|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

By Nathan Willis
September 19, 2012

One of the best things about large conferences like LinuxCon is that the extensive program draws in speakers from outside the core Linux and free software ecosystem. Such was the case at the North American edition of LinuxCon 2012 in August, which featured a presentation from an aerospace engineer at Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX). The company is evidently using Linux extensively on the ground and in its launches, although it provided frustratingly little detail.

Beyond the cloud (literally)

The speaker, Jim Gruen, is a relatively new hire at SpaceX, working on flight software. He started off by explaining exactly what the company does and how it operates. Its long-term mission is to make space flight as routine as air travel; for the near-term that means competing for contracts from NASA for the space agency's private space flight programs, such as the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program and the Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program. Each program incorporates several rounds of proposals and milestones overseen by NASA, ultimately ending in a flight mission with specific objectives. SpaceX has flown two successful NASA contract missions. COTS Demo Flight 1 (C1), in 2010, sent the company's unmanned "Dragon" capsule through two Earth orbits then splashed it down into the ocean. COTS Demo Flight 2/3 (C2+) followed in May 2012, which combined the COTS 2 objective of rendezvousing with the International Space Station (ISS) and the COTS 3 objective of docking with ISS.

Although that slate of projects would certainly qualify as interesting stuff in just about anyone's book, Gruen's explanation of SpaceX's operations was intriguing as well. The company believes strongly in vertical integration as a cost-cutting measure, to the point where it manufactures in-house 80% of what it puts into space. It buys raw metal and manufactures the parts for its rockets and capsules, and it designs, prototypes, and produces its own computers, circuit boards, and even chips. The goal of this approach, he said, is to have everyone working in the same building, and enable them to try new experiments very quickly.

With that background material out of the way, he explained how the company uses Linux. For starters, space flight generates an enormous amount of data, including flight telemetry, traffic between ground stations, media feeds from the spacecraft, and so on. Streaming, storage, and analysis of this data is done on Linux — though it is not a task set unique to SpaceX or to space flight, he admitted.

Gruen's team works on avionics, the navigation and control systems on the company's spacecraft. The team is responsible for the complete life cycle and operation of the equipment, he said: board bring-up, bootloading, hardware initialization, straight on up through the user-space software. The company's C1 flight was a proof-of-concept run for its Dragon capsule design, and on that mission it did not run Linux. However, the C2+ model and subsequent revisions do run Linux. This does not mean that Linux is merely running on an auxiliary computer, he emphasized: Dragon's core systems are Linux, a custom in-house distribution using the uboot bootloader with C++ code running on top. Linux handles the triply-redundant avionics system, the thrusters, and even the pyrotechnics (which in space-faring lingo refers to the explosive charges used to do things like deploy parachutes for re-entry). He also showed images from the C2+ mission's ISS docking procedure, which used computer vision software running on Linux to locate the docking port and align the spacecraft with the station.

Event horizon

Gruen's overview of the Dragon vehicle and its use of Linux was interesting, to be sure. Unfortunately, the overview was more or less the full extent of the detail available. He was accompanied by representatives of SpaceX who sat in the front row and who would not allow him to go into any specifics about the hardware or software of the system, nor to take questions from the audience. The room was packed to overflowing, and the session let out with plenty of time still on the clock.

Gruen attributed the restrictions on his subject matter to the US State Department, whom he said classified SpaceX's business as "building dangerous weapons". Consequently, he expressed his excitement to be giving the talk, but added that he was "going to present as much as I can without breaking any laws and going to jail". That is certainly an unenviable bind to be in, but the upshot was that the audience learned little about SpaceX's Linux systems — and about the challenges or discoveries its developers have encountered along the way.

What makes that limitation puzzling is that so many Linux developers were in the audience for the session — Gruen commented more than once that there was code running on Dragon that had been written by people there in the room. In fact, Linux is so widespread in the scientific community that it would have been a surprise to hear that Linux was not the platform of choice. After all, Linux has been trustworthy enough to run nuclear weapons simulations for the US Department of Energy for years, and reliable enough to run medical devices; it is not a big stretch to hear that it runs on an orbital capsule as well.

