6 ms·
Hackers said to be planning to Launch Satellites to Combat Censorship
- ntkachov 15y agoSo suppose these satellites do go up, If they aren't in the jurisdiction of any single country, whats stopping the US(or any country) from just shooting them down?
- okal 15y agoMy guess, and it's pure speculation, would be that so many satellites would be launched as to make it untenable to keep doing so over the long run.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- atakan_gurkan 15y agoThe debris would be harmful to other satellites in orbit. Since it introduces significant risk, they cannot just shoot them down without a good reason.
- gldalmaso 15y agoPrecisely, here's a more in depth rationale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_Syndrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_Syndrome Nations have become increasingly conscientious about this problem after a couple of incidents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris#Debris_from_and_as_a_weapon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris#Debris_from_and_as...
- hahhichood 15y agoI would imagine they are working on, or already have, methods for disabling satellites without blowing them up and nudging them out of a stable orbit. Must be a way to ruin the solar panels with a laser or similar. I assume non-state actors won't be able to launch satellites that use a nuclear energy source?
- smhinsey 15y agoThe X-37 (or whatever it ends up being called in the future) likely could snatch them right out of orbit without harming anything. I have no idea if it would be worth the expense, but that sort of capability is almost certainly a goal of the design. I have no doubt that at least the USAF and maybe their foreign counterparts are very invested in just this problem.
- derrida 15y agoJust launch a giant magnet at close range past it and head for the atmosphere. No debris, just burn-up.
- tomjen3 15y agoA group that can launch a satellite in orbit is also capable of launching a nuclear weapon in orbit. (That is the reason the US was so freak by Sputnik). So presumably the US is smart enough not to mess with such groups (even if they don't actually have nuclear weapons they would still be able to do great damage with conventional explosions or even a piece of rock).
- JabavuAdams 15y agoThis makes no sense. If I declare that tomorrow I'm going to launch a satellite, without going through official channels, I go to jail. If I don't announce it beforehand and just launch, then I'd better hope I don't start a nuclear war.
- a_a_r_o_n 15y agoWould the satellites themselves be harmful to other satellites?
- JabavuAdams 15y agoBut, they don't have to allow them to be launched in the first place. Unless this goes through official channels, it becomes a ballistic missile proliferation issue, which the powers that be are somewhat twitchy about.
- sunchild 15y agoActually, if I recall correctly, most nations consider all airspace above them to be within their national boundaries. Pretty stupid, I know, but probably one of those things that worked "well enough" until technology made it seem absurd. I remember this came up because people were getting served process on airplanes, even if they never landed in the country/state beneath them at that moment.
- baddox 15y agoAirspace sounds like it wouldn't include space without air, so maybe it should be called spacespace. That's a pretty interesting idea: the United States would own 1.9% of the observable universe.
- sunchild 15y agoGood point. I'm not sure if "airspace" actually means space that contains some quantum of "air", but even that falls apart pretty quickly.
- jacquesm 15y agoThat would have to be a timeshare then, the earth rotates.
- justincormack 15y agoIts been tried before: "A space ownership issue of current practical importance is the allocation of slots for satellites in geostationary orbit. This is managed by the International Telecommunication Union. The 1976 Declaration of the First Meeting of Equatorial Countries, also known as the Bogotá Declaration, signed by several countries located on the Earth's equator, attempted to assert sovereignty over those portions of the geosynchronous orbit that continuously lie over the signatory nation's territory. These claims did not receive international support or recognition and were subsequently largely abandoned." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_real_estate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_real_estate
- nkoren 15y agoAirspace, yes. Space space, no -- Jurisdiction doesn't extend above the atmosphere. Rather, objects in space are governed by and the legal responsibility of the country from which they launched, per the Outer Space Treaty. The reason for this, by the way, dates back to a bit of cold war strategising which pre-dated even Sputnik. Both the Americans and Soviets decided that it was more important to be able to know what the other was doing than to extend their territorial claims up to orbit. This helped to keep the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction in a relatively static lock; otherwise it would have been far mor dynamic and dangerous. Therefore the US did not protest when Sputnik flew overhead, and the USSR did not object to American satellites; in 1967 this was formalised by the Outer Space Treaty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
- rmc 15y agoIf the satilites are cheap enough (say €100) you just launch more. Let the whack a mole game begin. Other factors: the space might not be owned by anyone but the satilites might be. Sure the US government in us courts for damages. Get an injunction ruok prevent them doing it again.
