X (twitter) is useless for threads unless you're logged in. How can I read this thread?
[deleted]
Space Shuttle teleprinter reverse engineering
41–50 of 80 posts
Re: Space Shuttle teleprinter reverse engineering
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Three ways you can read the thread: a) Log into Twitter. b) Read the same thread on Mastodon [1]. c) Wait until I turn it into a blog post. [1] https://oldbytes.space/@kenshirriff/112124283096167861
Can I ask as a genuine question: why use twitter at all for a post like this? I’m not trying to be a Luddite or even just anti-twitter. I just don’t understand using it for long form deep topics like this. And yes I fully understand many people do use it this way, and to them I’d ask the same question.
Off the top of my head: Clicks/ Hype/Sharing/Reach.
Re: Space Shuttle teleprinter reverse engineering
#43I am fascinated they used 60 pounds and a large amount of space for this teleprinter. At 30K per pound of payload that is $1.8 million per flight. Really shows how important reliable printed updates were considered. And all the flaws of the printer that were managed around - turning it off to save power and prevent it overheating with specific tones.
The thing that immediately jumped into my head is coded military use. Especially since they mention the printer being based on a military design. It's still rather obscure, if not still secret, just to what extent we were actually using the shuttles in their intended military capacity. But when designed, the military use was expected to be much much higher than what panned out. This printer would be high on the list…
As far as cryptography, the military AN-UGC/74 teleprinter worked with cryptographic equipment such as TSEC/KG-30, KG-84, KW-7, and KY-57 [1]. You'd send the data stream into the crypto equipment and then to the teleprinter. However, the modifications for the Space Shuttle would have prevented this. Specifically, the FSK demodulation boards for the Shuttle were wired directly to the communication UART board, so there was no place to plug in the crypto box.
[1] https://radionerds.com/images/e/e0/TM_11-5815-602-24.pdf#pag...
Re: Space Shuttle teleprinter reverse engineering
#44I am fascinated they used 60 pounds and a large amount of space for this teleprinter. At 30K per pound of payload that is $1.8 million per flight. Really shows how important reliable printed updates were considered. And all the flaws of the printer that were managed around - turning it off to save power and prevent it overheating with specific tones.
I was pretty stuck by that, too, and it made me wonder if maybe I don't understand or underestimate the value of paper transmission. I suppose if radio communication is good but flaky, or for persistence of instruction, like procedures, then it would be good for them to be able to print. But at such a cost!
Remember that this was also before easily portable electronics.
Today you'd get a PDF and store it on your iPad. Secure it for landing and you're good. All the documents you want.
In the 80s consider the "Mission Control has new landing procedures that you need to follow. Here is a 42 item check list that you'll need to do before initiating task 357 from the mission specification."
How do you get that 42 item check list? Do you write it down? What that transcribed properly? Was that a P or a B that the person heard over the radio? (Yes, I know Bravo Papa).
Here's a secret objective for the mission ( https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20110023479/downloads/20... ) to preform while in orbit that has now been approved and was not part of the initial mission profile. The instructions will be printed out and are for the captain and pilots eyes only.
There are a number of reasons that one may need a secure printer to handle new documents while on the Space Shuttle. With 70s and 80s tech, the approach taken is reasonable.
Re: Space Shuttle teleprinter reverse engineering
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Three ways you can read the thread: a) Log into Twitter. b) Read the same thread on Mastodon [1]. c) Wait until I turn it into a blog post. [1] https://oldbytes.space/@kenshirriff/112124283096167861
Can I ask as a genuine question: why use twitter at all for a post like this? I’m not trying to be a Luddite or even just anti-twitter. I just don’t understand using it for long form deep topics like this. And yes I fully understand many people do use it this way, and to them I’d ask the same question.
I answered that question elsewhere in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39768125
Re: Space Shuttle teleprinter reverse engineering
#46X (twitter) is useless for threads unless you're logged in. How can I read this thread?
[deleted]
Re: Space Shuttle teleprinter reverse engineering
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think Challenger was sabotage Mind explaining your reasoning? As someone not very familiar with the details, I'm curious
As much as Dylan wants to denegrate my post: I have always believed the Shuttle was sabotaged. I watched it live when it happened when I was a kid and followed all aspect from the lead up (we voted for Kristy in my school IIRC) -- but there has always been a lot of weird strangeness about the shuttle and the demise of its occupants. Ant to Dylan - relax - I can speculatively hold dystopian-sci-fi what-ifs without you…
> Read the linked PDF from the CIA FFS. Its a fun theory and that has multiple articles linked from the 80s.
Readers should note that while the declassification source is the CIA, this was simply a note from a retired Army Lt. General pitching space related projects from a private think tank. He had no insider knowledge or intelligence at the time, which is why this whole memo can be declassified - it's pure speculation.
Fortunately for us, we don't need to delve into speculation, because Challenger had an extremely robust and well documented investigation process which established a clear cause, which was very much not Soviet malfeasance.
Re: Space Shuttle teleprinter reverse engineering
#48This is cool but it just makes me think the Shuttle was absurdly inefficient across the board. Why waste not just the launch weight but the engineering work on making such a specialized printer? Aren’t we talking about the late 70s/ early 80s? Surely there were commercially available printers that could have been substituted that would weigh less and wouldn’t have the overheating issues. Having unlimited government m…
The explanation for why they chose this printer is in a conference paper published in the National Telesystem Conference, 1982. Unfortunately, I can't find these conference proceedings anywhere (even in physical form). If anyone happens to have a copy lying around...
[1] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ntc..confR...4S/abstra...
Re: Space Shuttle teleprinter reverse engineering
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its unlikely that it was special-built for the Space Shuttle. Obviously this is speculation, but it most likely was already special-designed for a military application and just re-used in the shuttle. All of those strategic nuclear bombers that used to fly on standby 24/7 needed communications, too.
You don't need to speculate. As I explained in the thread, the Shuttle teleprinter was based on the military AN/UGC-74 teleprinter but had many modifications including new three circuit boards for the FSK decoding.
Ah yes, its right there in the 2nd post! Thanks for the correction.
Re: Space Shuttle teleprinter reverse engineering
#50TIL a space shuttle printer will fetch $8,659 at auction.
https://www.rrauction.com/auctions/lot-detail/34715670664982...