It was unclear how much of SpaceX's taciturnity was due to government regulation and how much was by choice. SpaceX is in a highly competitive business, to be sure, and has the right to work in private, but it seems a bit implausible to argue that how the company uses upstream code like Linux constitutes a trade secret. Is there any credible chance that a competitor such as Orbital Sciences is running Windows on its spacecraft and has something substantial to gain from hearing that SpaceX sees better performance from Linux's scheduler, or which GRUB limitations made uboot the bootloader of choice?

SpaceX's reluctance to discuss details stands out, because attendees heard several other talks about Linux in high-security and scientific environments just days earlier. For example, Kipp Cannon of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) collaboration spoke at GStreamer Conference about his group's use of Linux to capture and analyze live laser interferometry data from gravity wave detectors. Cannon's group uses the largest GStreamer pipelines ever made, on massive machine clusters, to process LIGO signals fast enough recognize events in time for astronomers to aim telescopes at them before the events end. Certainly getting to and docking with ISS is a tremendous technical challenge, but it is not a drastically bigger challenge than the real-time detection of gravitational waves from black hole collisions a galaxy or more away. LIGO is a collaborative effort, but it too has fierce competition from other experiments, both for funding and for results.

As for the security factor, the implication was that SpaceX's work is regulated by the US Government, although it is not clear why that is the State Department's purview. But the GStreamer Conference also had a presentation from researchers at the US Department of Defense's Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate (NVESD), which uses Linux and open source software to calibrate and test night-vision equipment and create new algorithms for combining multiple sensors' media streams into usable displays. They made it quite clear that the algorithms they develop are classified, while still explaining how they used GStreamer and other open source software, and even contributed code back upstream. Like NVESD, SpaceX's core projects might be confidential, but the software engineering problems that constitute the daily grind are likely familiar to developers everywhere.

That is probably the main point. I am not particularly interested in spacecraft avionics or infrared sensor algorithms, but it would have made for a more interesting LinuxCon session if SpaceX had talked about some of the challenges or design decisions it has faced in its software program, and how it overcame them. For example, Gruen mentioned that the company uses the kernel's soft real-time support. It would be interesting to hear why Dragon does not use hard real-time — which seems at first glance like a plausible requirement. It would even be worthwhile to hear the story if the solution was to ditch a standard Linux component and write an in-house replacement. Consider the space capsule's storage system, which surely has high reliability and fail-over requirements. There are plenty of computing environments with demanding specifications; hearing how various Linux filesystems fared — even if those that do well in other high-performance applications were not up-to-snuff on Dragon — would have been informative.

Upstreaming

But in the long run there are more important factors than a single interesting talk. Any company can choose to isolate its internal code from the upstream projects on which it relies; the downside is that doing so will increase its own development costs over time. It will either have to expend resources maintaining internal forks of the software that it branches (and back-port important features and bug fixes from newer releases), or periodically perform a re-base then re-apply its own patch sets. Both options increase — in the time required and the complexity involved — the longer that a company commits to them.

Google has walked this path in years past. As we covered in 2009, historically the company maintained its own internal kernel code, rebasing every 17 months. The resulting maintenance effort included merging and debugging its own feature patches, plus backporting hundreds of features from newer upstream releases. Google had its own reasons for not upstreaming its kernel work, including reluctance to share what it regarded as patches of no use to others, but eventually it found the maintenance headaches too painful and modified its kernel development process.

Interestingly enough, the NVESD speakers commented that the DOD greatly prefers its developers to send their patches back to upstream projects — including, in this case, GStreamer — rather than to start their own forks and repositories (and subsequently maintain them). The SpaceX talk mentioned that the Dragon missions generate an enormous amount of video data, but did not go into detail about the software the company uses to stream or analyze it. If it uses GStreamer for the task (which is certainly a possibility), consider how much it stands to gain by interacting in the open with other industrial-sized GStreamer users like NVESD and LIGO — and vice versa.

