special reports start. A few more trivial facts emerge, but for the most part it's just a slicker package for what we got on day one.
Re: Bring out the conspiracies. (Score:2)
Day six: Neil revealed t be still alive. And the people rejoised.
Day seven: Someone find a sentence in the bible "And eight stars shall fall from the sky". The computer must count for that last one.
Day eight: Reporters now have to over exagurate the importance any evidence. Any and all items found link directly to Elvis.
Re: Bring out the conspiracies. (Score:2)
The danger here (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The danger here (Score:2, Informative)
Its most likely a COMSEC module from the communications system - This would be what is termed a CCI (Cryptographically Controlled Item) by itself it would be useless to a terrorist - but coupled with the keying material it might be useful - it is doubtful to me that the device survived with the key still in memory - but I guess the government wants to be sure.
The right answer in parent- (Score:2, Informative)
The reason they want it back is that is IS a CCI, and therefore by beuracratic law and common sense, must be recovered and accounted for.
As to the key not being intact, odds are the device was in use when crew perished. Likely they didn't zeroize (official term, no shit) the key. If the unit is intact, so is the key. Fortunately, the key storage space is "tamper proof" that would self destruct the storage area on any attempt to crack it open.
Re:The danger here (Score:2)
Re:The danger here (Score:3, Interesting)
I dunno, they're parked in a pretty bad neighbourhood. They might come back to find the ISS stripped and up on blocks.
And what if the Chinese invoke international (sea) laws about salvage? (Damned unlikely, but eventually we're going to see a lot more law in space.)
Re:The danger here (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Addendum (Score:4, Interesting)
You can read the text of the treaty at http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/outersptxt.
States Parties to the Treaty shall regard astronauts as envoys of mankind in outer space and shall render to them all possible assistance in the event of accident, distress, or emergency landing on the territory of another State Party or on the high seas. When astronauts make such a landing, they shall be safely and promptly returned to the State of registry of their space vehicle.
In carrying on activities in outer space and on celestial bodies, the astronauts of one State Party shall render all possible assistance to the astronauts of other States Parties.
States Parties to the Treaty shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the Treaty or the Secretary-General of the United Nations of any phenomena they discover in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, which could constitute a danger to the life or health of astronauts.
*RIING* (Score:3, Funny)
Russians Can Help, But Can't Sustain ISS Alone (Score:5, Interesting)
Russia also uses their unmanned Progress craft to send up small amounts of supplies on a regular basis, and to remove some of the station's waste. The craft then burns up on re-entry.
Using the Russian craft effectively limits the station's capabilities. Since the Soyuz is the only way to get the crew off the station in an emergency, that means no more than 3 people can be onboard, which is about one-half the intended crew complement, I believe. Fewer people means fewer results.
The cargo-capacity of Progress, only a small fraction of the Shuttle's, is simply insufficient to resupply the station in the long term.
And, of course, remember that tthe station is not yet complete. Only the Shuttle can do that job.
Don't forget that the Shuttle's intended design was crippled by the Nixon Administration's budget crew and that, ever since, the U.S. has been operating a human space flight program that manages to combine lack of direction (no President since Kennedy has provided even an ounce of space leadership) with rigidity and feigned purpose.
Re:Russians Can Help, But Can't Sustain ISS Alone (Score:2, Interesting)
> off the station in an emergency, that means no
> more than 3 people can be onboard,
ISS has two Soyuz docking ports, so if a replacement crew is sent up on a new Soyuz there could be
Re:Russians Can Help, But Can't Sustain ISS Alone (Score:2)
Actually, aren't there a few Energias left, or did the Russians dispose of them all? They have enough lift to put the parts into ISS' orbit. The big problem is assembly. Soyuz lacks the EVA features of the Shuttle, and the ISS needs a crew of six to support construction (it takes three people just to keep the systems up and running.)
It seems to me that the oft-delayed lifeboat space glider that NASA was supposed to be developing might be the answer. Only problem is that there's no way it can be finished in time. If we could get a crew of six up there safely, we could use Big Dumb Boosters to orbit the parts.
