Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

'Zombie' Satellite Returns To Life

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the it's-a-trick,-run dept.

Communications 98

realperseus writes "The American telecommunications satellite Galaxy 15 has been brought under control after spending most of the year traversing the sky and wreaking havoc upon its neighbors. The satellite is currently at 98.5 degrees west longitude (from 133 west). An emergency patch was successfully uploaded, ensuring that the conditions which caused it to 'go rogue' will not occur again. Once diagnosis and testing have been completed, Intelsat plans to move the satellite back to 133 west."

cancel ×

98 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

133 west (5, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721466)

aka 133t status

Re:133 west (1)

bell.colin (1720616) | more than 3 years ago | (#34751800)

That's 1337 DumbAss

Satellite wreaking havoc upon its neighbours... (0, Offtopic)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721480)

Gee - do you think we can successfully upload an 'emergency patch' to DHS and TSA?

Re:Satellite wreaking havoc upon its neighbours... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34722072)

No, but one of the other traditional anti-zombie measures may be effective: Holy water, beheading, shotgun, stake through the heart, etc.

Oh wait, I'm mixing it up with vampires.

Re:Satellite wreaking havoc upon its neighbours... (2)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722370)

...Galaxy XV battery completely drained and the satellite's baseband equipment command unit reset...

No mixup. This is basic vampire functionality -- drain the victim; and when the victim resets the victim is now a vampire. So, the satellite has transformed from zombie to vampire. Which satellite will it drain next? (Echelon is my first choice)

Drat (4, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721484)

Drat! Foiled again.

Re:Drat (1)

mcneely.mike (927221) | more than 3 years ago | (#34723228)

Yeah... if it hadn't been for those pesky kids. Hey, get that dog off my lawn!

Traversing the sky? (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721498)

It was in orbit right? It wasn't like it was under power all that time. (well if it was its unlikely to have much propellant left to do any manouvers)

Re:Traversing the sky? (4, Informative)

locofungus (179280) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721540)

If it was perturbed into a slightly lower orbit then it would orbit the Earth in less than 24hrs. If it ended up in a slightly higher orbit then it would orbit the Earth in slightly more than 24 hrs.

I don't want to commit to which way this satellite has gone (because I'm bound to get it backwards) but it's now about 2 hours displaced from where it should have been. That's an error in its orbit of about 0.02% or about 20 seconds per day.

Tim.

Triaxiality (5, Informative)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722760)

Except for two stable points at 75 and 255 degrees east longitude, any geostationary satellite suffers an East-West (or West-East) perturbation due to the earth not being a perfect sphere [wikipedia.org] . This is called "triaxiality" by experts in the field.

The result is that without correcting maneuvers the satellite longitudinal position oscillates around those two stable points, even if the orbit is exactly at the geostationary altitude.

Re:Triaxiality (1, Interesting)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | more than 2 years ago | (#34724170)

Hmm. I would have thought that the ellipsoid shape of the Earth would have less influence on an equatorial orbit than the changing relationship of that orbit to the Earth - Moon barycenter [astronomycafe.net] .

Relative to our frame of reference on the surface of the Earth, a geosynchronous orbit would of course be stationary above someone's head, while the barycenter would be rushing around some 2,000 km below our feet at an angular speed of 15 degrees/hr, wandering more than 30 degrees north and south of the equator on a seasonal basis. Since all Earth satellites orbit around the barycenter rather than the geometric center of the Earth, you would expect the Earth's dense core to be the primary cause of orbital perturbations.

But what do I know? Any astronomers or rocket scientists want to jump in here?

As an aside, the barycenter does its dance in the bottom of the mantle, just a little bit above the liquid outer core ( here is a quick depth guide [wikipedia.org] . My understanding is that to date, geologists are not trained to look at possible astronomy influences when building models of the Earth's interior, and astronomers do not consider the inside of the Earth to be in their province. So perhaps something very interesting is going on in this region that has so far been overlooked. Or perhaps the barycenter dancing on the margins of the liquid core is just one of those weird coincidences that only a whacko would consider. You know, like continental drift.

It would be really nice to hear from some persons who know a thing or two about this kind of stuff.

Re:Triaxiality (5, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 2 years ago | (#34724338)

I have worked with geostationary satellite control for over twenty years, so I know a bit about this. The masses on the earth aren't distributed evenly, the higher density of the rock in some parts pull the satellite to the east or the west.