Perhaps the State Department is simply more secretive than the DOD, but my suspicion is that SpaceX plays close to the vest largely due to the natural tendency for companies to keep their work private (particularly in a company that places a high value on vertical integration). Almost everyone experiences some reluctance when first dipping its toes in open source waters. Indeed, coming to LinuxCon was a good first step for SpaceX. Perhaps it will take a page from its clients at NASA and open up more, particularly where upstream projects like Linux are involved. After all, Gruen's talk was informative and entertaining, and it was nice to hear that Linux has proven itself to be a valuable component in the nascent space flight industry. One merely hopes that next year the company will come back to LinuxCon and engage a little more with the rest of the free software community.


Index entries for this article
ConferenceLinuxCon North America/2012


to post comments

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 20, 2012 1:52 UTC (Thu) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] (6 responses)

Rockets and avionics gets a lot of oversight from everything from the State Department, the Department of Defence, FAA, etc. It comes under all of them in one part or another (since the rocket will fly and land over non-US territory it comes under the State Departments perview).

However, none of those are probably the reason for the lack of detail. The main issue will be lawyers and risk taking. If the US government launches a rocket it is covered by various indemnities that Congress has laid out to make sure that lawyers can't sue anymore because the rocket might have caused someone's eggs 10 states away to go bad (either from etheric vibrations or that the rocket landed in said eggs.) When a private company does a launch it is completely different scheme and anything that comes under the words "problem" becomes a lawyers meat and potatoes. So every lawyer from NASA to SpaceX and inbetween is probably exercising the almighty red-pen on what is going on... just to make sure that they don't end up in a multi billion to trillion dollar lawsuit [The amount estimated what could have been sued for the Columbia disaester was in the low trillion dollar state.. if the US government had allowed itself to be sued.]

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 20, 2012 11:11 UTC (Thu) by Yorick (guest, #19241) [Link] (3 responses)

Quite true. In addition, advanced rocketry is one of the essential parts of a long-distance nuclear ballistic missile, and not necessarily the least difficult one. There are good reasons to err on the side of caution for non-proliferation reasons if nothing else.

Of course, it would be nice if the SpaceX boffins be allowed to discuss technicalities about selected topics, as argued in the article.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 20, 2012 14:34 UTC (Thu) by msbrown (guest, #38262) [Link] (2 responses)

Correct. Almost all of the techniques necessary to getting an object into space and guiding it on an orbital mission are also techniques necessary for missiles.

This was the subtext for the '60s "space race", which rarely gets acknowledged. We were learning how to make better ICBMs as well as getting people to the Moon.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 22, 2012 12:32 UTC (Sat) by madhatter (subscriber, #4665) [Link] (1 responses)

> Almost all of the techniques necessary to getting an object into space
> and guiding it on an orbital mission are also techniques necessary
> for missiles.

Arguably, it's the other way around; to quote Neal Stephenson (Lock-In, 2011):

"Biz Dev guy: we could make a preposterous amount of money from communications satellites.

Engineer: It will be expensive to build those, but even so, nothing compared to the cost of building the machines needed to launch them into orbit.

Biz Dev guy: Funny you should mention that. It so happens that our government has already put $4 trillion into building the rockets and supporting technology we need. There's only one catch.

Engineer: Okay, I'll bite. What's the catch?

Biz Dev guy: Your communications satellite has to be the size, shape and weight of a hydrogen bomb."

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 22, 2012 19:03 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

LOL. ICMBs and space expeditions are intrinsically linked, but this story is more convoluted.

USSR won [the early] space race because government paid for it's development because it started development. Of course it was under impression that it pays for ICMBs development, but they started before they even knew how much hydrogen bomb will weight! First hydrogen bomb had weight in excess of 7 metric tons and it was clear that such a large mass can not be hauled to space or between continents (with the use of technology possible back then). Korolev decided to build rocket specifically to send human to the orbit - and then hope that guys who develop the hydrogen bomb will be able to shrink it enough. The ploy worked beautifully: descendants of that some rockets are still the most most frequently used launch vehicle in the world!

So yes, we have only reached space because government gave money to develop the ICBMs, but it does not mean that ICMBs were designed to deliver the hydrogen bomb.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 20, 2012 19:55 UTC (Thu) by Klavs (guest, #10563) [Link] (1 responses)

secrecy my ...

