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!

DoD to Put Internet Router in Space

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the interspace-spacenet-space-o-tron-intertrucks-in-space dept.

Communications 188

narramissic writes "ITworld is reporting that the Department of Defense plans to launch in the first quarter of 2009 a satellite-based router to deliver military communications. Satellite operator Intelsat will manage the three-year Internet Routing In Space (IRIS) project, while Cisco will provide IP networking software for the on-board router. After testing, the satellite will be available for commercial use. From the article: 'Potential nonmilitary benefits of the IRIS program include the ability to route IP (Internet Protocol) traffic between satellites in space in much the same way packets are moved on the ground, reducing delays, saving on capacity and offering greater networking flexibility, Lloyd Wood, space initiatives manager in the Global Defense, Space & Security division of Cisco, said Thursday.'"

cancel ×

188 comments

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

Lost DoD hardware (5, Funny)

andy314159pi (787550) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705929)

DoD to Put Internet Router in Space
It seems like they are always misplacing shit.

Re:Lost DoD hardware (2, Funny)

stefanlasiewski (63134) | more than 7 years ago | (#18707121)

It seems like they are always misplacing shit.

Sheesh! Just trace the cable!

sounds like a plan (2, Funny)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705931)

Well, the Army is getting routed in Iraq, might as well get a head start on getting routed in space as well.

routing back to the states: no route to host (1, Troll)

davidwr (791652) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706025)

A bunch of soldiers were hoping to be on the next packet back to the USA but they got a "no route to host, try again in 3 months" error message [news.com.au] .

Yes I know it's off-topic but laugh, it's funny.

Re:routing back to the states: no route to host (0, Troll)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706827)

Yes I know it's off-topic but laugh, it's funny.

Sure, when you can explain the humor behind our troops facing gunfire, snipers, and bombs every day...

Re:routing back to the states: no route to host (-1, Flamebait)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 7 years ago | (#18707213)

Flame-bait *this*. As a proud military brat, I'm a little less amused by our folks in uniform being under fire because some moron with no real military service had a mad-on.

Re:sounds like a plan (1, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706297)

Handcuff the soldiers and complain when they're getting the asses kicked. Typical Peaceniks.

Want victory in Iraq? Uncuff the soldiers and let them kill people and break things.

Re:sounds like a plan (1)

antifood (898331) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706461)

Win what?

Re:sounds like a plan (1)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706757)

>Win what?

Why, a set of matching melamine dishes.

Re:sounds like a plan (1)

antifood (898331) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706843)

I would kill for a set of those.

Re:sounds like a plan (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706733)

You want vistory in Iraq? killing civilians won't do it.

Hiring mercenaries that kill people when ever they want, won't do it.

A rebuilding plan annouced to the people, updated monthly, with schedules and real, visual, attainable goals and accomplishments is the only way to achive victory in Iraq.
The . Only . Way .

This does not mean 'Handcuffing' the solders, it means giving them a fucking chance, cause right now they ain't got one.

Re:sounds like a plan (1)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706645)

Getting routed by their own goverment, of course.

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of the U.S. involvement in Iraq, here's a sobering statistic:

There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths. That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons for the same period.

That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq ..

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington D.C.

Pulled from random fact sheet.

Re:sounds like a plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18706929)

Flawed math. The 2112 deaths in Iraq are U.S. troops counts only, not all persons killed in Iraq during that period.

To make a fair comparison, you either need to include the non-U.S. troops and civilians who were killed in Iraq in the death toll, or restrict the Washington death toll to only include U.S. troops killed in D.C.

Those numbers aren't even close to right. (2, Informative)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706963)

You might try actually fact-checking those numbers. [globalsecurity.org] The actual number of US casualties in Iraq is almost 3,300, with another 23,000 wounded.

And yes, "wounded" includes losing limbs, eyes, and all sorts of other body parts that don't, on average, sustain major damage when you're out and about in Washington DC.

Re:Those numbers aren't even close to right. (2)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#18707019)

lmao.. ever been to DC?

