TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Somebody moved the UK's oldest satellite in the mid 1970s, but no one knows who

181 点作者 mindracer6 个月前

12 条评论

retrac6 个月前
There was remarkably little in the way of security for early satellites (or space probes).<p>I recently encountered here on HN the suggestion that, the main reason you can&#x27;t find particularly in-depth details on the Voyager space probes, is project security. Security through obscurity, mostly. If amateurs can detect the signal from the Voyager probes with a small dish antenna, it&#x27;s at least conceivable someone might hook up a really powerful transmitter, aim it in the probe&#x27;s direction, and start issuing commands. There&#x27;s no cryptography, of course. The resources required to hijack like that in the 1970s would have been much greater, and I doubt being hacked was much on the designer&#x27;s minds.<p>The Apollo Program was the same; today anyone with the documentation, a small dish antenna, a software radio, and some nerd dedication, would be able to hack Apollo midflight via its radio link. It was the equivalent of a root prompt with no password on an exposed port.<p>A bit closer to home, there&#x27;s a tremendous amount of semi-functional orbital junk with a similar lack of security, decades-old computers still waiting for telecommands.
评论 #42097379 未加载
评论 #42097481 未加载
评论 #42100854 未加载
评论 #42097406 未加载
评论 #42097048 未加载
评论 #42100953 未加载
评论 #42098777 未加载
评论 #42097970 未加载
评论 #42095615 未加载
评论 #42096967 未加载
another45786 个月前
Satcom 3 was lost after launch in 1979 and wound up in a non-geosynchronous orbit.<p>On a tour of the satellite manufacturer, RCA Astro, years after the loss, we heard this story: during the transfer of control from NASA to RCA Astro contact was lost and not re-established. Eventually the U.S. military was asked, &quot;Errrh, did you see where Satcom 3 went?&quot;. The answer came back &quot;Yup, looks like isn&#x27;t in the geosynchronous orbit you expected&quot;.<p>The thought was that during the handover a command to fire the apogee motor was inadvertently sent and obeyed!<p>The fix for FUTURE launches was a protocol of checksummed commands. Beyond that, the new, more cautious sequence, became:<p><pre><code> 1. uplink dangerous command. 2. spacecraft verifies checksum and downlinks a copy of the proposed dangerous command 3. a keylock on the RCA command console is turned on and the &quot;execute that dangerous command&quot; instruction is uplinked. 4. upon verifying the execute command&#x27;s checksum, the dangerous command is executed. </code></pre> No further launches suffered a failure similar to Satcom 3.<p>Satcom 3&#x27;s hulk is still in orbit.<p>See: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov&#x2F;nmc&#x2F;spacecraft&#x2F;display.action?id=1979-101A" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov&#x2F;nmc&#x2F;spacecraft&#x2F;display.action?id...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;space.skyrocket.de&#x2F;doc_sdat&#x2F;satcom-1.htm#:~:text=Satcom%203" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;space.skyrocket.de&#x2F;doc_sdat&#x2F;satcom-1.htm#:~:text=Sat...</a>
perihelions6 个月前
- <i>&quot;We need to avoid what I call super-spreader events. When these things explode or something collides with them, it generates thousands of pieces of debris that then become a hazard to something else that we care about.&quot;</i><p>There was one of these just a couple weeks ago (and that was not the first),<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=41904346">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=41904346</a> (<i>&quot;Intelsat 33e breaks up in geostationary orbit&quot;</i>)
评论 #42107367 未加载
评论 #42095931 未加载
rep_lodsb6 个月前
This didn&#x27;t happen recently. From the article:<p>&gt;Almost certainly, it was commanded to fire its thrusters in the mid-1970s to take it westwards.
adrian_b6 个月前
TLDR:<p>While the title says that it is not known who has moved an abandoned UK satellite used for military telecommunications, the article very strongly implies that it was someone from USA, who does not want to acknowledge this.<p>The satellite had been built by USA and initially operated also by USA, before being handed down to the UK, so they had the capabilities to control it at any time.
评论 #42094724 未加载
评论 #42097169 未加载
Luc6 个月前
A simple malfunction is not considered in the article. Is that so unlikely, e.g. a sticky relais or some-such?
评论 #42097323 未加载
andrewstuart6 个月前
Sorry it was me.<p>I was going to put it back and then I got distracted and forgot.
评论 #42099474 未加载
euroderf6 个月前
If satellite warfare will be like chess, this could be a preparatory move.
评论 #42095398 未加载
评论 #42097964 未加载
RantyDave6 个月前
We now have historians investigating things that happened in my lifetime. Not sure if this is awesome or not.
评论 #42099178 未加载
pram6 个月前
Wild speculation with zero evidence since no one else is: it wasn&#x27;t broken, and the US&#x2F;CIA intentionally moved it so they could communicate with agents in SA&#x2F;Chile (during Allende etc)
aaron6956 个月前
This is literally a historian can&#x27;t find paperwork from ~50 years ago.<p>A UK historian can&#x27;t find in part classified paperwork that would be created by the U.S. Department of Defense who had control and moved a broken satellite in the 1970&#x27;s<p>Re-framed as a puzzle, why was this location chosen it becomes interesting. But I get BBC are just chasing NPC clicks from sites like HN
readyplayernull6 个月前
Was the command a wow-signal from a random source?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wow!_signal" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wow!_signal</a>