Building rockets/ballistic missiles, is something the "bad guys" already know how to do, so I seriously see no reason why the Linux part of that should be any secret.

f.ex. the Danish Open Source project "Copenhagen Suborbitals" - which are hard working at building rockets, and have launched a few already, publish documents, detailing how they've build the different rocket types they built - it's all available for download right here: http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/

It's sad they felt the need for such IMHO unneeded secrecy, and about Linux even - which has NOTHING to do with the ballistic missile part, which isn't even a secret either.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 20, 2012 19:57 UTC (Thu) by Klavs (guest, #10563) [Link]

oops. This was not meant to be a reply to another comment. Missing that edit button ;)

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 20, 2012 11:00 UTC (Thu) by ortalo (guest, #4654) [Link] (22 responses)

Certainly private company secrecy and many other regulation recommendations do play a role in forbidding access to details.
However, there is an overall aspect in this that also directly links to the highest possible level in politics.

According to some people I had the occasion to meet, the space capabilities of a nation, and its associated strategic power, are judged by several levels:
1) the capability to launch a ballistic rocket correctly (which is the actual key ability to develop strategic nuclear power);
2) the ability to manage re-entry issues (which is key to man mission);
3) the ability to do a rendez-vous (and docking) with an existing object already in space (which is currently considered the final step in the ability to build a spaceship).

Whenever you address any of these steps in whatever level of detail, so many VIPs step in to remember you the importance of the issue... My biggest surprise is the fact that it has been admitted that Linux was used for all this.

In fact, that's an incredible announcement: we now have in hand something linked to strategic power capability. (I wonder who will dare to volunteer as the maintainer for the seat at the UN security council?)

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 20, 2012 16:47 UTC (Thu) by jhhaller (guest, #56103) [Link] (21 responses)

I would say reentry is just as important to being a nuclear nation, it does you no good if your missile burns up on reentry.

But, the State Department is responsible for export control, and giving a talk to an audience including foreign nationals is considered export. Depending on the content of the talk, one can export knowledge considered to be restricted. Munitions is definitely one of those categories, and spaceships is in the munitions category.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 20, 2012 19:25 UTC (Thu) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (20 responses)

> I would say reentry is just as important to being a nuclear nation, it does you no good if your missile burns up on reentry.

A couple of points about this.

1. if you have a nuke, you don't need to do reentry to do massive damage to any modern country, if you explode it in low orbit, the EMP will do a lot of damage, very possibly more than if it were to go off at ground level.

2. 'reentry' is a slippery term to define.

It's pretty easy to make a solid object survive reentry if you don't care exactly where it hits, all you need is enough mass.

It's a bit harder if you want to have 'soft payload' like electronics or people survive reentry

It's a bit harder if you want to have guidence of your reentry capsule after reentry

But yes, every bit of effort that can make a better manned spacecraft can be used to create a better weapon.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 20, 2012 21:06 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (18 responses)

But yes, every bit of effort that can make a better manned spacecraft can be used to create a better weapon.

Which is why we've gotten manned spacecrafts in the first place. And this is why all the longer-reaching spacecraft plans were never realized. To launch man on the orbit you only need to add a little to a good weapon system, but to launch man on the Moon or Mars you need some developments which are impossible to use as weapon. Moon become the matter of national prestige when USSR won the space race, but once it was proven that "yes, we can" the whole "outer space" thing was quickly and radically scaled-down.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 20, 2012 21:57 UTC (Thu) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (17 responses)

actually, advances that would let us get to real use of space (asteroid mining, etc) would make even better, and simpler, weapons than ICBMs. There would be no need for a warhead, just get a way to put rocks on a intercept orbit.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 20, 2012 23:08 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (16 responses)

The problem is that it's pretty hard to move rocks around. Without nuclear power, that is - and you use nuclear power anyway then you can just blow up the stuff directly. And the disruption for the whole plan is relatively simple: launch cargo of nails on the orbit.

