Pilot: US Government Claims Of Plane Wi-Fi Hacking Wrong And Irresponsible

As reported by Forbes: The US government released a report yesterday warning of security threats facing modern aircraft, leading to stories from major publications claiming in-flght Wi-Fi could be hacked to take control of a passenger plane. But according to Dr Phil Polstra, a qualified pilot and professor of digital forensics at Bloomsburg University, the report contained much erroneous information.

Polstra believes the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report was put together by people who didn’t understand how modern aircraft actually work. He took umbrage with the claims that as airplanes are increasingly connected to the internet, the control systems on planes are in danger of being remotely compromised. He told FORBES over email that the avionics networks, which deal with flight controls and coordination, were simply not connected to the internet like Wi-Fi services. “To imply this is irresponsible.”

Whilst modern aircraft do use standardised internet connections over ethernet and IP addresses sending data to one another, there is no real threat to passenger safety from sky-high Wi-Fi hacks. “To imply that because IP is used for in-flight WiFi and also on the avionics networks means that you can automatically take over the avionics network makes about as much sense as saying you can take over the jet engines because they breath air like the passengers and there is no air gap between passengers who touch the plane and the engines which are attached to the plane,” Polstra said.

The GAO report, based largely on interviews with security experts , also indicated “if the cabin systems connect to the cockpit avionics systems (e.g., share the same physical wiring harness or router) and use the same networking platform, in this case IP, a user could subvert the firewall and access the cockpit avionics system from the cabin”. Polstra said that’s a big “if” and isn’t how current in-flight networks actually work.

“The information passed on to the inflight entertainment system is via something called a NED (Network Extension Device). This device is not a router. This is a device that must be programmed to pass certain information to the entertainment system (aircraft position, etc.).
“This is a one-way communication. Even if someone were able to send information back toward the avionics, they aren’t listening for information from the in-flight entertainment systems… Since the computer doesn’t try and read information on those wires it is not likely to be useful to an attacker.”

The GAO was “deceptive” in its depictions of airliner networks, such as in the image above, he added. “Just because the cabin has wireless and ground communication is also wireless doesn’t mean the systems are ‘connected’.”

The media reports warning of Wi-Fi attacks were also odd – there was no clear mention of anything related to Wi-Fi in the whole GAO document.

There have been some cases, however, where networks have not been properly segmented, potentially leaving open vulnerabilities. Seven years ago, it emerged the flight control and infotainment networks on Boeing 787 aircraft were connected, with only a firewall blocking malicious traffic between the two. If that’s still the case, then there’s at least something to worry about.

Elon Musk Nearly Sold Tesla to Google Two Years Ago

As reported by The Verge: In March of 2013, Tesla was in a dire situation: the company was nearly bankrupt, its electric vehicles failing to connect with buyers. But according to a new report from Bloomberg today, Elon Musk had a contingency plan: cash out with Google.

MUSK WANTED EIGHT MORE YEARS WITH THE COMPANY

As Tesla was on the downward slope, Elon Musk turned to his friend Larry Page, suggesting Google buy the company, plus $5 billion in factory expenses. It's unclear what the exact offer was, but as Bloomberg points out, Tesla was worth $6 billion at the time. Musk also reportedly asked Page to guarantee him either another eight years running the company, or enough time to produce a third-generation, mainstream electric car.

The talks, according to Bloomberg, were far along.  Page reportedly "accepted the overall proposal and shook on the deal."  Lawyers spent the next few weeks hammering out details, but it never quite closed.

As we know, the deal never went anywhere. Tesla turned around from the edge of bankruptcy. The company ended up posting a profit in the next few weeks, and even paid back its debts to the Department of Energy. Musk reportedly broke off the deal with Google soon after.

Apple was also rumored to be interested in buying Tesla last year, a deal with a very different tenor than the reported Google buyout. With the news that Apple is working on a car, that speculation has intensified, with investors suggesting Apple would have to pay $75 billion for the car maker.

Here’s What Happens When Your Tesla is Smarter Than You

As reported by The Verge: Dragging your feet through the parched gravel along the side of Nevada's Route 93, relentless sun burning your face, empty gas canister in hand. It's every driver's nightmare: getting stranded somewhere. On electric vehicles, that fear is amplified by the fact that you are no longer reliant on gas stations, which are just about everywhere, but on charging stations. And there just aren't as many of those — at least not yet. Electric car owners knew this was the deal when they signed up. They also knew that driving the kinds of distances they were used to with multiple tanks of gas would require a little more work on something with batteries.