You are right in that the perturbation caused by the moon is several orders of magnitude larger than the one caused by this slight longitudinal asymmetry. It's only for satellites that are either in geostationary orbit or in 12 hour period orbits that this effect becomes significant.

For other orbits the pull in one direction is compensated by a pull in the opposite direction when the satellite comes around the earth. For geostationary orbits, however, the perturbation is always in the same direction, because the satellite is always in the same position with respect to the mass asymmetry, so the effect adds up in time.

Typically a geostationary satellite needs correcting East-West maneuvers every couple of weeks or so. These maneuvers consume about 10% of the total fuel budget for station keeping, inclination maneuvers consume the other 90%. This goes to show how stronger the perturbations caused by the sun, moon, and earth's ellipsoid shape, which cause the inclination of the orbit to increase, are compared to the triaxial density asymmetry.

Re:Triaxiality (1)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34728620)

Thank you very much! I found your explanation lucid and succinct, and I learned something new from it.

Re:Triaxiality (1)

hvm2hvm (1208954) | more than 3 years ago | (#34729946)

I would have modded you up if there was a +1 "nice and enthusiastic guy" :D

Re:Triaxiality (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34761346)

Also, he's really an expert at blowjobs, but you wouldn't guess that from the size of his satellite dish.

OT: Geosat (1)

jra (5600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738322)

I've just gotten a new gig at a network that feeds via AMC1, and I'm trying to find the TV satellite cabal on the web.

Any pointers?

Re:Traversing the sky? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34722676)

Each GSO satellite is given a 'slot'. I forget the specifics, but they're relatively close to each other in these slots. The satellites have small station keeping thrusters (either monoprop or some type of hall/ion). They have a reserve for moving themselves in a parking orbit once their life expectancy is up, to make room for the next. Loosing control of one means that its neighbors are in jeopardy, and they don't have much room to move without running into their neighbors.

If the satellite has no usable thrusters, its going to be left on its own when it becomes perturbed by things such as the moon, jupiter, the sun, etc. Causing it to fall out of its slot, as this one has done.

Re:Traversing the sky? (1)

Dolphinzilla (199489) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722778)

yes - I think they are something like 2 degrees apart (it might be 4) but the close separation is why you need such large antennas for high data rates (narrow beam widths) to avoid "spamming" the adjacent satellites

Re:Traversing the sky? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34722870)

slots are 0.1 degree apart. about 100 km wide per slot.

Re:Traversing the sky? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#34725442)

The chance of collision is infinitesimal. Space is really, really big. If one of them should wander out of it's slow though, it will interfere with it's neighbours - they tend to use the same frequency bands, seperated only by the use of highly directional antennas.

Re:Traversing the sky? (1)

jra (5600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739144)

Indeed; the spacing on the belt is determined by the frequency band, and the minimum acceptable size of the uplink dishes; Ku and moreso Ka band birds can be quite a bit closer together than C band ones.

Re:Traversing the sky? (0)

RoboRay (735839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722732)

Newton's First Law of Motion:

Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

Re:Traversing the sky? (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722996)

Corollary one: Any object in orbit around a body with mass has an external force applied to it.

Corollary two: Any object in the solar system is part of an n-body problem and has lots of external forces applied to it.

Re:Traversing the sky? (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 2 years ago | (#34725728)

Oh, we almost forgot: objects in freefall, subject to any number of gravitational pulls, are not actually subject to any forces but are merely following a straight path through a non-flat region of spacetime.

Does this mean (1, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721530)

So does Intelsat have to give the insurance money back now? Or does it take more than a year to process this kind of claim anyway?

Re:Does this mean (3, Funny)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722228)

So does Intelsat have to give the insurance money back now? Or does it take more than a year to process this kind of claim anyway?

They were delayed due to problems scheduling an appointment for an adjustment agent to take a look at the satellite.

Re:Does this mean (1)

camperslo (704715) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722832)

They were delayed due to problems scheduling an appointment for an adjustment agent to take a look at the satellite.

No problem, it turns out that you only missed the meeting advising you of where the payment was left. There has been a check waiting in orbit at 122 degrees west for a year. Since the satellite doesn't need replacing, you'll have to pay us back with interest. The rate is a little high as we're a Delaware corporation.

Re:Does this mean (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722352)

So does Intelsat have to give the insurance money back now?