There is a reason for why full-blown "space wars" never materialized: they are absolutely impractical. Reconnaissance from space, on the other hand… that works. And leads us to today's Google Maps and OSM.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 21, 2012 0:46 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (15 responses)

Simple Solar power can move rocks around. Ion drives don't have much thrust, but are very efficient over a long timeframe.

Simple mirrors to vaporize things will also work (but not very efficiently)

"Full blown space wars" never materialized for the same reason that "full blown nuclear wars" never materialized. in both cases offense is easy, defense is hard and nobody with the capability has been willing to sacrifice their space assets to knock out someone else's

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 21, 2012 1:42 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (14 responses)

Simple Solar power can move rocks around. Ion drives don't have much thrust, but are very efficient over a long timeframe.

Right. But we are talking about military operations here. They may be planned in advance but should be executed quickly and without warning. "Attack" which takes months and can be disrupted at any time is not of much interest to military.

In both cases offense is easy, defense is hard and nobody with the capability has been willing to sacrifice their space assets to knock out someone else's.

Sorry, but no. Situation with space is direct opposite to the situation with nukes. Offense is hard, defense is [relatively] easy as both China and US show us. That's why a lot of countries are trying to create nukes but not a lot are trying to bring ion drives to the military operations.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 21, 2012 3:37 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (13 responses)

space offence against ground targets is hard.

offence against satellites is relatively easy (a bucket of bolts in the right orbit)

The nations that have the capability to launch into the upper orbits all have enough dependencies on their own orbital resources to not be willing to loose them.

The nations and organizations that are willing to burn everything down as long as they take their enemies with them do not have the capability.

they are working harder to get Nukes because Nukes don't require the infrastructure to deploy, you can deploy a Nuke in a truck, boat, etc Plus people have an unreasoning fear when Nukes are mentioned so they make good terror weapons.

As for speed being critical for space based attacks, that depends on the situation. It doesn't matter if an asteroid is redirected in days, weeks, or even months if it's going to take months for anyone to get to it and be ready to redirect it to go elsewhere.

If you think an aircraft flying into a building at a few hundred miles an hour is bad, it pales in comparison with something hitting at even low orbital velocity (remember, energy is M*V^2), at those speeds you don't _need_ a warhead.

When you read about the hypervelocity weapons the military is working on, this is exactly what is going on. They are working to get missiles that are fast enough that no warhead is needed (and they have the side effect that even at long range, the chance of being able to intercept is poor)

It is well within the capability of the satellite launching nations to build space-based weapons that would be extremely powerful, but all these nations have agreed not to go there, and so far none of them has been pressed enough violate (or at least to admit to violating) that agreement.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 21, 2012 15:16 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (12 responses)

space offence against ground targets is hard.

offence against satellites is relatively easy (a bucket of bolts in the right orbit)

Well, the rest of the post is pretty pointless, isn't it? All the worthwhile targets (machines and humans, most importantly troops) are on the ground. So we have a weapon which is hard to deploy and use but very easy to stop. This is not something military will be interested in.

As for speed being critical for space based attacks, that depends on the situation. It doesn't matter if an asteroid is redirected in days, weeks, or even months if it's going to take months for anyone to get to it and be ready to redirect it to go elsewhere.

You are planning to use your brand-new, top-of-the-art weapon against low-tech barbarians? There are many other ways to kill low-tech barbarians believe me.

If you think an aircraft flying into a building at a few hundred miles an hour is bad, it pales in comparison with something hitting at even low orbital velocity (remember, energy is M*V^2), at those speeds you don't _need_ a warhead.

Right. But this equation works both ways: to reach this velocity you need a warhead-equivalent, to alter this velocity you need a warhead-equivalent… at the stage where someone can create space-based weapon s/he can create pretty potent non-space-based ones, too… and they are hundred times more practical.

It is well within the capability of the satellite launching nations to build space-based weapons that would be extremely powerful, but all these nations have agreed not to go there, and so far none of them has been pressed enough violate (or at least to admit to violating) that agreement.