Tesla had an ambitious plan to solve this problem on its cars by swapping depleted batteries from its Model S sedan out with charged ones in just one minute. That's a good idea, but one that's still being tested. A tweet from Tesla co-founder Elon Musk last month also suggested that the feature might be more for commercial drivers than civilians:

So in the meantime the company has attempted to combat the range anxiety problem with software that both keeps you from being stupid, and — more importantly — does not require you to be smart.

A new update that started going out to Model S owners at the end of March has two features designed to figure out how far you can go before your battery is drained. The first is a simple warning that will let you know when you're headed outside the range of known charging stations. The other is a trip planner that will strategically route you through Tesla's network of Superchargers. I came away impressed with how well the trip planner worked, but I also got an interesting lesson in how much extra driving can be involved if you want to stay inside Tesla's charger network. (I couldn't test the range warning because I was working with a full battery in the heart of San Francisco, a place rich with charging stations.)For fun, I plugged in a route to Walt Disney World in Florida, a multi-day trip from my starting point in Northern California. The Model S's navigation system took a few seconds to churn through the trip before serving up a route that would have had me driving through 27 different charging stations and venturing as far north as Wisconsin (more than 1,000 miles north of my destination). Plotting the same course into Google Maps (which Tesla uses), the same trip in a gasoline vehicle would normally take me through the Texas panhandle. Assume I planned to follow the Supercharger route, and stop for about half an hour to top up at each of those stations, and we're talking an extra 1,500 or so miles, which easily adds up to an extra full day of driving.

THIS ISN'T JUST FOR WORST-CASE SCENARIOS

But that same route and others like it are destined to change as time goes on. In the US, Tesla has 419 charging stations with 2,305 Superchargers, with plans to open up more both domestically and abroad in the next two years. This year alone may change the California to Florida scenario with charging stations set to open in New Mexico, Texas, and Mississippi. You can already see the difference just a few more stations make when plotting a journey from San Francisco to New York, which resembles less of a wild tour of America, and more of what you'd do in a car running off gasoline.This new tool isn't just for my worst-case scenario road trip, though; it's also for shorter weekend trips and basic commuting with a car that may not be fully charged. Meanwhile, the range assurance feature has you covered when you haven't set a destination in the navigation system, which is more likely on shorter, impromptu trips. It alerts you when you're about to go too far from a known charging location, which helps you decide whether to keep pushing ahead (if you're going to a house where you can plug in, for instance) or turn around.

There's also the inevitability that these types of features — the ones that keep humans from making mistakes — could end up as nothing more than a brief footnote along the path to autonomous cars, which Tesla is feverishly working on. Taking the thinking out of driving in return for safety and convenience is the main goal of that project, and Tesla has already promised the first taste of that in an update coming to its vehicles this summer that will effectively self-park in selected spots and drive for you on highways. The step beyond that — the one where you can take a nap on your way to work or enjoy a movie with your kids — is Tesla's future, as long as Elon Musk gets his way. In the meantime, the company may have already turned dead batteries into a thing of the past.

Prototype Navy Drones Swarm their Targets

As reported by Engadget: The days of enormous, singular UAVs directly controlled by remote pilots may be coming to an end. Over the last few years, there's been a lot work towards developing smaller drones capable of autonomously coordinating their actions, much like insects do. Now, the Office of Naval Research (ONR) is taking these lessons and applying them to military uses, such as its new LOCUST (Low-Cost UAV Swarming Technology) program. It utilizes a rocket tube launcher filled with lightweight, self-guided Coyote UAVs that team up and overwhelm enemy aircraft like honey bees defending their hive.

Using a bunch of smaller, coordinated drones rather than a single big one offers a number of advantages to the military. For one, replacing even hundreds of disposable drones is way less expensive than losing a $16 million MQ-9 Reaper. Plus, having the drones coordinate among themselves reduces the need for on-location operators. The LOCUST program will of course still ultimately be controlled by humans, but they'll perform a supervisory role rather than actually piloting the UAVs.

The LOCUST program successfully completed a series of initial test launches last month. Up next: a "2016 ship-based demonstration of 30 rapidly launched autonomous, swarming UAVs," ONR program manager Lee Mastroianni said in a statement. And over the next decade or so, the ONR hopes to deeply integrate these highly-autonomous UAV systems like this into numerous naval platforms -- from small ships and tactical vehicles to aircraft and even other, bigger drones.

