This is pretty cool
So here is the Crazy Idea
Cheap Game console
Three parts
Totally wireless (Including Power)
Controlled Main Console but VM's that are standard architecture so you can run Linux (or whatever other OS you want to buy from the "mother site"
Linkable so multiple consoles in the same vicinity or with IP access can share each others computing power.
More Later
Showing posts with label Crazy Ideas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Crazy Ideas. Show all posts
17 October, 2007
11 July, 2007
Juggling
I know most of you probably feel like this some (or most) of the time.
Twelve eggs in the air
Six hidden rotten and fake
Three Ostrich
Three Robin
Three Chicken
Two Fabergie
One viable Dodo Bird
Just wanna set the rotten ones down
Which ones are they?
No it is not a puzzle just a crappy poem.
Twelve eggs in the air
Six hidden rotten and fake
Three Ostrich
Three Robin
Three Chicken
Two Fabergie
One viable Dodo Bird
Just wanna set the rotten ones down
Which ones are they?
No it is not a puzzle just a crappy poem.
30 April, 2007
Fusion - Some thoughts on Tokamak
Back in January I got caught up in one of my crazy idea posts after reading about Boron fusion over at Classical Values and Power and Control.
I have been stewing on those for a while and doing some light research and what has really troubled me was the implications of this on Tokamak designs that I had never considered. I caught the beginning inclination of this in my post but have clarified it somewhat lately.
I am not saying they haven't been considered but I hadn't though of them. Some of this post is going to come off as anti nuke and anti fusion. Nothing could be further from the truth in all honesty nuclear power is our only realistic long term solution to the energy challenges we will have in the future and fission despite its advantages has some pretty significant drawbacks as well.
Fusion has always been served as the Holy Grail to solve these disadvantages and despite my background in Nuclear Physics and operation I never really questioned it. I have eagerly read about the development of toroidal field reactors and overlooked one key issue.
They have to use Neutron energy as the means to transfer energy from the fusion reaction to the power generation or transfer mechanism.
The impact of this is huge. In order to get any real power out of a fusion reaction in this manner the neutron flux would have to be insanely large. To put it in context in u235 fission reactions the neutrons produce on average less than 3 percent of the energy transfer. It results in a few degrees of heat in the primary coolant and further a few degrees in the shield tanks. While it does this it is also one of the primary problem creators for the entire reactor (of course one that by definition must be present).
It causes embrittlement and metallurgical changes in all of the reactor materials.
It is the mechanism of radioactive contamination creation.
It is the most difficult radiation to shield from with the most perplexing health impacts for people exposed.
and
It fundamentally alters the chemistry of the complex materials used to operate and control the reactor over time.
None of these issues go away in a Tokamak they way they identify the energy transfer mechanisms. As a matter of fact they would be about 20-30 times worse for the same thermal power output. I am not sure how anyone could ever make a viable case for a net energy producing Toroidal design and certainly not an economical one with that in mind. To go a step further it would create far more waste and more dangerous waste (admittedly only in the short term due to the lack of transuranic long lived waste) than existing fission designs.
So Dr. Bussard is quite right when he questions why we are spending the money on those approaches.
As far as the video and presentation, they make sense. I could see them adding injection fields that might use some of the toroidal design properties to help mitigate some of the electron leakage problems he mentioned in their existing designs but he has me sold.
If anyone wants to chime in and correct me feel free especially if I am missing something fundamental in the way Physicists are planning on getting power out of the Tokamaks.
I have been stewing on those for a while and doing some light research and what has really troubled me was the implications of this on Tokamak designs that I had never considered. I caught the beginning inclination of this in my post but have clarified it somewhat lately.
I am not saying they haven't been considered but I hadn't though of them. Some of this post is going to come off as anti nuke and anti fusion. Nothing could be further from the truth in all honesty nuclear power is our only realistic long term solution to the energy challenges we will have in the future and fission despite its advantages has some pretty significant drawbacks as well.
Fusion has always been served as the Holy Grail to solve these disadvantages and despite my background in Nuclear Physics and operation I never really questioned it. I have eagerly read about the development of toroidal field reactors and overlooked one key issue.
They have to use Neutron energy as the means to transfer energy from the fusion reaction to the power generation or transfer mechanism.
The impact of this is huge. In order to get any real power out of a fusion reaction in this manner the neutron flux would have to be insanely large. To put it in context in u235 fission reactions the neutrons produce on average less than 3 percent of the energy transfer. It results in a few degrees of heat in the primary coolant and further a few degrees in the shield tanks. While it does this it is also one of the primary problem creators for the entire reactor (of course one that by definition must be present).
It causes embrittlement and metallurgical changes in all of the reactor materials.
It is the mechanism of radioactive contamination creation.
It is the most difficult radiation to shield from with the most perplexing health impacts for people exposed.
and
It fundamentally alters the chemistry of the complex materials used to operate and control the reactor over time.
None of these issues go away in a Tokamak they way they identify the energy transfer mechanisms. As a matter of fact they would be about 20-30 times worse for the same thermal power output. I am not sure how anyone could ever make a viable case for a net energy producing Toroidal design and certainly not an economical one with that in mind. To go a step further it would create far more waste and more dangerous waste (admittedly only in the short term due to the lack of transuranic long lived waste) than existing fission designs.
So Dr. Bussard is quite right when he questions why we are spending the money on those approaches.