Re:Those numbers aren't even close to right. (1)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#18707153)

It was from this I guess.. back in 06. I'm sure it's not a total number, and it isn't even comical. I was just trying to make light of the situation, rather than flame you.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/29/13270 6.shtml [newsmax.com]
Even if... http://mediamatters.org/items/200611300002 [mediamatters.org]

Re:Those numbers aren't even close to right. (2, Insightful)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18707229)

Using Pentagon statistics cross-checked with independent research, King said he came up with an annualized Iraqi civilian death rate of 27.51 per 100,000.

Ok, so it sounds like he's counting the years when Saddam was still in power. Which, of course, would bring down the average, because the country wasn't in total chaos. But to be perfectly honest, they could have just made the numbers up. They don't cite their sources, and they don't cite their research, so it's impossible to see how they're calculating that.

Re:Those numbers aren't even close to right. (1)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#18707365)

I agree. I wasn't saying it was Gospel, as much as some crazy fact sheet I was reading through that I found comical only because I live in DC. I think the murder rate is actually down in the past year, as opposed to normal anyway. Plus, casualties in Iraq are climbing.

Re:Those numbers aren't even close to right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18707445)

I lost a leg during the Clinton theater you insensitive clod!

Security. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18705955)

"From the article: 'Potential nonmilitary benefits of the IRIS program include the ability to route IP (Internet Protocol) traffic between satellites in space in much the same way packets are moved on the ground, reducing delays, saving on capacity and offering greater networking flexibility, Lloyd Wood, space initiatives manager in the Global Defense, Space & Security division of Cisco, said Thursday.'"

You forgot greater security.

Re:Security. (1)

JensenDied (1009293) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706063)

They also failed to mention that its immune to nuclear bombing on the surface.

Re:Security. (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706271)

Well that's useful, because if I'm ever dead, first thing I'm doing is getting on the Internet.

Re:Security. (1)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706445)

Well, I bet that's why they are putting routers in heaven! Maybe you'll be able to get it.

Re:Security. (2, Funny)

scruffy (29773) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706091)

WEP or WPA?

Re:Security. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18706317)

WEP or WPA?
Um, hello, it's the U.S. DoD we're talking about here. So of course it's a wired router.

Unless... (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706199)

It's a lot easier for our New Martian Overlords [imdb.com] to intercept and disrupt our space-based routers than those on the ground.

Anyone wanna help me rip my record collection?

Re:Security. (1)

tygt (792974) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706699)

reducing delays

Really!

Wow. Last satellite internet service I had had astounding delays.

Of course, that was with a geosync satellite, and without RTFA I can guess they're planning on using sats which are considerably closer than this, but if they're really close then they'll zooming around too fast I'd image that could cause trouble with their OSPF or BGP....

Re:Security. (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#18707687)

Wow. Last satellite internet service I had had astounding delays.



Well, yeah. You were, I presume, on the ground. Chances are, so were the computers with which you were ultimately trying to connect. That's often going to give you a big delay going through a satellite compared to going through ground-based routers exclusively.

They are talking about reducing delays for IP traffic between other satellites compared to going through ground-based routers, which is a pretty different scenario.

How long until the rest of the world wants access? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18705973)

Before long the rest of the world will be demanding that the United States cease control of it's satellite routers to an NGO so that "one single country isn't in charge of the internets".

Re:How long until the rest of the world wants acce (2, Interesting)

nharmon (97591) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706035)

Indeed, what if routing packets over satellite becomes that much cheaper than underwater fiber that it replaces it entirely and the country controlling those satellites can shutdown a nation's access to the internet on a whim?

Re:How long until the rest of the world wants acce (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18706175)

Transit times for packets routed through space (to geosynchronous satellites) is much much larger than those routed over the surface.

Think seconds, not milliseconds.

Re:How long until the rest of the world wants acce (1)

Oktober Sunset (838224) | more than 7 years ago | (#18707157)

There is such a freaking enormous amount of cable under the atlantic that we aren't going to run out any time soon. And if we do, space rocket or boat which do you think is cheaper to operate? Secondly, how is that different to say France, Italy and Austria ganging up and stopping Switzerland from accessing cables out of the country, which they could do now if they really wanted, really, this would make the ability to 'cut off' a country harder, cos they would have a whole bunch of satellites to choose from as well as cables. You can't possible imagine all the satellites being controlled by a single country can you?