Updated Drone Landing Video: SpaceX to Attempt to Land Reusable Launcher on Ground

As reported by Defense News: SpaceX hopes that the next attempt to land its Falcon 9 reusable launch vehicle will occur on solid ground.

While not providing details of when or where that attempt would occur, Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX President and COO, told Defense News on Wednesday that the company hopes its next attempted landing will take place on land, not at sea.

All tests of the reusable vehicle have occurred over water as a safety precaution, but the natural instability that occurs when a landing pad floating in the ocean has a very heavy rocket land on top of it has led to a series of near-misses for the technology.

The most recent test of the technology occurred Tuesday, when the rocket appeared to land on target safely before tipping over. The hope is that the added stability of landing on ground would allow a safe landing.

"Just purely the boat moving, even in a low sea state, it's hard to imagine that vehicle is going to stay vertical," Shotwell said. "That vehicle is big and tall, compared to the itty-bity-greater-than-a-football-field-size ship."

She also downplayed the potential risk factors that led the company to attempt its landings over water in the first place.

"The risk of damage to the public of ascent is far greater than return," she said. "There's a lot of propellant going up, and there's very little propellant coming back. "

She also noted that there will be a flight termination system in place in case something goes wrong.

"It's a lot harder to think about blowing up that rocket when you're going up and it has a payload on board," Shotwell said. "But when it's coming back, if things look wonky, blow it up."

While SpaceX has been focused on building reusability into its design, that element has been missing from its competitor, United Launch Alliance (ULA). That may now change, as ULA's new Vulcan vehicle includes a plan to capture and reuse the main engine in midair.

Following liftoff, the Vulcan's engine will release and then open up an advanced inflatable heat shield for a hypersonic re-entry. That shield slows the engine down enough so that it can be picked off, midair, by a helicopter. Those engines are then re-certified and re-attached.

ULA did not provide an estimate for how long that process would take. The goal is to have the reusable technology fielded by 2024.

But Shotwell argues that SpaceX's approach yields different benefits.

"Their reuse concept is for cost and price. They want to reduce the cost of the launch vehicle," she said of ULA's plan. "Our point in reusability is because we want to take people back and forth, and you don't get the return trip if you don't have a vehicle."

SpaceX's approach also allows the company to find any weak spots in the design that become apparent after a launch into space, which Shotwell hopes will drive future upgrades. It also means the launch vehicle will be built to higher survivability requirements.

"Returning is a much harsher environment than ascent," she said. "So I'm designing for return, so the ascent customer gets much better margins."

And while the military customer would certainly welcome lower costs, Shotwell said the higher survivability will be the real benefit to an Air Force focused on assuring access to space.

SpaceX Video Shows Events Leading to Falcon 9 Booster Crash Landing

As reported by SpaceFlight101: Stunning aerial imagery released by SpaceX on Tuesday shows how close the company came to successfully landing the first stage of its Falcon 9 rocket on a floating platform in the Atlantic Ocean in the continuing quest towards reusability of boosters to significantly cut the cost of access to space. 

The short video and a few still frames released by SpaceX show the stage coming in for a landing under the power of one of its engines, but encountering some instability in the last seconds of its descent that led to the stage tipping over after landing on the Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship (ASDS).

Falcon 9 made a thundering blastoff from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station at 20:10:41 UTC on Tuesday, lofting the Dragon SpX-6 spacecraft into orbit for SpaceX’s sixth operational cargo mission to the International Space Station. Rising with a total thrust of 600,000 Kilogram-force, Falcon quickly ascended and picked up speed, passing Mach 1 just 70 seconds into the flight when the vehicle had aligned itself with its north-easterly flight path, departing Florida’s Space Coast.

The first stage operated for two minutes and 38 seconds. Shutting down its engines, the stage made a clean separation from Falcon’s upper stage that headed on towards orbit, releasing the Dragon spacecraft into its intended trajectory ten minutes and 11 seconds after launch. By then, all the action involving the first stage had already been over and the majority of the stage was on its way to the bottom of the Ocean.

With the second stage heading off into orbit, the first stage booster embarked on its ambitious return. This was the seventh attempt to either soft land a stage in the ocean or return it to the Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship, it was the third attempted drone ship landing.

The first attempt, on the SpX-5 mission in January, ended in a spectacular crash landing of the booster on the platform after running out of hydraulic fluid in its grid-fin system thus partly using its control authority during final descent. The second try achieved a soft splashdown in the ocean after the ASDS had to be moved out of the way due to extreme sea conditions. However, both of these return attempts showed that the booster could find its way back to the Drone Ship that – in the vastness of the Atlantic – looks extremely tiny when trying to aim for it from 80 Kilometers up.