Ha. How many other such humanitarian agreements were kept? ABMT? CFE? These are only short-lived (by historical measures) papers. No, space-based weapons are not developed because they make no sense. As you've said: space offence is hard, space defense is [relatively] easy. Everything else follow from these two facts.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 21, 2012 17:48 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (11 responses)

you keep saying that space defense is [relatively] easy. That is just not true. Space defense is pretty much non-existant, and even conceptually it's prohibitively expensive.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 22, 2012 18:43 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (10 responses)

All the stuff in the near space is monitored by quite a few countries. And there are means to stop you attack and was shown by China and US. If this is not "space defense", then what is it?

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 22, 2012 19:25 UTC (Sat) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (9 responses)

what means have any countries shown that would prevent satellites from being destroyed?

I've heard of means to destroy satellites, but not ways to prevent their destruction by another space-capable nation.

monitoring is not defence, it may be the first part of a defence, but in and of itself it's not defence.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 23, 2012 17:38 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (8 responses)

what means have any countries shown that would prevent satellites from being destroyed?

Nothing—a that's my point.

I think you've lost context. Let me remind you what I've already said: All the worthwhile targets (machines and humans, most importantly troops) are on the ground. This is what defines what is offense and what is defense.

This is similar to air fights: a fighter aircraft may be air-to-air aggressor, but it's very much part of the defense system, not part of the offense system. Because it's useless if you don't have an air-to-surface aggressor (or surface-to-surface aggressor with on-air helper).

Similarly in space: the ability to find and destroy satellite is part of defense system because satellite on it's own it's not a worthwhile goal. It only becomes worthwhile goal if someone else uses it to attack your troops! Heck, the most famous space war program was called Strategic Defense Initiative for this very reason!

I've heard of means to destroy satellites, but not ways to prevent their destruction by another space-capable nation.

Bingo! And that means exactly what I've said: space offence is hard, space defense is [relatively] easy.

Monitoring is not defence, it may be the first part of a defence, but in and of itself it's not defence.

Right. The second part of the defense is the ability to destroy satellites (including the ones who employ ion drives to move rocks around). Also a known technology

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 24, 2012 19:18 UTC (Mon) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (7 responses)

> All the worthwhile targets (machines and humans, most importantly troops) are on the ground.

Here is a major disagreement. I see the satellites themselves as being major targets. If all satellites were to stop working, most of the first world countries would be in a world of hurt.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 24, 2012 22:03 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (6 responses)

Here is a major disagreement. I see the satellites themselves as being major targets. If all satellites were to stop working, most of the first world countries would be in a world of hurt.

Not as much you'd like to think. Yes, some services will be disrupted (like toll collection), but if you compare it with what destruction of just a few large dams can do… no, there are no comparison.

Yes, satellites are slowly becoming indispensable in a few rare cases, but their destruction are still not a way to cripple your military power. For that you ultimately still need on-the-ground military operation, even airstrikes can only help them, not replace them.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 25, 2012 11:50 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (5 responses)

You might want to pay attention to just how much depends on GPS these days. A smaller actor with space-interdiction capability wishing to bugger up a lot of larger actors could do worse than taking out a bunch of GPS satellites.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 26, 2012 4:27 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (4 responses)

Military jams GPS regularly when they do military exercises. There are some inconveniences and people complain, yes, but nothing life-threatening.

You right is pointing out that people are using unreliable and fragile GPS significantly more often then it's feasible, but GPS is far from being security critical infrastructure.

Well, it is sometimes critical for military offense, but this different problem altogether (it falls under "space-technology assisted offence and as I've pointed out this is not all that reliable") - and military have replacements (may be not as efficient, but they work).

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 26, 2012 18:58 UTC (Wed) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (1 responses)

Without Satellites, military communications and targeting will suffer drastically.

the vast majority of the 'smart' bombs that are in use rely on GPS, without GPS we are back to Korea war era targeting precision.

communications would in some ways be in worse shape (while the military keeps some of the old stuff around, just in case, the difference between what they are trained to expect to have available, and what they would have available would cause problems in itself)

space-based assets are a drastic force multiplier (both for offense and defense). I would say that they are well over a 10x multiplier, and I could see arguments putting them in the 100x range.