This can't be the first time (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705979)

Someone HAS to have put a router in space before. Not for this particular application mind you, but I'd be shocked if no packet ever got routed while in space.

Now, who will be the first company to admit they got pwnd in space?

Re:This can't be the first time (2, Insightful)

BadERA (107121) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706057)

They have, I don't think the article is saying this will be the first IP router in space. In fact, Cisco just carried out the first IPv6 routing in space the other day ...

Re:This can't be the first time (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18706185)

Well... there is this from 2005: http://www.gcn.com/print/24_21/36507-1.html [gcn.com] [gcn.com]

NASA has been investigating using TCP/IP for communications with satellite since at least 2000 ... http://ipinspace.gsfc.nasa.gov/documents/OMNIconce [nasa.gov] pt.pdf [nasa.gov]

and it was going so well that http://www.military-information-technology.com/art [military-i...nology.com] icle.cfm?DocID=998 [military-i...nology.com]

Not that new based on a quick google.

Re:This can't be the first time (2, Funny)

inviolet (797804) | more than 7 years ago | (#18707343)

NASA has been investigating using TCP/IP for communications with satellite since at least 2000 ...

Well, Blackboard Software had better hurry and file another patent [slashdot.org] then: "Method of sharing educational media... on the internet... in space!"

Re:This can't be the first time (3, Interesting)

brunascle (994197) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706381)

years ago (around 1999) my family got to be a tester for a new (potential) satellite ISP. they gave us a free PC, stuck a satellite dish in the ground, and said "have fun."

it sucked. it wasnt reliable at all, and it was very slow. it was the same for everyone else. jackasses never removed the satellite dish either. i heard about one guy who took an axe to his just to get the damn thing out.

Re:This can't be the first time (1)

malvidin (951569) | more than 7 years ago | (#18707013)

This is far different than your satellite down, dial-up up ISP. I would guess that most of this traffic, especially initially, wouldn't even touch the internet. I don't know how well this satellite router would work if it was the only one in space, but if it can retransmit data on different bands that would be very helpful when you have limited ground based transmission equipment.

No ISP would put in the type of satellite communications equipment that they will use for this system in your backyard. If they did, you would be able to take it with an axe, nor would you want to. They are a bit more expensive than any reasonable company would throw at a consumer.

Re:This can't be the first time (1)

SuiteSisterMary (123932) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706735)

I remember the release notes for Solaris 2.6, back in, what, the late '90s, mentioning changes made to the TCP/IP stack to improve performance when dealing with satellites.

To: DoD Router Administrater +1, Political (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18705997)

Delete all White House [slashdot.org] e-mail [youtube.com] immediately before I have to catch my plane to my Paraguay
bunker.

Seditiously yours,
"President" George W. Bush

hmmmm..... (2, Insightful)

teeloo (766817) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706021)

Can't wait til the hackers of the world try to hack into that one. I wonder what laws would apply? Are there any "space" laws per se?

Re:hmmmm..... (1)

Mizled (1000175) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706093)

Since it's Gov't equipment then it would be a Federal case. I'm sure that's a Do NOT pass Go, Do NOT collect $100....You go straight to jail type of offense.

Re:hmmmm..... (1)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706721)

"Jail" in this case be spelled suspiciously like that little American enclave in Cuba. Say "Say hallo to my leettle Al Qaeda Friend."

Re:hmmmm..... (1)

IgLou (732042) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706143)

I'm still waiting for email spam to make it's way into space. Then in a deep voice I plan to say "SPACE SPAM!"

More serious note, space is a "territory" of sorts... still the ownership (and who's laws will prevail) of that territory will depend on who can assert their "control" over that territory. So that will most likely be some corporation. :P

Which leads to an obligatory:
I for one welcome our new SPACE IBM overlords!

Re:hmmmm..... (0, Offtopic)

BigHungryJoe (737554) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706157)

US prosecutors can get you for anything they want - the DOJ will just come up with a new interpretation of some overly broad "national security" measure and probably find a way to justify secret enforcement of it... and in the US, the minimum penalty will be 60 years in prison, while the rest of the world will consider it punishable by community service.