Equipped with Nitrogen cold gas thrusters, four aerodynamic grid fins and four deployable landing legs, the 43-meter long first stage started out on its journey immediately after stage separation – firing its thrusters to maneuver out of the exhaust of the second stage and re-orient to an engines-forward posture for the first of three propulsive maneuvers – starting out at an altitude of close to 80 Kilometers and a speed of over 2 Kilometers per second at separation.

Real-time call-outs made by the Launch Control Team confirmed that the booster successfully ignited three of its Merlin 1D engines at around T+4 minutes & 30 seconds – each delivering up to 66,700 Kilogram-force of thrust. This retrograde boost-back burn aimed to reduce the downrange travel distance of the first stage by about 50%, compared with a fully ballistic path not including any maneuvers after separation. The boost back burn also modified the exospheric trajectory of the stage, pushing the apogee below 125 Kilometers.

After 30 seconds, the booster shut down its engines again and entered a short ballistic segment, controlling its orientation with the Nitrogen thrusters installed near the interstage in the upper portion of the stage.
Approaching the dense atmosphere, Falcon 9 deployed its four hydraulic grid fins, also located in the interstage section, capable of individually rotating and tilting to provide a great deal of control once entering the discernible atmosphere. The addition of the grid fins improved the landing accuracy of the Falcon 9 from a few kilometers to a few meters, illustrating their importance in the atmospheric segment of flight when the engines are not firing. 

With the fins deploying at T+6 minutes and 30 seconds, the booster was already close to the atmosphere, passing 70 Kilometers in altitude at around T+6:45 – coinciding with the ignition of three M1D engines for the ~17-second Re-Entry Burn. This Supersonic Retropropulsion Burn served two purposes, it began the process of slowing the booster from 1,200m/s and it also protected the engine compartment from the most turbulent region of the re-entry environment. Despite using shielding material in the engine compartment, the re-entry burn is needed to guarantee the intact survival of main propulsion system components for a safe re-use.

Once in the dense atmosphere, the booster transitioned control to the four grid fins with the thrusters complementing the fins whenever needed, particularly for roll control. The four fins can be individually controlled in a two-degree of freedom type design, allowing for complex guidance and control during atmospheric flight.

Heading into the atmosphere, the booster was kept in a stable posture by its low center of mass with the heavy engines in the aft and the nearly empty propellant tanks atop. The grid fins were to provide attitude control, constantly adjusting the pitch trim of the booster to control its along-track travel distance as the stage homed in on the 91 by 52-meter drone ship that precisely held its assigned position by processing GPS data and using its four diesel-powered azimuth thrusters.

Grid Fins & Landing Legs

At T+7 minutes and 47 seconds, it was reported that the first stage had again passed the sound barrier, just the other way around, transitioning from supersonic to subsonic speeds. Just after passing the T+8 minute mark, the first stage ignited its Center Engine to begin the final phase leading up to landing.

The call of ‘Landing Burn Start’ was the final event confirmed through Stage 1 Telemetry as the booster went below the horizon as seen from tracking stations at Cape Canaveral. Ten seconds prior to touchdown, the four landing legs were deployed using pressurized Helium to extend the legs to their deployed position. Landing was planned to occur at a speed of less than 6m/s under the power of the center engine creating a thrust to weight ratio greater than one. Touchdown on the platform had to be perfect, a non-vertical, partial or off-target landing would result in the stage tipping over, falling into the ocean or another undesired outcome.

In one of the NASA Management Rooms, a live feed of low frame-rate video from the ASDS could be seen, showing the first stage coming in to land, but not sticking the landing for some reason.

Using imagery from the ship for a quick analysis of the situation, SpaceX CEO and Chief Designer Elon Musk came to the conclusion that “excess lateral velocity caused it [the booster] to tip over post landing.” Musk’s Tweet was accompanied by two still frames, the first showing the booster with its deployed landing legs and running engine just a few meters above the bullseye target on the deck of the ASDS, the second showing smoke, fire and the stage at an angle, in the process of tipping over.

A few hours after the failed landing attempt, SpaceX posted a short video clip from an airborne drone or hexacopter that flew at some distance to the Drone Ship and recorded the final spectacular seconds of the flight.

The video shows the first stage incoming in a nearly perfectly vertical posture, but descending with a horizontal velocity component that would have likely caused it to overshoot the landing platform. Moments later, gimbaling action on the center engine begins to correct to flight path. At this stage of flight, with the stage at relatively low speed and the engine running, gimbaling of said engine provides the majority of control with the grid fins and thrusters assisting as needed in pitch and yaw control – they are still in charge of roll control.

