I've seen one Russian report that it could still get to Phobos if it leaves Earth orbit by the end of the month.
Rogue Russian Mars probe communicates - but in gibberish
The European Space Agency managed to get telemetry data from lost Martian probe Phobos-Grunt last night, but hasn’t been able to decode the messages. The ESA made three attempts at communication with the stranded spacecraft overnight, but just one of the tries was successful, Russian state news agency RIA Novosti reported. …
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 24th November 2011 20:36 GMT BristolBachelor
Because anyone within sight of the probe when it is transmitting can see what is said. Imagine that when you go to www.Barclays.com, everything that goes up on your screen is shown to the world. Is that OK? How about when you tell the bank's computer what to do, it echos it back to you, to make sure it received it correctly? What about when you say "Pay £1000 to InflateAdate industries", and then when the bank says "enter password" and echos each character?
Encrypting the command and control links between the ground and space assets is fairly normal practice. You don't want someone watching what goes on, and then taking your £200M satellite for a joyride!
Alternatively, you must be from the American administration, who think software that performs encryption is a weapon of mass destruction and needs ITAR, and if you use https, you must be a terrorist.
-
Friday 25th November 2011 09:47 GMT Anonymous Coward
well actually
Quote "Imagine that when you go to www.Barclays.com, everything that goes up on your screen is shown to the world."
I was at an 'unnamed' UK iBank website yesterday and Ghostery showed that I was being hit by TEN tracking web-bugs as I completed setting up a standing order - stuff like my data being sent to http://*****bankplc.tt.omtrdc.net and tribal fusion.com and eight other places - I'd pretty much state that my data - who knows if it was encrypted/screen grabs - is already going worldwide I HAVE NOT GIVEN MY INFORMED CONSENT. I was using https, I don't know when the blizzard of web bugs hit me, it conceivably could have been when I did my https -> http transition at the end of the session, I wasn't experimenting just trying to do online banking.
-
-
Thursday 24th November 2011 20:42 GMT Anonymous Coward
There is actually significant danger here
Since the device still has fuel and is uncontrollable and could be misinterpreting commands being shot at it from earth, what if the rockets fired and it managed to point itself towards Moscow, New York, or Bejing? I think you get the picture. The thing is an uncontrollable floating space-bomb, yet all you ever hear is how they would like to control it's decent and maneuver it to land in an ocean, not how it can go nuts and plow straight down into a populated area..... So, let's talk about encryption instead... much safer discussion.
-
Friday 25th November 2011 05:12 GMT Wombling_Free
The thing is an uncontrollable floating space-bomb!!!!1111!!!one!!!
OOOOH DANGER! We should NEVER FLY IN SPACE because it's DANGEROUS!
Sure, it could fall down and kill a couple of kids at a pre-school picnic; unlikely, but not impossible.
A truck driver could also have a few too many no-doz, get a bit loopy and drive his truck full of designer handbags through the same picnic; this is FAR more likely to happen than being hit by a chunk of spacecraft, so by your logic we should BAN ALL TRUCKS.
You can also get killed by a falling housebrick, so to BE SAFE we should BAN HOUSES, and BRICKS!
Falling trees can also kill you, so lets BAN TREES TOO!
You get the picture.
Life is dangerous, and you won't live forever; deal with it.
-
-
Friday 25th November 2011 17:22 GMT BristolBachelor
"If not... I blame the collapse of our educations systems"
I don't think that would be sufficient for the ramble above. I suspect that the poster was dropped on their head by their parent when they were young. From the 40th floor. 20 times. And their heart stopped for 10 minutes. And the remaining 5 brain cells could only came up with what they said above.
-
-
-
Friday 25th November 2011 05:19 GMT amanfromMars 1
Move along now, nothing more to see here. IT has moved on into the Brilliance of Shadows and Shades.
"How long before... we are told this is really due to a hack?" ....ArielS Posted Thursday 24th November 2011 21:36 GMT
Is there any significant difference between a hack and a crack, ArielS? And if there is, would any able to exploit the significant difference, expand upon it publicly? To realise the value of the significant difference would give them a leading role in recovering programs which exhibit anomalies/variations from expected norms and/or promised goals, methinks, and thus would such intelligence remain strictly need to know and highly prized for the leverage it would offer.
-
Saturday 26th November 2011 11:01 GMT Anonymous Coward
I stand by my statement
despite the wombling wack job . It is uncontrollable, and it is carrying approximately 2,000 gallons of highly flammable fuel. You just know the ground controllers are trying to make damn sure they don't send it commands that might be misinterpreted. But it is all screwed up, so how would they know exactly what to send? There are probably status/telemetry requests and action commands. Let's hope the system knows the difference. Oh, and there are no nukes on it, right? I mean, the Russians wouldn't send a small nuke into space, now would they?
Of course they would ....