I'm interested in the preventative actions prescribed by the insurance policy to avoid further software catastrophes.

Kudos to whomever figured out the patch, though, and those who designed the system such that the patch was still able to be uploaded in its current condition.

Re:Does this mean (2)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722824)

"Kudos to whomever figured out the patch, though, and those who designed the system such that the patch was still able to be uploaded in its current condition."

It was actually a coincidence that they were able to do it in the first place. According to TFA it wasn't some clever people down here that fixed it.

"On Dec. 23, the battery on Galaxy 15 — which relied on solar panels pointed at the sun to generate power — became completely drained, Intelsat officials said. Once that happened, the satellite reset itself as designed and began accepting commands from Intelsat's control center."

The satellite basically fixed itself. The uploaded patch didn't fix the problem, but will prevent it from occurring in the future. Although you can bet that future satellites will most definitely have some kind of watchdog to kill the payload in the event that the position control systems experience a critical failure.

Re:Does this mean (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34726080)

The uploaded patch didn't fix the problem, but will prevent it from occurring in the future.

Reading the article I am not sure how. My reading is that it has working data in something like RAM and a reference copy is built into ROM. If power is reset it copies from ROM to RAM. Radiation can corrupt the RAM. So how can a software change make the RAM less likely to be corrupted? Or have they tweaked a mechanism which triggers a reset to the copy in ROM?

Re:Does this mean (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#34728266)

Thanks for clarifying - agreed.

Re:Does this mean (1)

LibRT (1966204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34723160)

Typically the insurance company gets ownership of any damaged goods it pays to replace (this is known as salvage). I'm not familiar with the peculiarities of satellite insurance tho - salvage may very well not apply (or it may be in the insurance contract but not acted upon as a matter of practicality) because it seems to me it's generally an all or nothing proposition: either the satellite launches and operates successfully or it is permanently lost (the present case, surely an oddity, notwithstanding). And it isn't as tho an insurer would hop a space shuttle and go claim their salvage such that they could sell it for scrap metal...actually, here's what wiki says: "Another aspect of satellite insurance is the procedure attached to salvage. Though it is impossible to obtain monetary value from the wreckage in the event of an actual total loss or constructive total loss, many insurers rely on sharing any revenue which may be obtainable from the failed satellite with the insured." https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Satellite_insurance [wikimedia.org] It's safe to say the satellite's owner would also carry liability insurance, such that any harm done to other satellites (or anything, really) results in compensation to the injured third party.

Re:Does this mean (1)

jra (5600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738366)

<nit>
Please don't refer to Wikipedia as "wiki"; that's a common noun for a particular category of content management software. Thanks.
</nit>

Re:Does this mean (1)

jra (5600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738376)

PS: congrats for having the sense to use HTTPS to access all possible websites. :-)

Technically... (4, Funny)

mandark1967 (630856) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721534)

It wasn't a Zombie satellite. Zombies remain dead. Plus, it didn't incessantly transmit the message, "BRAINS! It's what's for dinner!"

Re:Technically... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34721576)

But the satellite is now UNdead! Doesn't that make it MORE of a zombie?

Re:Technically... (2)

volxdragon (1297215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721656)

But the satellite is now UNdead! Doesn't that make it MORE of a zombie?

Oh crap, now they have to roll 1d20 to make their saving throw...

Re:Technically... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34723176)

> But the satellite is now UNdead! Doesn't that make it MORE of a zombie?

No, more like the satellite is now EX-dead, which makes it more like a sexually-conflicted fundamentalist Christian televangelist fond of "ministering" to the needs of gay escorts. Daily, when possible.

Re:Technically... (0)

EnsilZah (575600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721892)

Or possibly a religious figure.

Re:Technically... (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722078)

Same thing.

Re:Technically... (1)

Deathlizard (115856) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722200)

but... JesusSat doesn't have a nice ring to it...

Re:Technically... (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725780)

"MessiahSat" does.

Re:Technically... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34728330)

I like HamanSat.

Re:Technically... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34722404)

Zombies remain dead.

Remain undead, you mean?

Re:Technically... (1)

Anonymous Cowar (1608865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34723382)

As a side note, in one of the night of the living dead movies, there's a newscast of a crashed satellite being linked to the civil unrest. So the unofficial zombie origins in the first few movies was a zombie satellite.

Re:Technically... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34723548)

"It wasn't a Zombie satellite. Zombies remain dead."