- daeken 15y agoEven if the satellites are cheap -- hell, let's even say they're free -- launching things into space is not, by any means. As for the satellites being owned by someone, how do you assert ownership on something that exists where there are absolutely no laws?
- rmc 15y agoAsserting ownership is as simple as convincing a judge. As far as I know NASA/US Government claims ownership of US satilites, so the precedent has already been set.
- tomjen3 15y agoThe launch will be cheap as soon as we build that damn space elevator (which I believe is currently technologically feasible, correct?).
- JabavuAdams 15y agoWhat!? Try to play the other side, at least. Whack-a-launcher is way easier than whack-a-satellite.
- olliesaunders 15y agoHow feasible is this actually?
- jfoster 15y agoHackers/engineers have been doing this for a long time already. It's just that they've been doing it with the backing of large governments or organisations until now. The two types of feasibility that become important when you lose that backing: Cost: can it be done cheaply enough? Legal: not so much when the satellite is up, but the act of getting it up, and the act of communicating with it from the ground.
- bdg 15y agoAmateurs have had satellites in space since the days of sputnik, the launching part is something new.
- tintin 15y agoWhy not create a Wifi network? There are plenty of router upgrades making this available.
- jonbro 15y agoAs far as I know, those "edge of space" low cost weather balloon experiments are a long way from putting something in orbit. The cost to put something in orbit is in the 1000s per pound range right (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=301 http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=301)? I remember hearing something about ranchers putting up satellites in the early naughts, but I don't know how feasible that is. Seems like a better solution would be strengthening the protocols, figuring out mesh networking solutions, rather that chucking cisco routers into space.
- JonnieCache 15y agoVideo of the actual 28c3 presentation here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuwkzNjaPwc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuwkzNjaPwc As for those asking about the feasibility, the HAM radio crew have had their own satellites for years: http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/index.php http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/index.php Also check out these hackers who want to go to the moon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmgzrDCrP30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmgzrDCrP30
- Iv 15y agoDon't forget people who have built a working manned submarine, sea-based launch platform and plan a suborbital flight at 100 kilometers. Their last launch had the biggest amateur rocket yet reaching 3 kilometers of altitude : http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/ http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/
- leoedin 15y agoThe author has a sever misunderstanding of physics. A weather balloon can get you to the "edge of space", yes, but orbit is an entirely different process. To be in orbit, you need a rotational velocity (travelling around the earth) in the order of 7.8 km/s. A weather balloon can't do that! If you were to simply go to space vertically and turn off the engine, you'd simply fall straight back down again - the only reason you can stay in orbit "indefinitely" is because your rotational velocity is great enough that you're constantly "missing" the earth. (see Newton's canonball - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball) The key issue with getting anything to orbit is the fuel cost. It's expensive, and pretty much impossible to avoid. Micro satellites work by weighing very little and fitting in spaces on the rocket that otherwise would be empty. There's still a fuel cost in doing that (Most chemical rockets have a cost to orbit of at least $10,000 / kg). It's unavoidable. The existing micro satellites (ie AmSats) have been launched on the generosity of the launching organisation (unlikely to happen with satellites designed to circumvent governments) and have a very high failure rate. It's not impossible, but the project would need serious backing. Even more expensive than paying the cost of launching micro satellites would be actually developing their own launch platform (another suggestion in the article).