If being able to weaken your opponent by 10x or 100x doesn't make something a militarily significant target, I don't know what would.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 26, 2012 20:41 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Without Satellites, military communications and targeting will suffer drastically.

On your own turf? Only if you've did something stupid and replaced reliable land-based communications with a sattelite-based ones.

the vast majority of the 'smart' bombs that are in use rely on GPS, without GPS we are back to Korea war era targeting precision.

Sure, but this an aggression, not defence. You may say that sometimes you actually need to attack someone and I may even agree with you but this does not change the fact that when you sent your 'smart' bombs to some other country you are an agressor.

communications would in some ways be in worse shape (while the military keeps some of the old stuff around, just in case, the difference between what they are trained to expect to have available, and what they would have available would cause problems in itself)

Again: not on your home turf.

space-based assets are a drastic force multiplier (both for offense and defense). I would say that they are well over a 10x multiplier, and I could see arguments putting them in the 100x range.

They are potent multiplier in a case of aggression, but for defence? Not so much. You don't need to use sattelites if you can just connect two military pieces with an optical canble (or just plan old radio). Yes, you can use sattelites to notice enemy earlier, but radars on ground work just fine, too. Only when you move to another, hostile country you need to rely on sattelites - and this move is act of aggression by defnition (when you move to friendly country you can bring the same on-ground network with you).

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 26, 2012 22:00 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Military jams GPS regularly when they do military exercises. There are some inconveniences and people complain, yes, but nothing life-threatening.
This has long ceased to be true. You might note that the military do not jam GPS in major civil centres and especially not near e.g. airports. (What GPS jamming goes on is people trying to fake their tachographs. This is causing increasing trouble and concern at fairly high levels.)

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Oct 7, 2012 19:16 UTC (Sun) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link]

I think most goods to US are transferred with ships. I think nowadays ships use GPS extensively for navigation. Taxi services would also suffer quite a lot if GPS would stop working...

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 24, 2012 19:13 UTC (Mon) by ortalo (guest, #4654) [Link]

You are probably both right.
I think I should have said "landing" in fact for 2.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 20, 2012 13:15 UTC (Thu) by gb (subscriber, #58328) [Link]

Do we have any chance to see video recording of this speech? I were unable to find any video archive of this conference, maybe someone else succeeded?

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 20, 2012 19:57 UTC (Thu) by Klavs (guest, #10563) [Link] (1 responses)

secrecy my ...

Building rockets/ballistic missiles, is something the "bad guys" already know how to do, so I seriously see no reason why the Linux part of that should be any secret.

f.ex. the Danish Open Source project "Copenhagen Suborbitals" - which are hard working at building rockets, and have launched a few already, publish documents, detailing how they've build the different rocket types they built - it's all available for download right here: http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/

It's sad they felt the need for such IMHO unneeded secrecy, and about Linux even - which has NOTHING to do with the ballistic missile part, which isn't even a secret either.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 24, 2012 19:26 UTC (Mon) by ortalo (guest, #4654) [Link]

I do not know about recent developments (thanks for the link, I will read).
However, even if the theory is known for both things, in practice, the technology associated to rockets or balistic missiles is usually seen as much more diverse and difficult to master and more strategic than the payload.
Personnally, I would tend to agree. But I am not much informed in that field (or I suppose I would not even allow me to talk of the topic on a public forum).

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 22, 2012 18:35 UTC (Sat) by msachtler (subscriber, #86848) [Link] (1 responses)

Read up on ITAR. It's a ridiculously over-constraining set of laws on the manufacture of anything considered to be a munition - which SpaceX's rockets certainly qualify for. It's not surprising SpaceX is being overly conservative in this area - the penalties for a violation are massive, and could quite easily end the company.

LinuxCon: Dragons and penguins in space

Posted Sep 24, 2012 22:07 UTC (Mon) by SiB (subscriber, #4048) [Link]

ITAR is the reason that cooperating with US institutes in space projects becomes increasingly unpleasant. I almost prefer working on ESA lead missions these days.


Copyright © 2012, Eklektix, Inc.
This article may be redistributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY-SA 4.0 license
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds