British Military Deploys Skynet 172
rowleyrw writes "The BBC are reporting, 'The British military is set to take one of its most significant steps into the digital age with the launch of the first Skynet 5 satellite. The spacecraft will deliver secure, high-bandwidth communications for UK and "friendly" forces across the globe.' It's not yet the Skynet of Terminator, but how long before it becomes self aware?"
Skynet is not new (Score:5, Informative)
Physical security? (Score:4, Informative)
I guess this is the sort of thing the Chinese were thinking about when they recently destroyed that sat. Information security is all well and good, but useless if it can just be shot down.
Re:Skynet 5? What about the other four? (Score:3, Informative)
Probably because the original SkyNet satellite was launched in 1971. So, they probably called it SkyNet because it's building a communications network in the sky
Secure... (Score:4, Informative)
Anyone care to guess what kind of encryption they'll be using? Something they cooked up for the job or something that's been out a while? I'm not a cryptographer. I am curious though, what kind of digital encryption is out there that's considered unbreakable?
TLF
Re:With a name like Skynet... (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, the British Skynet system pre-dates the original terminator movie by about 15 years.
Re:Don't these guys watch any sci-fi? (Score:2, Informative)
Nerd police here. I'm going to have to ask you to come with me. You obviously don't belong. Any nerd worth his bytes would know that the plural of 'Borg' is 'Borg'. As in "We are Borg. You will be assimilated."
Re:Bandwidth (Score:5, Informative)
As for the available bandwidth within the system - it's actually quite a complicated problem. That was one of the areas I studied. Knowing the power and frequency bands available is not enough to be able to determine a maximum data throughput on each channel.
Different types of communications traffic use up frequency and power resources with different efficiencies. So the maximum data throughput varies - a lot - according to actual real world use. You also lose resources due to intermodulation products - which again vary widely with usage patterns.
So when JacksonG says 'nowhere near as much as you might think' - it's probably less than that too