That's how it is in the US now that the "law and order" types have taken over. Everything is a fucking crime and carries a heavy jail sentence.

Stats?? (3, Interesting)

otacon (445694) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706101)

What kind of bandwidth are we talking here? but I guess the better question is what routing protocol is it going to use, EIGRP? OSPF? BGP?

Re:Stats?? (2, Funny)

robpoe (578975) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706429)

S.P.A.C.E.

Statically
Practical
Application
(for)
Countering
Extra-Terrestrials

Connection? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18706103)

Does this mean the information will have to pass through a series of carbon nanotubes?

traceroute (2, Funny)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706119)

traceroute is going to be more interesting.

Re:traceroute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18706597)

countdown to google.com (72.14.207.99), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
  5 my.router 0.490 ms 0.434 ms 0.409 ms
  4 my.isp.net 7.593 ms 8.175 ms 6.584 ms
  3 new-mexico-space-center.com 6.595 ms 6.442 ms 7.379 ms
  2 liftoff 7.300 ms 7.523 ms 5.641 ms
  1 google.com 23.556 ms 24.319 ms 24.048 ms

spaceroute!!! (2, Funny)

servertary (1084649) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706659)

spaceroute!!!

The password (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18706133)

Username:
Password: admin

The DoD aren't smart enough to change the default password.

Re:The password (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18707091)

Even worse, what if they forget about it, and need to "hard reset" the password? Service times... I hope Cisco sells a hell of a customer support!

Really? (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706151)

Really, Drink or Die is putting a router in space? Is this part of some off-planet hosting scheme?

Re:Really? (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706225)

Hey! It could've been some sort of new Day of Defeat RPG, you insensitive clod!

/P

No matter what, the ping times are going to suck.. (1)

Glasswire (302197) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706165)

... doesn't matter if the routers are milspec or not. Speed of light is speed of light.

Re:No matter what, the ping times are going to suc (2, Interesting)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706301)

Yes, but that's irrelevant.

The article didn't say it was going to be in geostationary orbit. Don't assume that just because a geostationary satellite internet satellite has 650ms pings that all satellites will.

A satellite could orbit as low as 100 miles. The latency could be a few ms.

And around the world she goes (2, Funny)

davidwr (791652) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706571)

As one satellite pings the router that's passing below in a different orbit:

geostat1# ping spacerouter1
Pinging spacerouter1 [300.300.300.300] with 128 bytes of data:

Reply from 300.300.300.300: bytes=128 time1ms TTL=128
Reply from 300.300.300.300: bytes=128 time 100ms TTL=128
Reply from 300.300.300.300: bytes=128 time 700 TTL=128
Request timed out. ...
Request timed out.
Reply from 300.300.300.300: bytes=128 time 700 TTL=128
Reply from 300.300.300.300: bytes=128 time 100ms TTL=128
Reply from 300.300.300.300: bytes=128 time1ms TTL=128

Re:No matter what, the ping times are going to suc (1)

CCFreak2K (930973) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706861)

186,282 miles per second: it's the law.

Re:No matter what, the ping times are going to suc (1)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#18707223)

Unless it's the speed of Miller, Bud or Naty light. Hmm..

Oy, vey... (5, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706167)

Wouldn't want to try and play any decent FPS on that puppy... the lag has GOT to be horrible.

Speaking of which, how DO they manage "realtime" data on that w/o the lag? It wouldn't exactly be true realtime if ~250ms delay keeps chucking in there. While that may be no biggie now, I can see where that would/could be a factor as real battlefields become just as data-dependant as the game ones. (cue lots of "haha, you got pwned by the Chinese!" jokes here, but seriously... I wonder how they're going to eventually get around that; the physics would be gnarly at best...)

/P

Re:Oy, vey... (3, Informative)

torqer (538711) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706383)

Lag is exactly the reason why they want to put the satellite there. It will route traffic between satellites in space, without need for the lag of travelling to terrestial router and then return to space.

Not realtime, but 2x speed of existing system (4, Informative)

davidwr (791652) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706393)

TFA said the existing system involves

source - satellite#1 - ground-based router - satellite#2 - destination

The new system will be
source - satellite #1 - space router - satellite #2 - destination

or even better

source - space router - destination

Depending on where the satellite is, you may have just shaved a few tenths of a second off the one-way trip.