Image: Spaceflight101/SpaceX

Photo: SpaceX/Elon Musk

Photo SpaceX/Elon Musk

To make the correction of its along-track landing position, already very close to the platform, the stage is tilted through the thrust vector control of the engine, raising some water next to the ASDS. Unfortunately, the stage makes a rather large over-correction that it then attempts to compensate by reversing the tilt on the stage to fly back into the forward direction (oscillations induced by lag between actuator motion and GNC measurements on rockets are certainly not unheard of). At that time, the stage ran out of altitude and made contact with the deck of the landing platform at a pitch angle and lateral velocity that caused it to tip over. The cold gas thrusters can be seen in the short video as the stage desperately tries to come to an upright landing in the center of the platform.

What caused the disturbance that led the stage to drift on a trajectory overshooting the ASDS is not precisely known – possible reasons can include the stage being delivered off target to the landing burn ignition point, a systems malfunction in the last seconds of flight or an external factor such as wind followed by an over-correction of the stage.

Elon Musk later Tweeted that "the issue was stiction in the biprop throttle valve, resulting in control system phase lag." This indicates that the Center Engine was not fast enough in completing what was asked from it by the control system in the critical last seconds of the descent.

It has to be noted that the entire return sequence of the first stage leaves only very little margin for correction. Overall, the sequence from stage separation to landing uses up approximately 10% of the booster’s total propellant load with only two or three seconds of margin, underlining that events of the landing sequence must occur very close to the prediction, providing only very little margin to account for external factors such as wind disturbance.

Photo: SpaceX

The hoverslam landing approach does not help either since no period of hover or constant-velocity descent can be dynamically used to correct for misaligned landings.

SpaceX engineers will be able to retrieve a complete set of telemetry from the stage - from liftoff through the seconds after making contact with the ASDS to piece together the precise inputs of the Guidance System and the outputs of the various actuators (thrusters, fins & engines) to identify any weaknesses, also pulling weather sensor data from the ASDS to look whether an unfortunate gust of wind was responsible.

SpaceX certainly has their work cut out for them, looking at the task of refining the terminal landing algorithm and ensuring the potential throttle valve condition will not occur again. This landing attempt provided them with plenty of data that will be applied to solving the issues seen on Tuesday and increase the odds of achieving a successful landing on the Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship in June on the Dragon SpX-7 mission.

Falcon 9 may also be looking forward to its first return to a land-based pad in July on the Jason-3 mission out of Vandenberg where construction of the landing pad at Space Launch Complex 4W has made progress over the past months.

The Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship will return to the Port of Jacksonville in the coming days and bring home any components of Falcon 9 that may have ended up on deck.

SpaceX Rocket Launched Successfully, Landed 'Too Hard for Survival'

As reported by Engadget: Today SpaceX successfully launched its latest mission to the International Space Station, but couldn't reach its goal of safely landing the rocket's first stage on a barge. According to CEO Elon Musk, while the ascent was successful, the "Rocket landed on droneship, but too hard for survival." There's no video of the landing attempt yet, but hopefully soon we'll be able to see how close it came. This outcome isn't entirely unexpected either, as Musk tweeted yesterday that the chance of a successful landing by the end of the year stands as high as 80 percent, only because the company has so many launches planned.


Broadcast live streaming video on Ustream

This is the sixth of at least 12 cargo deliveries covered by a $1.6 billion contract between SpaceX and NASA. The mission's prime objective is to transport more than 4,300 pounds (1,950 kilograms) of supplies and payloads, including the first zero-G espresso machine to go into orbit.

The Italian-built ISSpresso device was supposed to be delivered to the space station in January, but the loss of an Orbital Sciences shipment in October forced a reordering of the delivery schedule.

NASA's deputy manager for the space station program, Dan Hartman, said the fancy coffeemaker is a commercial experiment that the space agency hopes will "boost spirits" during long-duration space missions.      

Try, try again

SpaceX was also looking for a boost in its effort to make rockets reusable and drive the cost of spaceflight dramatically downward.

In January, an earlier Falcon 9 found its way to the deck — but the control system ran out of hydraulic fluid prematurely. As a result, the stage came down crooked and blew apart in a fiery blast. A second landing opportunity, in February, turned into an ocean splashdown test when SpaceX determined that the seas were too rough to use the platform.