Re:Russians Can Help, But Can't Sustain ISS Alone (Score:2)
Are there details about that? What do they do that takes so much time? What the heck were they thinking when they built it?
Re:Russians Can Help, But Can't Sustain ISS Alone (Score:2)
As opposed to just lifting units on any of the variety of disposable boosters in service?
Modules would be limited to 10 tonnes instead of 30 (unless a new heavy-lift booster was designed or the Saturn V was put back into production), but this would still certainly be adequate.
The main change needed would be the addition of small attitude control thrusters to the cargo to match orbits precisely with the space station and come close enough to docking that the new segments could either be hauled in by astronauts or moved using the station's manipulator arm.
I do not think that the shuttle is required for space station construction. It's _convenient_, but not required.
Re:Russians Can Help, But Can't Sustain ISS Alone (Score:5, Insightful)
The notion of creating cheaper, safer ways to get into orbit is, of course, a no-brainer. Would you want to create more expensive, dangerous paths to orbit?
If I understand correctly, a few factors made the shuttle look like a good idea when the program was intiated:
In principle, this seems reasonable, as you don't have to throw away the investment made in building the craft. In hindsight, we know that the added complexity and maintenance requirements overwhelmed this advantage, but this wasn't necessarily obvious going into the project. People evidently still believe that the goal is attainable, as proposals for reusable craft are regularly floated.
The cost of the support facilities for the shuttle are amortized over the shuttle launches taking place. At the original proposed launch frequency - on the order of once a week or more, if I recall correctly - the impact on payload cost of paying for the launch and maintenance facilities would have been much lower.
Unfortunately, this required a craft reliable and easily maintained enough to launch on a weekly basis, and enough people willing to pay for shuttle payloads to launch at that frequency.
I've heard allegations that this was originally supposed to be the shuttle's only job. It's a craft that can go just about anywhere in low orbit, match courses with stations or satellites, transfer crew, perform repairs, retrieve malfunctioning satellintes, and so forth. As a cargo vehicle, it's horrible, but in other respects it's a very flexible and potentially useful craft.
Of course, its usefulness assumes that there are enough satellites and space stations to require regular shuttle service.
In the political climate of the time, this was important and could be argued to have enough political effect to make it worthwhile to pursue regardless of other merits.
In short, I think the shuttle falls into the "it seemed like a good idea at the time" category. Assumptions that were made turned out not to hold, and costs turned out to be much higher than expected. Thus, the craft we're now stuck with.
Space travel is about going someplace. Someone needs to pick a destination for NASA.
I'm not sure about this. The goal of the manned space program also involves establishing human presence in space. This goal is best accomplished by building more facilities in the areas we can reach easily and know a lot about, as opposed to sending humans to every object we can find. Exploration is a goal too; however, it's not the only goal, and manned expeditions are arguably less useful for this aspect.
Anything science-related is most efficiently performed by unmanned devices. If we're sending people into space, it's for other reasons than science ("because we think it's cool" is, in my opinion, a valid reason).
Re:Russians Can Help, But Can't Sustain ISS Alone (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Russians Can Help, But Can't Sustain ISS Alone (Score:3, Insightful)
And, of course, remember that tthe station is not yet complete. Only the Shuttle can do that job.
What a load of bullshit. About half of it in terms of weight happened to be where it is on the back of a Proton booster. Which russians have been and are launching with a frequency of a flight per month or more to carry commercial satellite payloads. So no problem there whatsoever and actually the Shuttle is the most inefficient and expensive way to continue the expansion of the ISS.
Using the Russian craft effectively limits the station's capabilities. Since the Soyuz is the only way to get the crew off the station in an emergency, that means no more than 3 people can be onboard, which is about one-half the intended crew complement, I believe.
The ISS AFAIK has more then 6 docking ports. While you can dock at most two shuttles to it due to space constraints, you can make a Christmas tree of Soyuz and Progress craft out of it. Which in fact means more crew then with a shuttle.
The cargo-capacity of Progress, only a small fraction of the Shuttle's, is simply insufficient to resupply the station in the long term.
After you do a bang for the buck calculation you suddenly find out that Progress is actually a more efficient means of delivering payload. It is less then the shuttle at a time but it is more the enough as Salut and Mir has proved through the years.
Overall, using shuttle for the ISS is only a matter of politics. What the ISS needs to make itself ecomomically more reasonable is not more shuttle. It is a higher capacity cargo container launched with disposable boosters like the Ariana 5, Proton or if it is something even bigger Energia. After all that is what Energia was designed for - to be a modular booster capable to deliver hundreds of tons into low orbit (it cannot reach stationary).
Question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
The box is most likely an Identify Friend Or Foe box. Any encryption of actual data would be handled by the applications sending it.
IFOF boxes are standard on all military vehicles. The shuttle is a military vehicle as defined by the relevant treaties as it has been used to launch military satelites. It would carry an IFOF box in any case as a matter of course since there is a sizable probability it might end up comming down in non-US airspace.
One of the alleged features of IFOF is the ability to identify itself to other 'friendly' airborne objects and avoid an attack. For example a passing stinger missile obtained from Uncle Sam by way of the Taleban.
It is unlikely such a box would have an amazingly complex crypto system. After all you don't want your stinger missile to be doing DH calculations before deciding whether to explode. So there could be some real importance there.
Re:Question (Score:3, Informative)
Ummm... I thought that a stinger missile uses only infrared guidence [howstuffworks.com]. Those missiles are not likely to be talking to an electronic gadget on the space shuttle, nor are they likely to be effective after the first few seconds of liftoff (when the engines are on and the vehicle is in range of the stinger). Even at liftoff, I would guess that a stinger might be incinerated by the exhaust plume before it reaches the shuttle.
Re:Question (Score:4, Informative)
The use infrared guidance to find the target. They may use IFOF to identify non-tagets.
I can't find any authoritative source like Jane's that lists this capability. However the idea of denying ordinance to the enemy has been known for years. The term 'spiking his guns' refers to the practice of carrying soft copper nails into battle to drive into the touchports of any captured weapons to stop them being used against them if the tide of battle turns again. Alternatively they might be used to prevent weapons that are about to be lost being turned against them (a less likely occurrence since the guns would usually be aimed in the wrong direction).
Re:Question (Score:2, Insightful)
Kinda like a turn signal. Be nice if you used it to avoid an accident, but the vehicle still turns regardless.
Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Travis
Re:Question (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Question (Score:2)
My personal experience kinda makes me doubt that. When a group of people suggested taking the mars lunar rover for a joy ride the proverbial excrement hit the ventilator.
I got a call from the EOP which was in panic don't trust a word that is said by the NASA management mode. The (limited) information I got (I don't have a security clearance, I am not a US national) was that they did not have any crypto protection on the control signals. They don't want extra boxes to go wrong.
It is not unlikely that the shuttle had encryption boxes on it. However I would not expect them to be used for the bulk of the signals. I certainly would not expect the shuttle to be carrying crypto boxes whose contents could compromise any NATO systems. The probability of the shuttle comming down in the wrong place was always significant. That is why the shuttle crews went on survival courses.
Also the real secure crypto boxes have explosives embedded to make sure the contents get wiped. I doubt NASA would want to carry such boxes without a really good reason.
I would however doubt anything told me in a press report. First off the journalist probably does not know the difference between a crypto box and an IFF box so the fact a distinction is not drawn in the article is not significant. There are probably a lot of components that the US govt would not want in the wrong hands.
Secondly the US media is quite happy to report any old garbage told it when it comes to this type of incident. So I prefer to check any info I receive against my own sources.
No. There's no "sizeable chance"; the shuttle is not a capsule with little/no control.i>
Events kinda disprove that assertion. And in any case astronauts have always received training in case they come down in the wrong location. I kinda thought the training was kinda wierd since the probability the craft would come down in one piece in a really out of the way place unobserved seemed unlikely. However whoever was in charge of the crypto hardware would have reconned that the probability that another shuttle came to a sticky end would be well within probabilities that lead to concern.