Re:Oy, vey... (1)

blhack (921171) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706425)

believe it or not, computer networks can be used for things other than gaming!

This is to be used for relaying information around. 250ms of lag isn't going to matter if you pulling down a sat photo.
also, keep in mind that the lag is only at the beginning of the download, once the thing starts, the lag is no longer much of a limiting factor

Re:Oy, vey... (1)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706773)

believe it or not, computer networks can be used for things other than gaming!

But, it IS for the games. Real games. As in real, old-time games held in Greece, Rome, Mayan ball courts. Our games use real assets. You are so screwed.

Re:Oy, vey... (4, Informative)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706431)

Realtime means predictable delay not no delay.

a predictable and short, bounded delay (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706649)

Whether 250ms qualifies as real-time depends on your application. For a game of speed chess, maybe. For FPS, probably not.

Re:Oy, vey... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18706455)

They could use underwater cables if they needed low latency. Also, they probably aren't sending time critical information through the satellite. It could be ~5-10 min. tactics, and they could let the lower level officers figure out how to run the battle minute to minute.

That's a good question though, and if you can find an answer, you might be on your way to a patent :)

Re:Oy, vey... (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706625)

I look forward to getting spam from "Dr_Reginald_Mumbutu@keyhole12.sat.mil"

The damn irony (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706877)

Within 24 hours, some 419er is going to try to spam Dr_Reginald_Mumbutu@keyhole12.sat.mil.

Re:Oy, vey... (1)

tktk (540564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706723)

Speaking of which, how DO they manage "realtime" data on that w/o the lag? It wouldn't exactly be true realtime if ~250ms delay keeps chucking in there.

Easy, they just add +250ms.

Re:Oy, vey... (1)

flappinbooger (574405) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706997)

Easy.

Subspace.

Next!

Apologies to Jim Henson (5, Funny)

mapmaker (140036) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706319)

Piiiiinnngs iiiiiin Spaaaaaaace!

Let me guess..... (4, Funny)

8127972 (73495) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706353)

.... the SSID will be Linksys right?

great (1)

robpoe (578975) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706391)

That will be great, until some script kiddy decides to pwnz0r the sat link ...

In space?!? (1)

stilltron (876042) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706439)

That's going to take a lot of cat5 cable. They might as well rig up that space elevator everyone keeps talking about to it.

Re:In space?!? (1)

dnahelix1 (1060308) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706549)

Don't know about the CAT5, but can you imagine calling the ISP? DoD: Hi. I'm having a problem with my connection. Can you help me? ISP: Sure I can help you. I'm going to need you to go ahead and unplug your modem for me. Unplug your router and then we'll go ahead and reboot everything. DoD: uh.........

SSH managed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18706469)

I hope DoD can afford to pay for SSH license to manage the router.

Cisco cares about security as much as the next guy (M$).

Let me be the first to say... (2, Funny)

chowdy (992689) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706477)

One small step for a LAN, one giant leap for wifi.

astounding.. (1)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706487)

So how are they going to build a series of tubes in space?

mod 0P (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18706525)

The future holds non niiger patrons Are you a NIGGER decentralized

What do I know about it? (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706527)

I guess whatever space-thingers that DirectPC and other satellite services bounce off aren't routers?

What's the distinction, some NASA geek 'splain please.

Is this like packets being routed like usa-satellite-satellite-satellite-africa?

Not sure if DirectPC is a router or not (2, Informative)

davidwr (791652) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706749)

Satellite Internet can work two ways: The satellite is the router, or the satellite is a bridge or medium-converter box just like some cheap DSL or cable modems.

If I were DirectPC I'd want my satellite to be as simple and lightweight as possible.

Is this like packets being routed like usa-satellite-satellite-satellite-africa?
See the article for an explanation.

The long and short of it is this is designed to replace traffic that is currently going
somewhere-satellite-ground based router-satellite-somewhere
where the "somewheres" on either end are optional.