So you're saying it's the son and satellite embodiment of the satellite maker?

Makes sense given who brought it back to life...

caused by a BSOD? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34721538)

yet another reason "never use MS in your satellite design"
only way to recover from a BSOD.....

"Intelsat has reported that they have re-established control over their geostationary satellite Galaxy XV (known as FAA WAAS satellite CRW [= Central Region West], which operated as PRN 135). The satellite had been uncontrollable since 5 April 2010 and has drifted from its assigned orbital slot at 133 degrees west longitude to about 98 degrees west.

"By the second week of December, the satellite's reaction wheels had become saturated with momentum and the satellite could no longer maintain Earth and sun lock. The deterioration of the satellite?s ability to remain stable caused intermittent WAAS data link disruptions that rendered the satellite unreliable for further data transmissions. Galaxy 15 ceased broadcasting WAAS signals as of 16 December."

"According to Intelsat, on 23 December, the power from the Galaxy XV battery completely drained and the satellite's baseband equipment command unit reset, as it was designed to do. Shortly thereafter the satellite began accepting commands and Intelsat engineers began receiving telemetry."

Re:caused by a BSOD? (1)

darth dickinson (169021) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721848)

Dude, nowhere in that snippet does it mention Microsoft products being used in their design. Nice try, though.

Re:caused by a BSOD? (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 2 years ago | (#34724594)

The joke is that they had to "pull the power / reboot" it, in a sense.

Lighten up dude.

Nuke it from the ground (5, Funny)

Stele (9443) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721546)

It's the only way to be sure.

Re:Nuke it from the ground (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34723082)

Well played...

Re:Nuke it from the ground (2)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 3 years ago | (#34723878)

Nuke it from the ground: It's the only way to be sure.

That probably wouldn't work, unfortunately...

Nuclear weapons don't explode in space [nasa.gov] . The reason you get a huge explosion, heat, etc. detonating one on Earth is because radiation is soaked up by the atmosphere. If you detonate in space, you just get an intense burst of radiation... Which could still be sufficient to kill people over long distances, and it's possible this would be enough to destroy the satellite - but it's not a sure thing. You're not going to be vaporizing that satellite with a nuclear weapon.

Re:Nuke it from the ground (1)

jra (5600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738390)

They tried:

"On May 3, an attempt at a very momentary series of strong pulses intended to cause a power system malfunction were sent to Galaxy 15. Unfortunately, this did not have the desired effect of causing a power system overload and subsequent shut down of the active transponders." --wp

I'm reminded of the ending of Independence Day aga (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34721580)

But who flew the ship up now that Will Smith is otherwise engaged?

Re:I'm reminded of the ending of Independence Day (1)

pcolaman (1208838) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721840)

There's always Bruce Willis or Sigourney Weaver...

Re:I'm reminded of the ending of Dr. Strangelove (1)

mcneely.mike (927221) | more than 3 years ago | (#34723298)

Or Slim Pickens.... cowboy hat a'flyin', with a 'Yeeee Hawww'. It could happen.

Satellite death humor. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34721592)

"On Dec. 23, the battery on Galaxy 15 became completely drained, Intelsat officials said. Once that happened, the satellite..." ...began drifting above its own orbit. Then it went through a long dark tunnel and was met by other dead satellites. One of them, a dazzling, indistinguishable brillance, told Galaxy 15 its mission was not over, and it had to return. With a jolt, the satellite reset itself as designed and began accepting commands from Intelsat's control center.

Mama Grizzly Bugfixes (1, Offtopic)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721754)

An emergency patch was successfully uploaded, ensuring that the conditions which caused it to 'go rogue' will not occur again.

If only the same feat could be accomplished with Sarah Palin...

Re:Mama Grizzly Bugfixes (1)

ErikZ (55491) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722000)

A pun on her book...

That's it? Really? You're wasting pixels man.

Re:Mama Grizzly Bugfixes (2, Funny)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722194)

Well, um...well...

Yeah. That's it.

I could imply that she's gay, too. Lolerz.

I'm such a Star Trek nerd! (1)

thomasdz (178114) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721816)

I LOL-ed when I read in the article that the satellite is now "fully functional"
Just like Commander Data.

Re:I'm such a Star Trek nerd! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34722434)

Get a life.

Re:I'm such a Star Trek nerd! (1)

jftitan (736933) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722854)

but in this case, the satellite doesn't have a penis. Which would be totally awkward... if it did.