No. Missiles do not do friend-or-foe identification. It's done by radar systems at fixed installations or on vehicles, not munitions.
You would probably want the radars to have the ability to identify the shuttle though...
Omens (Score:2, Flamebait)
After all as an omen the shuttle does look bad. It is named after the discover of America (what do you think the yacht was named after). It carries the first Israeli in space and the parts fall first on Palestine Texas - the home state of Cheney and Bush.
OK so you probably don't belive in such things. But the President does, or at least he believes in the bible which is full of such interpretations of events. More importantly the loonie fundamentalist Islamic types believe in such stuff.
Re:Omens (Score:2)
Why this s important? (Score:2)
The same with the shuttle. I'm afraid there are a significant number of people out there who bekeve that god is on their side, if they feel that their beliefs are justified - they will fight harder.
What?? (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot readers have been submitting this story about the search for secret shuttle parts with all sorts of insane conspiracy theories attached to their cut & paste of the URL. It's apparently just the box that handled encryption for messages...
A Slashdot editor actually READ a submitted article, and posted comments that seem reasonable and logically thought out?
Re:What?? (Score:2)
Re:What?? (Score:2)
With their wee little cut and paste, aren't they grown up? Aren't they? Yes they are!
Re:What?? (Score:2)
This by itself is the best evidence that there is a conspiracy and they "got" to CmdrTaco...
Doesn't sound that big a deal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't sound that big a deal (Score:2)
Hardware encryption devices are the same. I saw a bank datacenter once.. they were very touchy about me going near the big unmarked but very well secured metal box that linked their automatic teller network to it's host
Re:Doesn't sound that big a deal (Score:2)
And the NSA is real good at testing security.
so if your box uses a method tested by 1,000 crypto Ph.Ds (i.e. NSA) then you gain a slight measure of security by keeping the method secret too. No need to give your attacker ANY information, like block sizes/key lengths/number of wires needed etc. Make them figure that out too.
I'm sure the government has plenty of crypto methods available and losing a box probably isn't catastrophic. but what if the box reveals hardware that uses 2 megabyte keys? no need to even let the enemy know how advanced you are.
Its and encryption unit (Score:2, Insightful)
The thing that gets me the most though, is the fact that people are selling parts on eBay. It had to happen I suppose, but its just what I would see as being incredibly sick. Are people really that much of a slave to the mighty Dollar that they must do that? Totally sick.
Re:Its and encryption unit (Score:2, Interesting)
>>Then again, the Nazis using Enigma used keys
>>like 'Hitler'
Not exactly possible. Enigma used a 3 letter indicator sequence that were sent twice for double encodement.
Some operators did use the same inital indicator sequence every day. Others would not shift the rotors from the previous days setting thus allowing another 'day' of decodes if found.
Another way decodes occured dealt with the German style of not abbreviating long words/titles and beginning messages with the exact same salutation each day.
Captures of long range weather boats and some U-boats (carrying months of daily keys) were another successful ploy to assist Bletchley Park; especially since the Naval Enigma was much more complex (extra rotors, key rotation, etc.) than Army and standard police/government.
Check "Battle of Wits: The Complete Story of Codebreaking in World War II," by Stephen Budiansky, "Seizing the Enigma: The Race to Break the German U-Boat Codes 1939-1943," by David Kahn, and http://www.xat.nl/enigma/ for some working software simulations.
you would think that... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:you would think that... (Score:3, Funny)
Either that or a
Re:you would think that... (Score:4, Funny)
Um... (Score:2)
"Secret Government Property" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"Secret Government Property" (Score:2)
Then again, there's always the good old ATM trick of filling the safe outer with small explosive charges.. gives people drilling into them a bit of a fright
Insane Conspiracies? Hardly! (Score:4, Funny)
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
I don't believe a word spewed from the mouths of those bureacrats.
rush? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Insane Conspiracies? Hardly! (Score:2, Informative)
2) It is not Informative, it is Pathetic.
