Encrypted lunar communications network?

[bpfeifer]

I’m reading the Lunar Explorations Objectives, which you can retrieve from: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/mmb/why_moon_objectives.html<br /><br />And I notice this phrase in the communications section:<br /><br />“A secure, reliable and robust network is essential for ensuring continuous and safe mission operations.”<br /><br />This section is clearly referring to the desire to build a “secure” communications network to future assets on the Moon, and it should also be extendable for Martian missions as well. I used to work in computer network security, and whenever someone talked of secure communications, it always meant encrypted communications. Is there some other interpretation that makes sense, or are they saying lunar astronauts require encrypted communications capabilities?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[webtaz99]

I suspect that in NASA-ese "secure" means free from outside interference or spurious signals. In a potential life-or-death scenario NASA doesn't need Bubba cutting in and offering advice. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[darkenfast]

I believe both the shuttle and the ISS have encrypted comms. Not everything is public domain, astronaut medical data and private messages for instance.

 

[dreada5]

Makes sense.

 

[willpittenger]

In which case, they want a close relative of encryption: <font color="yellow">authentication</font> When public key encryption technology (like RSA) is used, you reverse the keys. You encrypt with the private key and decrypt with the public key. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[trailrider]

"I suspect that in NASA-ese "secure" means free from outside interference or spurious signals. In a potential life-or-death scenario NASA doesn't need Bubba cutting in and offering advice."<br /><br />Nor terrorists attempting to shut down the environmental control systems, either!<br /><br />Lest there be any inference of some sort of conspiracy being the goal of a "secure" network, there used to be two kinds of regular telephones in homes and businesses: party lines and private lines. The latter cost a lot more than party lines. But with a party line, Mabel and Gladys could be listening to you talking with your cousin about his/her operation, and then spread the details all over town!<br /><br />The command signals decoders on the destruct packages on virtually all launches is encoded to prevent spurious signals or intentional sabotage from blowing up a perfectly good launch vehicle and payload!<br /><br />Not being an expert, I don't KNOW this, but I suspect the worst problem with a "secure" system is that it adds bandwidth and power requirements to the comm systems.<br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra! <br /><br />

 

[billslugg]

When I rented a trailer at Lake Carey, PA in 1974 I had a party line for about two weeks before they happened to run some additional lines up there.<br /><br />I have also seen a hand cranked phone in use. The general store at Seneca Rocks, W VA, 1970. <br /><br />In fact, todays phone system is configured to handle the signal from a hand crank. An operator will pick up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[patriot1776]

The kind of radical Islamic terrorists and militants who caused 9/11 wouldn't be interested in taking out the Space Shuttle or the new Orion for a couple reasons:<br /><br />1) You'd only be killing currently about 7 people if you managed to bring down one of the Shuttles versus huge effort to do it. When Orion flies, that'd drop to 4 for lunar mission and 6 for ISS crew replacement missions. Not enough death to go around to justify an attack.<br /><br />2) While harder now, it'd still probably be easier in comparison to pull off a 9/11-style attack that kills thousands. Get a lot more return on your investment.<br /><br />Bringing down a Space Shuttle or an Orion capsule or managing to hack into the spacecraft systems to disable the life-support or depress the spacecraft would mostly just serve to embarrass the United States. But I still think it would be good to have a secure comm/control/telemetry network because there are two countries I can think of that would be interested in trying to pull off disrupting a manned NASA mission and killing the crew.<br /><br />First, Iran. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his hardline clerical bosses hate everything about us. Plain and simple. If they had the capability (which they are trying to develop), I'm pretty sure they'd attempt to shoot down the Shuttle everytime we launched.<br /><br />Second, North Korea. Kim Jong Il's so paranoid and nuts he probably thinks every Space Shuttle we launch is secretly carrying nukes ready to shoot at him whenever the Shuttle passes over North Korea.

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>You'd only be killing currently about 7 people if you managed to bring down one of the Shuttles versus huge effort to do it. When Orion flies, that'd drop to 4 for lunar mission and 6 for ISS crew replacement missions. Not enough death to go around to justify an attack.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Not true if an astronaut is actually a terrorist. Then bringing the shuttle or Orion down would be a lot easier. Plus, that astronaut could arrange for a mostly fully fueled craft to hit a major metro area. Normally, there would be no chance of such an accident. But that assumes the crew on board are attempting to minimize the disaster.<br /><br />This happened in a thriller novel. During the height of the cold war, a shuttle mission to send SDI hardware to a space station was commanded by a Russian sleeper. He waited until he was in orbit (the objective was to steal the hardware), but if he wanted, he would have had the opportunity to do some damage. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow"> whenever someone talked of secure communications, it always meant encrypted communications.</font>/i><br /><br />Historically, a secure system was described as having three properties:<br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">(1) Privacy:</font>/b> This generally means that an unauthorized entity cannot decode information in the system. For communication, encryption is often used. However, it can also mean padding traffic to avoid traffic analysis (e.g., there was the old story that when Pizza delivery orders spiked in Washington DC, it meant that a military operation was about to happen). Other techniques include narrow beam communications, gas pressure in conduits for landline communications (if gas pressure drops, it might indicate that someone is tapping your line), steganography, and so on. So while encryption is a major component of privacy, it is not the only method.<br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">(2) Integrity:</font>/b> This generally means that an unauthorized entity cannot modify data. For example, you don't want an adversary injecting a message into the data stream to, say, depressurize the habitat. This is generally accomplished through signing the data using cryptgraphic techniques.<br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">(3) Availability:</font>/b> This generally means that a service or data is sufficiently available to legitmate entities. For example, you don't want an adversary jamming your communication channel preventing you from delivering timely information to a remote rover or orbital changes to a spaceship. This can be accomplished by a number of means, including narrow line of sight communication, redundancy, channel hopping, etc.</b></b></b></i>

 

[halman]

bpfeifer,<br /><br />Sometimes, a 'secure' communications network is one in which all components are permanently linked to the others, so that there is no searching for signals when communications is desired. Any failure is noticed immediately, so communications can be adjusted accordingly. The network is 'secure' in that you know it is there and that it is working, all the time, or informing the rest of the network if there is a failure. Secure can mean that you know that it is there, just like a blankey. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"Not true if an astronaut is actually a terrorist. Then bringing the shuttle or Orion down would be a lot easier. "<br /><br />If a terrorist can stay hidden in the NASA astronaut corps for the 15+ years it takes to get a shuttle ride, I dare say that the lone terrorist isn't your biggest problem.