7238904
story
Comments: 83 +- Technology: Intelsat Launches Hardware For Internet Routing From Space on Tuesday November 24, @09:01AM
Posted
by
timothy
on Tuesday November 24, @09:01AM
from the distinguish-from-other-talking-birds dept.
from the distinguish-from-other-talking-birds dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicnetworking.gif); width:71px; height:37px;
networking
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topiccommunications.gif); width:96px; height:62px;
communications
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicspace.gif); width:73px; height:59px;
space
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicinternet.gif); width:70px; height:73px;
internet
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmilitary.png); width:98px; height:98px;
military
coondoggie writes "A radiation-proof Cisco router was sent into space today aboard an Intelsat satellite with the goal of setting up military communications from space. The router/satellite combo is a key part of the US Department of Defense's Internet Routing In Space (IRIS) project, which aims to route IP voice, video and data traffic between satellites in space in much the same way packets are moved on the ground, reducing delays, saving on capacity and offering greater network flexibility, Cisco stated."
Related Stories
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices.
-- William James
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Time to go! (Score:2, Funny)
Now that we can browse porn from Mars is there any reason not to go?
Re: (Score:1)
There's an awful ping time to any server on Earth.
It won't work because, (Score:5, Funny)
in space no one can hear you stream...
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Of course they can't! The router needs to be rebooted! AGAIN!
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter if they hear. Astronauts are granted immunity from public urination laws.
Yes but ... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yes but ...Christmas gifts,Jacket,shoes,handbag (Score:5, Insightful)
Annoying slashdotters?
Is this site *BEGGING* to get hacked?
Parent
It's not up yet. (Score:2)
It's not up yet but after this direct tv d12.
Great (Score:2)
Intelsat by Cisco (Score:3, Interesting)
If they manufactured it in China then the back door is already built in by the factory so the Chinese can read all traffic or interdict it in a crisis.
Re: (Score:1)
If they manufactured it in China then the back door is already built in by the factory so the Chinese can read all traffic or interdict it in a crisis.
Remember this [timesonline.co.uk] ?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, I think the Chinese are pretty good at protecting their estates. ^^
Not even Cisco (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Not true. Just completely enclose it in a block of lead!
...which is a really good idea if you want to shoot it into space :)
Re: (Score:2)
He forgot to mention the forged titanium shell, so it can handle reentry. It'll come down really quick, but you won't lose the mass before impact.
ooohhhh, you were talking about launch weight. :)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought I read somewhere that lead is exactly the wrong thing to use if you're shielding against cosmic rays. While cosmic rays themselves are most likely to pass right through human bodies or sensitive electronics without "hitting" anything important. If you shield with lead, the cosmic rays do an excellent job busting alpha (or was it beta) radiation loose from the lead itself, which then wreaks havoc when those particles collide with humans or electronics in the surrounding environment.
Particle physici
Re: (Score:2)
Lead is not a good insulator for charged particles because rapidly decelerating particles create X-rays (braking radiation, I'd be damned if I remember how it's written in German). Of course, you can make thick enough lead blocks to adsorb the generated radiation, but It's much better to use insulation made of light chemical elements.
That's why, for example, Apollo spaceships used polyethylene and not lead foil for shielding.
Re:Not even Cisco (Score:4, Informative)
bremsstrahlung is the word you want :) /physics!
Parent
Reducing delays? (Score:1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Internet_access [wikipedia.org]
"Factoring in other normal delays from network sources gives a typical one-way connection latency of 500–700 ms from the user to the ISP, or about 1,000–1,400 milliseconds latency for the total Round Trip Time (RTT) back to the user. "
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I thought that too, but it occurred to me that satellite-to-ground communication is limited by the ground stations within the footprint of the satellite. If the only available ground stations are saturated with other traffic, it may very well be that a space-routed signal arrives at its destination before a direct to ground routed signal under certain conditions.
The idea would not be for communication via satellite network to another ground station, that would likely be more effectively improved by u
Re: (Score:1)
Actually if they are able to route it directly between satellites instead of having to do sat-earth round trips, it reduces the delay from 4, 6 or 8 trips to just 2 plus a little between sats.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the larger picture. Moving the "hub" and routing logic to the satellite could reduce the total number of satellite hops between nodes without having to rely on a TDMA network. Instead of two hops for two spokes to talk to each other, this could perform the routing logic at the satellite and route directly between the two spokes. "reduced latency" is from reducing the number of satellite hops. This will not reduce any latency for a single hop, obviously.
-John
Re: (Score:2)
Also, don't forget that this is for military communications. Having an untappable link that others cannot li
Cisco? (Score:2)
No Viop for you (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure Cisco conveniently forgot to explain the concept of latency before they sold them voice service on and router in space.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You obviously haven't worked with Cisco VoIP over satellite links. It works perfectly fine over single satellite hops and up to three hops, in my experience. I've had VoIP calls with 2-3 second delays because of the number of hops and radio links that were completely functional. Of course there's delay. DoD users are far more tolerant of the delay than normal users, though. Usually it's as simple as using the word "over"... :)
-John
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure Cisco conveniently forgot to explain the concept of latency before they sold them voice service on and router in space.