Re:Insane Conspiracies? Hardly! (Score:5, Funny)
This is a little discouraging..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is a little discouraging..... (Score:5, Interesting)
That is pure dogma. The biggest enemy of security is dogma in place of thought.
The Germans had good reason to use security through obscurity. At the time there were NO ciphers available that were not vulnerable to analysis. It would not have taken an insane amount of additional computing power to break the allied codes. They were only slightly better by modern standards.
The enigma codes were broken in part because the Allies captured several enigma machines and code books. But the Germans knew that it was likely that this would happen. The Enigma system had been designed to be resistant to such attacks. It failed because it had one non obvious flwa - a letter never encrybecpted to itself and the operators were indisciplined.
The reason that security through obscurity is bad is it leads to complacency. But it is not the only way people can become complacent. As recently as 1992 I was arguing with UNIX sysadmins on comp.sys.computing that shaddow passowrds were necessary for UNIX since crack etc. were a real threat. Oh no came the reply you are ignorant, you don't understand, you are promoting security through obscurity.
box explained... (Score:5, Funny)
Communications Security (Score:2, Interesting)
What they found orbiting earth? (Score:2)
Or maybe what they are looking for is not the encryption device, but what they found out there. What if it's a pocket sized monolith full of stars? or a sign saying "Kilroy was here"? or a dinosaur/alien egg?
One time pads ? (Score:2)
Maybe its this key book that is so vital as its shared across the shuttles.
Here is a conspiracy (Score:2)
Re:Here is a conspiracy (Score:3, Flamebait)
That one is quite easy to explain. Most parts of the shuttle are not dangerous at all, but if the government warns the stupid public that even the smallest part can kill you, people are just a little less likely to move, steal, or otherwise disturb parts.
Most people are sheepish, and if someone tells them that something is dangerous, they'll be too petrified in fear to actually think for themselves. This is evidenced in the public's reaction to various major events.
Re:Here is a conspiracy (Score:2)
The rocket broke up during re-entry, not burnt.. which means that there's quite a likelyhood that it didn't burn up all the fuel from the insides of the tanks.
Re:Here is a conspiracy (Score:2)
Yea, there might have been something on the shuttle that we didn't know about...but this was a civilian mission and not a military mission. We already know they were doing research into various medical technologies (draw you own conclusions here)...What if if it happens to be an electronic device, there is possibility of static discharge...I mean, wouldn't it be tragic if someone found a data recorder that "survived" and a static discharge from picking it up destroyed it???
Then again, we don't know what hit the shuttle...maybe it was radioactive...
Of course, anyone following the salvage effort knows that they are using GPS coordinates to map all debris...moving a piece would certainly throw off the calculations...
So, there could be a lot of reasons for the request to not touch debris...it might be related to a specific concern, but they are most likely just "playing it safe"...
That's it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes I think people need to realize that even with all the "straight-talk" and analyzation ther were seven people burned alive that didn't do anything wrong except want to explore the unknown and make strives for science. These seven people were family members, friends, teachers, and of a rare breed of astronaut who had joined the handful before them to enter space. Many have been lost in the name of science and discovery, but to assume that maybe they're lives were lost in vain would be to me one of the worst things ever.
Take a step back, realize what's being said and move on, they're collecting the wreckage because someone or a whole lot of someones are going to be losing their jobs because of this. NASA does everything right, and this was something done wrong. For every scientist in NASA there are thousands at the door ready to take their place and for every astronaut there are thousands ready to take their place. NASA is the home of the eleet and the best of the best, failure or mistakes are not taken lightly.
Well DUH! (Score:4, Interesting)
What is really funny is that people were surprised that the government reacted so harshly to items appearing on E-bay. And people were suprised when the Men in Black(R) show up demanding the items back.
Russian news media theory (Score:2)
I consider it a bit unlikely, but thought it would be a nice thing to add to your conspiracy jar.
Remember... Finders Keepers... (Score:2, Interesting)
While it is a crash investigation and it is illegal to withhold what you know, if this top secret piece of decryption hardware fell on your lawn, you legal own it as it is on your property and you have salvaged it.
Like it or not this is the case and the media and the police saying otherwise is starting to bother me.
One little note, just because it is your property doesn't mean you are able to withhold access to it to the crash investigation, after all, that's exactly what it is. It is illegal for you to impede the investigation, but at the end of it they are required to return your property to you.
Re:Remember... Finders Keepers... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Remember... Finders Keepers... NOT. (Score:4, Informative)
Article VIII
A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body. Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party to the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish identifying data prior to their return.
Plus the applicable U.S. code [cornell.edu]
"Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or..."
NASA has never relinquished control of the spacecraft, in case you hadn't noticed.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I suffer fools lightly...
Re:Remember... Finders Keepers... (Score:5, Insightful)
While it is a crash investigation and it is illegal to withhold what you know, if this top secret piece of decryption hardware fell on your lawn, you legal own it as it is on your property and you have salvaged it.
Uh, no. You are totally wrong. It's either your property or it isn't -- it's irrelevent if something happens to land on your lawn. If I accidently drop my hedging shears over the fence to my neighbor, it doesn't automatically belong to my neighbor.
Also note that it's NOT necessarily legal for you to keep something that you find that someone else lost. It's particularly illegal for you to keep stolen goods (like bank robber drops the bag of money and you grab it).
Also contrary to popular belief, if a package is misdelivered to you, you are NOT entitled to keep it. On the other hand, if someone sends you something without your authorization and then bills you, then generally you are allowed to keep it.
Local details may vary, of course.
Re:Remember... Finders Keepers... (Score:4, Informative)
You'll note there's no exception in there for "salvaging" it from your front yard. If it says "U.S. Government Property" on it, I suggest you return it -- but IANAL, so you're free to disregard my advice.
Re:Remember... Finders Keepers... (Score:3, Informative)
On the other hand, if the government wants it back permanently, they have two primary avenues of attack.
The first is to use or create legislation to prevent you from posessing it. If they make it illegal for you to own, then if they know you have it, they can come right on your property and take it, because getting a warrant will be trivial. If an item is sufficiently important then a limited state of emergency can be declared and then men in green wearing helmets and carrying M4s will show up and blitz their way through your property.
The second way is simply to use their overwhelming power to make your life hell until you give it up.
Finally; even with the aid of a lawyer it is difficult enough to get something illegally seized back from the police. You think you're going to get something back from the feds? hahahahahahahahahaha
hashahahahahhahaha
Et cetera.
Just the private key (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone keeps asking about why the government is using top secret hardware to do encryption when they could just be using some standard encryption technique, people are complaining about security through obscurity, etc.
It could just be the storage media that holds their private key.
Anyone who stores their private keys on ThumbDrives or carries SmartCards has this kind of "top secret" hardware.
"Secret Government" Property? (Score:3, Funny)
-T
Maybe it's the keys, not the code (Score:2)
-me
Try google and ebay (Score:2, Funny)
What if the parts wouldn't have fallen to the USA? (Score:5, Interesting)
I suppose it's a good thing for the US government that the crash happened on home territory. When landing, the shuttle passes first over a great deal of sea (Pacific Ocean) and then lots of US soil.
Imagine a scenario where the geographical circumstances would not be so favourable and the parts of the shuttle would have fallen and crashed into another (perhaps less friendly) country. Would the US kidly ask for the debris to be returned, or would they engage into a secret undercover recovery operation in order to retrieve these top secret components?
What if this operation would have to be so extensive, that it could not be held secret? To what lengths do you think the US government would go in order to re-acquire the parts?
Similar situation with Intelsat 708 (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's an excerpt from the Intelsat 708 investigation that might shed some light on the subject.
The Intelsat 708 Encryption Boards Were Never Recovered
The Intelsat 708 satellite carried two FAC-3R encryption boards, one in each of its command processor units. These boards are considered Controlled Cryptographic Items by the Department of Defense, and the algorithm is classified "Secret."