- wtracy 15y agoIt's probably another case of a non-specialist reporter oversimplifying the information he was given to the point that the summary is no longer correct. Hobbyists have sent balloons to "space" at 100,000 feet <http://www.brooklynspaceprogram.org/> http://www.brooklynspaceprogram.org/> though that obviously isn't going to get you into orbit. Groups like CU Spaceflight are experimenting with launching rockets from high-altitude balloons. The idea is that the balloon will get you through most of the atmosphere for dirt cheap, hopefully bringing launch costs down within the reach of private citizens. A project like that could put a satellite in space using a balloon, just not in the way that you're thinking of. :-)
- ldesegur 15y agoI've read a lot of technical stuff about rockets and space missions lately to the point of hurting my brain. I am not a rocket scientist (yet ;-) but I think what one needs is to launch a single robot in orbit while more components are sent to be assembled up there with balloons e.g. to build a unmanned space station. Could that work?
- adrianwaj 15y agoIt's being called the "Hackerspace Global Grid." If they want my domain orbit8.com, it's theirs.
- Intermediate 15y agoEven if they will manage to launch these satellites into orbit I still don't get how they going to get satellites connected to the internet? In order to be connected to the internet you need an IP addresses, but ip space actually ruled by american IANA organization and by a couple of RIRs. So, what would stop IANA from shutting down satellites ip addresses? Sure, these guy can setup an internal network between satellites and ground stations, but every attempt to connect this network to the internet will result in gateway shutdown most likely. Sorry for my english :-)
- tomjen3 15y agoYou can't shut down an IP. An IP is like a phone number, so you could close the subscription or even bust through the door and shoot the guy with it. But it makes no sense to talk about shutting down the phone number. However assaulting something that is presently in space is really difficult and it is likely that physical violence would do no good at all.
- sp332 15y agoIANA could "officially" revoke the ip block assignment, or even reassign the IP block to someone else. Then backbone router admins would have to decide whether to route the packets toward the satellite or toward the new owners of the IP block.
- giberson 15y agoIt's a great idea as far as creating your own communication system--definitely innovative. However, it's still not a solution to SOPA. Why? Because SOPA is legislation--and if they'll pass bad legislation against the internet they'll certainly pass bad legislation to govern anything else related to the internet. If such idea's like DIY networking that operated outside of government fiddle-able channels really caught on--you'd be certain there would be legislation to prevent individuals from using such technology. The only way to stop things like SOPA (legislation) is to stop the people that support such legislation. Unfortunately, such a matter will require far greater innovation considering the scope of corruption in politics. By corruption I refer simply to the adage "money is power".
- jfoster 15y ago"... outer space isn’t actually governed by the countries over which it floats." At the moment it sounds as though no single country's legislation would be able to stop this, but perhaps countries could prevent users from connecting to it. The other part is that the act of launching the satellites is likely outside of the law in most countries, at least without some form of permission.
- giberson 15y agoMy whole point was not the method they'll use to legislate such activities--it's that they will find a way. Don't to try slither around crappy legislation, focus on getting the proposers and supports of crappy legislation out of office.
- eternalban 15y agoI would think that the unspoken motivation is to at least have some sort of contingency plan for having free access to timely information should the political regime* shifts even closer to what used to be called tyranny. Obviously, if we find ourselves in a tyranny, it is game over if network infrastructure is a monopoly of the state and its corporate sponsors. *: one can argue that it is appropriate to use the term 'regime' when government no longer reflects the foundational constitutional principles of the nation.
- shazamjad 15y agoIf we are able to get satellites into a low-level orbit, with the technology to connect those on the ground - surely a bigger risk is space debris and the possibility of colliding with other objects in space? From what I understand most, if not all space agencies do spend a fair bit of resources tracking and projecting the trajectories of all objects in space - and constantly altering the paths of those under their control to avoid such items? ... not saying it isn't impossible - but surely that's another challenge to take into account?
- felixfurtak 15y agonice idea, but bandwidth would be severely limited
- felixfurtak 15y agobandwidth is only really a function of the number of base stations ;)
- JabavuAdams 15y agoCompletely unrealistic. It can take up a couple of years to get a frequency allocation for your satellite to communicate on. Amateur HAM radio satellites operate under fairly strict rules that could be revoked by the powers that be at any time. There are few technological artifacts more vulnerable than a satellite.