Re:What do I know about it? (4, Informative)

Skippyboy (978787) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706799)

I work at Johnson Space Center and we are testing this right now. The idea is that in the future (ie when we have a moonbase, etc) that all communication will be in IP packets over RF links.
Currently the RF links use multiplexed frames with different PN sequences and frame sync headers to communicate, so the position of each bit within the frame means something.
With IP packets, we wouldn't really have to decode/demux the frames to get the information. Each entity could send data based on its IP address. As mentioned before - the lag time issue is gonna be pretty messy, unless we used UDP or something similar. We are just in the beginning stages right now for our purposes, so just configuring the routers and getting the data into an RF link and be errorless is what we are fighting.
Hope that sheds some light on why. Also - the frequencies we are talking about are going to be S, K, Ku, Ka, and higher, so it isn't likely that a script kiddy will have access to that kind of equipment. Also - the links will be encrypted and PN spread, making it less likely to be intercepted/hax0r'd...

Nobody? OK (4, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706567)

I guess I'll have to step up and take one for the team.

In Soviet Russia, router launches you!

Re:Nobody? OK (1)

GeePrime (831254) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706975)

Imagine a beowulf cluster of these!

Does it run linux?

1. launch space router
2. ???
3. PROFIT!

Re:Nobody? OK (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 7 years ago | (#18707775)

Instead of America On-Line, AOL will become Astronaut On-Line.

I wonder if a spaced based router will improve their ping response times. :)

Layne

1st Lame Star Trek Ref? (4, Funny)

Evil W1zard (832703) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706579)

DOD To Boldy Route Where No Man Has Routed Before.... These are the voyages of the Star switch Cisco...

Defense satellite ? Bad idea... (3, Interesting)

Eric Damron (553630) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706589)

Is it just me or does anyone else think that putting a satellite into space that will route critical information for our Defense Department is a bad idea after China made clear it is working on satellite killer technology?

Re:Defense satellite ? Bad idea... (1)

alx5000 (896642) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706961)

We can always counterattack [wikipedia.org]

Re:Defense satellite ? Bad idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18707067)

As the satellite will be in a geostationary orbit (~22,000 miles up), no ASAT weapons developed to date will be able to target it. The Chinese shot down a weather satellite in low-earth orbit. Additionally, as both the USA and the former USSR have ASAT weapons in addition to China (India claims to have the ability to make them), it would be initiating mutual destruction of each other's satellites, and probably would be considered an act of war, for China or anybody else to attempt to destroy it.

Re:Defense satellite ? Bad idea... (1)

Bluesman (104513) | more than 7 years ago | (#18707271)

That's right, because we all know the Internet itself is vulnerable to this kind of physical attack, so putting it in space is just silly!

Oh wait.

China (1)

Is0m0rph (819726) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706635)

We already know China has the balls to shoot one of its own satellites out of space. So I guess this satellite will be a high priority target for them for a future war.

log-in? (2, Funny)

ElephanTS (624421) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706743)

Anyone want to take a bet they leave the default security settings on so you can hack in using the admin/password combo?

Works for my neighbor!

We're with the government.... (1)

Kozz (7764) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706755)

We're with the government. We're here to help.

*shivers*

Anybody else's tinfoil hats giving you that tingling-feeling right about now?

In Space (1)

vivaoporto (1064484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706787)

But this is nothing. This would be news if they had put an Internet Router ... in space!!! [slashdot.org] Oh, wait...!

Soooo... (1)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706821)

If you use IP with DoS on IRIS could wreck the DoD?

From my experience... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18706863)

They should use this one [linksys.com] . It already delivers 12x the speed, has great range, and even looks like a satellite!

/AC

a touch less sarcasm (1)

borgalicious (750617) | more than 7 years ago | (#18707733)

The DoD doesn't use the Internet, they use SIPRNet [wikipedia.org] which is their own private IP net which is a tad bit harder to hack into from civilian nets. The DoD has also spent a little more time and effort on cryptography than consumer grade electronics firms.

On the flipside, DoD comms are typically far more clunky and over-engineered than consumer electronics; I've spoken to servicemen who said that in the field they are likely to use Motorola walkie-talkies from Best Buy as the government issue (non-secure) gear is bigger, dissipates more power, and has less range.

That's no moon . . . (2, Funny)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 7 years ago | (#18707789)

. . . it's a Network Operations Center !
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>