Encryption boards are used to protect the command and control links between the ground station and satellite. They are required even on satellites that carry unclassified U.S. Government communications traffic. These devices do not encrypt the communications traffic that is otherwise processed by the satellite payload.373
Shortly after the Intelsat 708 launch failure, Loral's Communications Security custodian reported to the Department of Defense that the status of the encryption boards was being changed to "destroyed."
This was not seen as unusual by Department of Defense, however, because its prescribed policy requires that encryption boards be reported as "destroyed" when they are launched into orbit.
The Department of Defense did not require Loral to produce any evidence that the FAC-3R boards were in fact destroyed.374
After recovering debris from the crash site, Loral engineers grossly estimated the percentages of various subsystems and components that had been recovered.375 In that estimate, Loral engineer Muhammad Wahdy estimated that 30% of the command processors were recovered.376 Loral personnel then packaged the debris and shipped it to Palo Alto, where engineers examined the debris to specifically determine if the encryption boards were recovered.377
That examination determined that the FAC-3R boards were not, in fact, recovered from the crash site.378
The two FAC-3R encryption boards used on the Intelsat 708 satellite were mounted near the hydrazine propellant tanks and most likely were destroyed in the explosion. Additionally, the two FAC-3R boards had no distinguishing markings other than a serial number, making it extremely difficult to locate them amongst the crash debris.379
It is not known, however, whether the FAC-3R boards were recovered by the PRC. If they were, it would be difficult for the PRC to determine the cryptographic algorithm that was imprinted on them.
Reverse-engineering of a damaged board would be even more difficult. Any successful reverse-engineering would be resource intensive for the PRC.
If the PRC were able to determine the cryptographic algorithm contained on the FAC-3R board, it would gain insight into the state of the U.S. military in the 1960s, although such algorithms remain in use today.380
When the National Security Agency designs and recommends algorithms for use in equipment, it assumes that the equipment will be lost or compromised sometime during its operational lifetime. The National Security Agency relies on unique cryptographic keys for each separate satellite to keep command and control links secure. Because the FAC-3R boards on Intelsat 708 were uniquely keyed, the National Security Agency remains convinced that there is no risk to other satellite systems, now or in the future, resulting from having not recovering the FAC-3R boards from the PRC.381
Wrong and Inane (Score:3, Interesting)
Two, military aircraft fly every day chocked full of classified hardware and software. And, sometimes they crash. The argument that the possibility of a crash should preclude the use of classified devices is wrong and inane.
Re:NASA blew it up!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
The NSDs provide the spark to ignite the CDF, which in turn ignites the LSC for shuttle vehicle destruction. The safe and arm device provides mechanical isolation between the NSDs and the CDF before launch and during the SRB separation sequence.
The mechanism is installed in the SRB's and the ET. Once away, there is no destruct capability documented. And why document one, but not another?
Re:NASA blew it up!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
No they don't, from an engineering and risk assessment perspective that simply makes no sense to me.
Rockets are either designed to be:
1) Re-usable.
Take the SRB's (Solid Rocket Boosters) or the Baikal (the reusable part of the new Russian Angara rocket) - they are reusable, that is: specifically designed to be reused. They are supposed to return to earth once they are spent, ready to be reused, bolted on to new second stage apparatus and fired back into space time after time.
Putting self-destruct systems in case they fall back to earth (which is something it's designed to do deliberately) would be silly. Particularly as the SRB's are (a) fitted with parachutes for a nice soft landing and (b) only launched so that they fall back to earth over the sea (where there aren't any cities).
2) Disintegrate.
Though they are not really rockets, ET's (External Tank's - i.e. the big orange thing an Orbiter is attached to) are designed to self distruct in earths atmosphere when their role is complete. I use this as an example to demonstrate that if don't want your 'Rocket' to self-destruct then it's fairly simple to have it disintegrate (burn-up) on re-entry.
In fact, as we've just seen, getting things to NOT burn up on re-entry is the problem.
Moving on...
I'd also like to point out that not only is the Orbiter not a 'rocket', but that if you really have as much knowledge as you want us to believe then I'm surprised that you didn't call the Orbiter an Orbiter and instead only ever referred to it in your posts as a 'shuttle' (which seems an odd, though not entirely unprecedented, thing for someone in the field - bearing in mind it was on it's return trip).
