If satellite warfare will be like chess, this could be a preparatory move.
Man, whoever did it back in the 70s must have been really forward thinking.
not forward thinking, backward looking, SkyNet is still looking for John Conner
Somebody moved the UK's oldest satellite in the mid 1970s, but no one knows who
101–105 of 105 posts
Re: Somebody moved the UK's oldest satellite in the mid 1970s, but no one knows who
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
The space communication network was ~15 years old by the time of the Apollo program and under constant expansion to meet needs. For the moon landing, it was a few dozen ground stations all over the world and 2 million miles of cable linking them together. "from the beginning" doesn't really mean much of anything, and the system would need to be pretty sophisticated just to work, even if 100% of the users were operati…
"from the beginning" means exactly that; did Voyager launch with authentication support or was the authentication added later on?
Oh man, I thought this was in reference to Apollo, not Voyager!
I'd say that it almost certain that by the time Voyager was launched, there would have been robust authentication just out of necessity. By that time they'd have decades of experience dealing with software bugs, to say nothing of bad actors.
Re: Somebody moved the UK's oldest satellite in the mid 1970s, but no one knows who
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Violating these is already solved by law enforcement, even if a rogue nation state is protecting you it will be handled with big gun diplomacy, America after all has the biggest guns. No one is going to war over ITU regulations or Voyager.
ITU regulations or more precisely spectrum they regulate is one of the most valuable and scarce resources today . Nations would will go to war if they are threatened . Voyager itself is not economically valuable, but it a cultural symbol of American achievement like say Eiffel Tower in itself does not have value economically (apart from tourism ) but it is very big part of their identity so yeah plausible it would st…
> ITU regulations or more precisely spectrum they regulate is one of the most valuable and scarce resources today . Nations would will go to war if they are threatened.
They'd go to war if they're threatened, but a violation is ITU regulations isn't a sufficient threat. I mean, North Korea and South Korea occasionally shell each other (much worse, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Yeonpyeong_bombardment), and no hot war has resulted.
> Voyager itself is not economically valuable but it a cultural symbol of American achievement...it is very big part of their identity so yeah plausible it would start a war.
I'm sorry, if you think that, you're in a bubble. Voyager is not a "very big part of [American] identity," it's a nearly-kaput space probe that science and science-adjacent geeks (a tiny minority) occasionally get enthusiastic about.
The absolute worst that would happen if a nation state sabotaged it at this point, is the American government would send a strongly worded letter, and the saboteur's ambassador would be summoned for a tongue lashing.
No one's would start a war over the sabotage, and if they did such a war would go down as one of the stupidest casus belli ever. FFS, no one would even have died.
And no one's signing up to die in a war to avenge it. Would you volunteer to be sent to something like the meat-grinder of Eastern Ukraine, because a Voyager became incommunicado a few years early?
Re: Somebody moved the UK's oldest satellite in the mid 1970s, but no one knows who
#104Re: Somebody moved the UK's oldest satellite in the mid 1970s, but no one knows who
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh, it's a pretty common tongue-in-cheek way to refer to America's love of a slightly old fashioned system. I wouldn't read much into it.
Words matter.
At least half of the world has been violently invaded by this so-called “freedom“ and will take offense by this framing. Rightly so. Freedom by force is simply violence, with the additional violence of deliberate newspeak. Anyone repeating this joins the perpetrators, consciously or out of ignorance, and anyone not speaking out against it supports them by inaction and avoidance of their own responsibility and power.