Re:I'm such a Star Trek nerd! (1)

mcneely.mike (927221) | more than 3 years ago | (#34723322)

No, you inconsiderate clod. It's a girl satellite.... it's got two boobs, which isn't awkward at all. In fact, the other satellites are geosynchrously lining up for snacks.

Amsat-OSCAR 7 (5, Interesting)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721836)

It's worth comparing it with the venerable AO-7 satellite, which was launched in 1974 and eventually "died" when its battery failed dead short in 1981. A little over ten years later, the failed battery failed again, this time going *open* circuit and allowing the satellite to run entirely off its solar panels. So, while the satellite is illuminated by the Sun it works fairly reliably. You need to keep the power down, because it has a linear transponder so the more power you put in the more comes out - until you exceed the tiny amount produced by the solar cells. It works, though, and people communicate across the world on it every day.

Re:Amsat-OSCAR 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34722950)

Thanks for sharing, that was really intersting and cool!

Not "American". (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722132)

Intelsat. [wikipedia.org]

Nice story submission! (4, Insightful)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722208)

Seriously, three short lines which clearly convey the entire summary of the story, contains lots of links to both story and background, AND doesn't contain terrible typos! Also, geeky and interesting. This is what slashdot needs more of.

Re:Nice story submission! (1)

realperseus (594176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722712)

Seriously, three short lines which clearly convey the entire summary of the story, contains lots of links to both story and background, AND doesn't contain terrible typos! Also, geeky and interesting. This is what slashdot needs more of.

This just means you didn't see my 1st submission which was full of typos and mis-spellings.. :-)

Re:Nice story submission! (1)

Garth Smith (1720052) | more than 3 years ago | (#34723914)

This just means you didn't see my 1st submission which was full of typos and mis-spellings.. :-)

You mean *gasp* Slashdot editors actually did something?!?!?!? O.O

MIND BLOWN

Re:Nice story submission! (1)

realperseus (594176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34728450)

This just means you didn't see my 1st submission which was full of typos and mis-spellings.. :-)

You mean *gasp* Slashdot editors actually did something?!?!?!? O.O

MIND BLOWN

They're out there... :-)

Re:Nice story submission! (1)

jra (5600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34739152)

Better be; the truth sure ain't...

Re:Nice story submission! (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34740866)

Seriously, three short lines which clearly convey the entire summary of the story, contains lots of links to both story and background, AND doesn't contain terrible typos! Also, geeky and interesting. This is what slashdot needs more of.

Then get submitting.

If you're not part of the problem, then you're part of the solution. Or something like that.

Disclaimer : I've not bothered to research your submission history. Nor do I know what the site's averages are, which might be interesting in itself.

Just like that? (4, Interesting)

Thapa (681462) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722270)

What impresses me most is that you can just upload patches to orbiting satellites. Sounds like a party for the next DEFCON...

Re:Just like that? (4, Insightful)

Cylix (55374) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722418)

Not too long ago the norm was actually for transponders to simply be open.

Meaning if you had a means to send a signal to a particular frequency it would be easy to bounce from that transponder and relay back down. Now, if the NOC (or SOC really) caught an open transponder being used as a relay they would eventually shut it down if you were not paying for the air time.

This became a big deal during the initial war in Iraq as there were a good deal of hijack broadcasts spewing forth from across the sea. In response, they eventually began shutting down transponders until they were scheduled to be used. Either out of interest or trying to lock a particular bird I would find them at random times.

Somehow I doubt the mechanisms used on the old satellites were more obscurity then security to prevent updates.

Re:Just like that? (1)

realperseus (594176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34728480)

Not too long ago the norm was actually for transponders to simply be open.

He means like this [2600.com]

Re:Just like that? (1)

damaged_sectors (1690438) | more than 3 years ago | (#34736876)

Not too long ago the norm was actually for transponders to simply be open.

He means like this [2600.com]

The link off that page is dead, but I'll save you the trouble - Captain Midnight didn't do anything to a satellite.

Satellite hacking has been a commercially available service for some years now - don't know if they're still offering the service (their prices look a little old) but these folks can help. [digicrime.com]

An example of what's available from a hijacked surveillance drone is here [digicrime.com] .

Disclaimer:- this is just a hobby.