If as you suggest, self-destruct systems exist on rockets and Orbiters, why not on satellites? After all, satellites like Skylab clearly lack such systems (as was demonstrated by Skylabs ungracious 'landing' over Australia) - this odd proclivity towards putting self-destruct systems on space craft, while simultaneously discriminating against satellites makes little sense.
Additionally I'd point out, that it is extremely difficult to hit any precise target with an Orbiter, even with the aid of OMS/RCS (Orbital Manoeuvring System/Reaction Control System) and the avionics system, hence the unusual landing pattern that all Orbiter's follow - it's a difficult enough task just getting to the runway. In fact only one human has ever landed an Orbiter without the aid of the avionics system (and this individual had hundreds of flights logged).
This is relevant because hitting a target as big as a city with a returning Orbiter _ON_PURPOSE_ would be a difficult task for any pilot. Hitting a built up area, let alone any people, purely through random chance would take a miracle.
Besides which - did you not see the chunks of the Orbiter that came down? They were massive - some of the pieces that fell (which were numbered in the thousands) were easily the size of an engine block.
Explain to be how this is better - and in any way safer - than letting the Orbiter come down in once big piece?*
*= Especially when there is an inflight crew escape system (which was fitted after the Challenger incident in 86) - which would mean even if the Orbiter was heading off course the crew would still have the chance to slide along the escape rail and parachute out when they reach a low enough altitude (assuming the Orbiter was not spining or rolling).
Re:Would it still work? (Score:2)
Creeps like the Pollards are much more of a risk to encryption systems than this problem.
As to the parinoid amongst you, the shuttle's have used some military com technology since nearly their inception. The military paid part of the initial development and that was one of the consessions that NASA made to keep them happy. Do remember that there was a plan, up till Challenger, to launch from the CA coast for missions that were all military.
-- Multics
Not UFO's, but flakes of metal in the air filter (Score:4, Interesting)
If you'd actually seen the broadcast you'd know it had nothing to do with UFO's or 'Space debris being pushed around by thrusters' as you put it (this is related to an entirely different reported incident and has nothing to do with why they cancelled some of the live a/v feeds, it didn't even happen at the same time). Additionally, the concern astronauts expressed about the space debris was not that it might be a UFO, but rather it might be part of the ISS or the shuttle which was, to them, of much more immediate concern.
I remember the actual incident quite vividly and it had everything to do with dust and small particles, some of which were suspected to be metallic by the crew, being pushed around by the air filters on board the ISS - as it was this which lead to complaints from the crew.
Needless to say, the crew were not happy about this situation - particularly as a complaint regarding this issue had already been made, yet it had been seen to be ignored by mission control. NASA ground control attempted to disregard the importance of the complaint, they even seemed to doubt it's credibility (I hypothesise that in such an incident some ground staff may have downgraded the severity of the complaint in the own minds and put down to the perception of an understandable crankiness of a crew living in close, cramped quarters for months at a time).
It was the appearance of disharmony and complaints from the crew which lead to the decision not to have 24 hour 'live' streaming as it was decided that this was not in the best interests of NASA, or the ISS, from a public relations perspective.
In their defence, the crew on board the ISS had been wound up even further as the communications to the ground kept breaking up and cutting out due to interference, which forced them to have to keep repeating their report. They also had other on going issues which give them cause for complaint, but I don't remember what they were.
Personally I do not think they were being particularly cranky - certainly I'd expect to see much more negative retoric in an office environment over issues considerably less trivial than small flakes of metal in the air conditioning, but I can only assume that NASA feels the significance of the project demands a greater sense of sensitivity that most work environments. Overall, I think the withdrawal of the video on these grounds was a mistake, as it has hurt NASA and ISS public relations rather than helped (due the relative triviality of the incident).
Of course there may be other reasons which lead to the cutting of the a/v feed, but this was the incident and reason cited by NASA at the time...
* IIRC this happend in the first half of 2000, but I could be wrong about that as I often find I get time periods mixed up.