Yes, latency being the problem it is, let's go back to half-duplex. In fact, let's go back to telegraphy. We should be able to do something with all that wire being displaced by all those wireless hot spots.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not if your second leg did not have to go over the satellite. It would be a very poorly designed system if it did. Most current sat systems don't work this way. The downlink is some where centralized and accessible by other communication transports, like the Pentagon.
Satellites achieve "routing" by effectively circuit selection. If you want to talk to this part of the world, use this freq, other part another freq.
Putting a router in space that will be obsolete in 2 years just doesn't make any sense.
Re: (Score:2)
This could allow for two spokes on an FDMA system to route directly to each other without having to go through the central hub and two satellite hops. FDMA links are fixed frequencies back to to a hub, so normally for two spokes to talk to each other, you have to take two satellite hops and go through the hub. This should eliminate that.
Of course you could go TDMA, but the number of nodes you can have directly linked to each other via virtual circuits is limited. Again, moving the routing logic to the satel
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I see a few advantages to this
The first is it reduces the latency when two forward bases want to communicate with each other.
The second is that it means your forward bases can communicate with each other even if your main base is somehow knocked out.
The third is it reduces the load on the downlink to main base.
Of course there are trade-offs to smart satellites, you can't use more complex modulation to get more out of an existing channel for example but you can't easily do that anyway if your satellite is se
Servers next? (Score:1)
If they put routers into space, then what about servers? Would be the logical next step.
mcmurdo.gov (Score:4, Interesting)
Back in the earlier days of the less popular Internet, I used to get a kick out of pining mcmurdo.gov , the US base in McMurdo Sound, Antarctica [google.com], because it was as far as I could reach on the Net (ping times usually about 800ms). Before I'd traveled very much around the physical globe, I'd stretch my imagination to the scale spanning "me to McMurdo".
I'm really psyched to look forward to pinging Jupiter.
Re: (Score:2)
Which raises the question (and yes, I did RTFA), is this satellite in LEO or GEO?
If it's in GEO, you have a minimum 0.5 second round-trip ping time. Latency becomes a major factor at that point, regardless of how much bandwidth you can stuff in the channel.
Remember, 186000 mi/sec, it's not just a good idea -- its the law!
Re: (Score:2)
Then the latency is a major issue.
Round-trip = 2 * (22300 miles up + 22300 miles down) = ~90000 miles = ~0.5s (500ms) latency at the speed of light.
Re: (Score:2)
The host I pinged was mcmvax.mcmurdo.gov . But that FQDN, and indeed the mcmurdo.gov domain, have been gone for years.
All the more reason to get to ping Jupiter ASAP.
Case mod... (Score:2)
Someone needs to do a casemod and slap it in a teapot.
I see a problem here. (Score:2, Funny)
In case of emergency, RFC1149/RFC2549 [wikipedia.org] transport protocols cannot be used. I think NASA should find a workaround, in order to increase reliability of space communications.
muppets (Score:3, Funny)
Pings iiiin spaaaaaaace!
How long (Score:3, Funny)
Wrong Launch Date (Score:2)
A radiation-proof Cisco router was sent into space today ...
Just some early morning pedantry for my fellow space nerds out there. =)
Geosynchronous? Who's got the console cable? (Score:2)
I have to wonder what new Cisco certification will focus on satellite systems?
An obvious problem.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gee all those space probes and satellites working for SO LONG, how did they do it??? [wikipedia.org]. Telecommunications satellites have been in widespread use since at least the early 1970s [wikipedia.org]. This is beyond nothing new, this is coming up on being 40 year old (industrial use! not experimental, HUGE difference) technology.
I'd like to be there... (Score:2)
... when
copy running-config startup-config
gets typed over that console...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The Atom is not certified for use in space. It uses a 486.
Re: (Score:2)
... latency is gonna be a bitch. Guess they're dealing with that in satcom already, though, right?
Right
Which if you have multiple bases in the field (call them A and B) that want to communicate with each other is a bloody good reason to route in space.
A-sat based router-B is going to be a lot lower latency than A-dumb sat-Ground based router-dumb stat-B.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Once you hit Kuwait or Germany (leaving Iraq), you're hooked into terrestrial connectivity as a primary. So it's only a single satellite hop and then 300ms or so to travel to the states via fiber. If you're on a smaller FOB in Iraq that needs to hop to it's parent unit, then Kuwait or Germany, then you'll have two satellite hops.
The Sat-to-Sat link could be used instead of the fiber connectivity. While it may not save much latency, it could be a much larger and less congested pipe depending on the frequenci