Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
The Military Space Science

DARPA Funds Development on Modular Satellite Network 51

Posted by Soulskill
from the we-need-more-of-a-challenge-when-shooting-them-down dept.
coondoggie points out a Networkworld story about plans for modular satellite technology which is intended to replace modern, "monolithic" devices. The project hopes to solve issues of scalability and reliability by separating the typical satellite systems and allowing the different modules to change function when necessary. Quoting: "According to DARPA such a virtual satellite effectively constitutes a "bus in the sky" - wherein customers need only provide and deploy a payload module suited to their immediate mission need, with the supporting features supplied by a global network of infrastructure modules already resident on-orbit and at critical ground locations. In addition, there can be sharing of resources between various "spacecraft" that are within sufficient range for communication. DARPA said ... within the F6 network all subsystems and payloads can be treated like a uniquely addressable computing peripheral or network device. Such an approach can provide a long sought after "plug-n-play" capability, according to the agency."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DARPA Funds Development on Modular Satellite Network

Comments Filter:
  • Modular hacking (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 29, 2008 @03:31AM (#22597798)
    One advantage of the system the way it is now, is that every system is unique. Why is that an advantage? Because to hack into one satellite, you have to study that particular satellite in great detail, and there may not be a security flaw that will allow access.

    However, create a modular system, and suddenly any satellite using a compomised module can be hacked. Oh, and did we mention that the Government will be providing the modules? Hellooooo... Clipper Chip, anyone?
  • by stretch0611 (603238) on Friday February 29, 2008 @03:33AM (#22597806) Journal
    It looks to me like it is a internet in space.
  • Robustness (Score:3, Interesting)

    by renoX (11677) on Friday February 29, 2008 @04:55AM (#22598072)
    Have you really read the artiche/paper?

    There is a *really good reason* which is given in the article: defence against anti-satellite weapons.

    Much like 'Internet': a decentralised system is much more robust than a centralised one..
  • by Bearhouse (1034238) on Friday February 29, 2008 @06:05AM (#22598318)
    Sounds like a knee-jerk reaction to demonstrated Chinese sat destruction capability. Although not stated in the summary as part of the goals, presumably a network of standard, modular and inter-connected sats would not only be cheaper, but also, if properly designed, more fault & attack tolerant. There's much concern in the military about how the armed forces are increasingly reliant on space-based systems, and their vulnerability to disruption / destruction.

    To your point, whether or not they'd be more effective / capable is a question that maybe somebody here could answer? Could the same priciple apply as is used by astronomers, for both optical and radio telecopes, whereby multiple small detectors substitute for one big one? (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Large_Array [wikipedia.org]). Would also reduce the risk of losing one big spy sat at launch, as recently happened. (But presumably it was big because it needed to be?)

    Finally, more satellites could perhaps be useful for tactical operations, since there'd be less time to wait for the next pass before getting a view of the area of interest. Harder for bad people, (and good), to avoid too - the times of passing sats are widely documented on the 'net, and Govs and others are known to time their sensitive activties to avoid being caught.

Nobody knows what goes between his cold toes and his warm ears. -- Roy Harper

Working...