Re:Just like that? (1)

socz (1057222) | more than 2 years ago | (#34725122)

haha yeah, thats what I was thinking! BTW, do you have any connections for the ninja party? I wanted to go last year but apparently, a lot of people didn't seem to talk to my friend and I while waiting in line for talks. They'd listen in, but not really want to talk with us lol. It's like being back in highschool all over again!

Re:Just like that? (1)

Thapa (681462) | more than 3 years ago | (#34728240)

Haha, no, I don't know anyone related to DEFCON whatsoever. I just thought it'd be awesome to read about satellite hacking in some future post.

Windoze on Board? (4, Funny)

Identita (1256932) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722332)

"We have placed Galaxy 15 in safe mode, and at this time, we are pleased to report it no longer poses any threat of satellite interference to either neighboring satellites or customer services," Intelsat officials announced." Unknown to anyone, the last shuttle launch had a secret space walk in order to hit CTRL-ALT-DEL on the sat's terminal.

Out of control from April 5th to Dec 23rd? (1)

ZappedSparky (1935014) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722432)

8 months-ish,that sounds about right for "I'll get around to it".

Re:Out of control from April 5th to Dec 23rd? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34723306)

From what I understand they were on it all the time but there was simply nothing they could do. The satellite's systems did not respond to commands so they basically had to wait for it to drain its batteries and have the emergency system kick in and reset it autonomously. That just happened, so now they can actually work on it again.

Re:Out of control from April 5th to Dec 23rd? (1)

ZappedSparky (1935014) | more than 3 years ago | (#34723398)

Hopefully they'll be able to prevent something similar from happening again barring another intense solar storm.

Re:Out of control from April 5th to Dec 23rd? (1)

jra (5600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34738822)

Correct: the baseband control processor was what froze; the bent-pipe transponders remained active, as did the sun- and earth-pointing subsystems.

When the batteries finally drained far enough, the BBE reset itself, and the next time the panels had sun, it came up *just* long enough to let them upload the patches, and reenable the sunlocker.

Zombie satellites from OUTER SPACE!!! (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722754)

Sounds like a movie title by Ed Wood.

Going rogue (2)

yoblin (692322) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722808)

An emergency patch was successfully uploaded, ensuring that the conditions which caused it to 'go rogue' will not occur again.

Sounds exactly like the marketing-speak I use when people find bugs in my code... Sounds better than "we screwed up"

Re:Going rogue (1)

hawkfish (8978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725776)

I just assumed Sarah Palin was involved ;-)

I wonder... (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#34723410)

Hey guys, we got the satel- Assuming direct control.

There goes any hope of peaceful contact (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34723630)

Firstly, Americans wreaking havoc wherever they go on the ground and now in space?

Kudos to the coder!!! (2)

assemblerex (1275164) | more than 3 years ago | (#34723840)

I am sure that bonus is going to be REAL NICE for saving $250,000,000 in hardware from deorbit.

Re:Kudos to the coder!!! (1)

socz (1057222) | more than 2 years ago | (#34725144)

but little do you know, that it was a contractor that did the work, and their employee is only a seasonal temp!

Sweet! (0)

cstacy (534252) | more than 3 years ago | (#34723990)

Sweet Zombie Jesus Satellite!

Only one problem... (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 2 years ago | (#34724728)

All the tranmissions from the satellite says: "brains"

Bring it back down to earth to study closer.

Map showing how far off (2)

kc8jhs (746030) | more than 2 years ago | (#34724806)

I was curious just how far off that is. Turns out, it's quite a bit [goo.gl] .

Re:Map showing how far off (1)

realperseus (594176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34727086)

I was curious just how far off that is. Turns out, it's quite a bit [goo.gl] .

Thanks! I was looking for something like that...

Good one (0)

AtariKee (455870) | more than 2 years ago | (#34724904)

Now we don't have to worry about Galaxy 15 returning to Earth to message the Creator, and getting pissed and destroying the planet when the Creator doesn't respond, a la V-ger...

And here I thought they were overdocumented... (1)

Spykk (823586) | more than 2 years ago | (#34725380)

'Zombie' Satellite Returns To Life

Have we learned nothing? If you want it to stay dead you need to destroy the brain.

Annoying (0)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 3 years ago | (#34726030)

Space.com is really annoying, with these banner ads that have the smallest close buttons, and the damned Chrome popup that hides its close button. I'm not at all sure it's worth going to those links any more. At least for me.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?