As far as the video and presentation, they make sense. I could see them adding injection fields that might use some of the toroidal design properties to help mitigate some of the electron leakage problems he mentioned in their existing designs but he has me sold.
If anyone wants to chime in and correct me feel free especially if I am missing something fundamental in the way Physicists are planning on getting power out of the Tokamaks.
10 February, 2007
A solution to the CO2 Imbalance - Global Warming
Instapundit Linked to the Gore Branson challenge
I also think it is a great idea. Of coursre there is already at least one solution that has met the goals.
all we have to do is more of it.
Nuclear Power via Nei blog
of course more options is always better how about my biofuel crazy idea
I also think it is a great idea. Of coursre there is already at least one solution that has met the goals.
all we have to do is more of it.
Nuclear Power via Nei blog
of course more options is always better how about my biofuel crazy idea
06 February, 2007
Nuclear Fission - Ping Pong Ball Experiment
Before the Super-Bowl there was an ad on about the propagation of ideas that I really liked (though it failed in its marketing because I cannot remember who it was for).
The narrator of the ad held a ping pong ball over a basketball court covered with mousetraps with ping pong balls on them. When he dropped the ball on one it went off and launched its ball in the air which landed on several others which launched theirs and so on.
This struck me as an awesome way to display the principles behind nuclear fission chain reactions.
It hits all of the key concepts.
Neutron absorption cross section is simulated by the relative size of the traps and the balls. Fuel density by how close the traps are to each other. Neutron escape by the proximity to the edge of the court. Balls that are launched too energetically bounce fewer times so they display absorption resonance zones and fast neutron escape. If you wanted to simulate thermalizing effects on the probability of absorption you could place curtains or sheets to knock energetic ones back into the field of traps. Poisons could be simulated by pillows or sticky mats to stop or slow down the bouncing balls. Try different shapes to see how geometry affects the likelihood of escape.
You could judge efficiency of the designs based on how many traps are left unsprung and how fast or slow the entire reaction takes to finish.
Of course it is all two dimensional but it still gives a good idea of what happens.
All in all a pretty good science experiment for someone who wants to do it. Of course you probably want to replace the mouse traps with something less likely to break a student’s fingers. Has anyone done this this way before?
Update:
This commercial demonstates an old science experiment I once saw on PBS and on a science video shown in a science classroom. It goes back 20 years I think. Todd
The narrator of the ad held a ping pong ball over a basketball court covered with mousetraps with ping pong balls on them. When he dropped the ball on one it went off and launched its ball in the air which landed on several others which launched theirs and so on.
This struck me as an awesome way to display the principles behind nuclear fission chain reactions.
It hits all of the key concepts.
Neutron absorption cross section is simulated by the relative size of the traps and the balls. Fuel density by how close the traps are to each other. Neutron escape by the proximity to the edge of the court. Balls that are launched too energetically bounce fewer times so they display absorption resonance zones and fast neutron escape. If you wanted to simulate thermalizing effects on the probability of absorption you could place curtains or sheets to knock energetic ones back into the field of traps. Poisons could be simulated by pillows or sticky mats to stop or slow down the bouncing balls. Try different shapes to see how geometry affects the likelihood of escape.
You could judge efficiency of the designs based on how many traps are left unsprung and how fast or slow the entire reaction takes to finish.
Of course it is all two dimensional but it still gives a good idea of what happens.
All in all a pretty good science experiment for someone who wants to do it. Of course you probably want to replace the mouse traps with something less likely to break a student’s fingers. Has anyone done this this way before?
Update:
This commercial demonstates an old science experiment I once saw on PBS and on a science video shown in a science classroom. It goes back 20 years I think. Todd
20 January, 2007
Fusion - Crazy Ideas
Real Interesting post at Classical Values about Boron - Proton Fusion.
I traced down all of the links and it is quite interesting. The most interesting piece for me was the last section with the questions about how to access the energy produced.
One thing that always tickles me about how the MSM usually leads a story about fusion is that they describe it as a safe "waste free" type of nuclear power.
With the Tokamak designs they rely on neutron heating of a water (or other medium) tank as the primary external energy transfer mechanism. In order to get enough energy to be efficient using this method you would have to have one heck of a massive neutron flux. Neutron fluxes create active isotopes so there will be large amounts of radioactive material (RAM) created. Of course this can all be contained in a similar way that RAM from fission reactors are. There is an advantage over fission reactors in that since transuranic elements are not used the really long lived RAM will be very small to non existent but Tokamaks will create a lot of RAM including every nukes favorite Isotope CO-60.
Energy capture from a Boron proton fusion would have to involve heat collection from the collisions and scatters of the three resulting alphas. The biggest drawback there is that there is no easy mechanism to get them out of the reaction area. Neutrons literally walk right though walls but the alphas won't go far. The design would probably have to have a high enough operating temperature range at certain locations for standard heat transfer mechanisms to be efficient.
This quote is spot on:
"The fusion is quite real, unlike the cold-fusion fiasco. What seems like the biggest problems are energy break even and durability of the equipment. The conventional fusion reactor has achieved energy break even already, the next step for it is economic break even."
This doesn't seem to be junk science but still wouldn't be easy. In any case full development of it or a similar fusion methodology using different isotopes is certainly worth the effort. I'm not sure overall explorations should be limited to this combination either.
I traced down all of the links and it is quite interesting. The most interesting piece for me was the last section with the questions about how to access the energy produced.
One thing that always tickles me about how the MSM usually leads a story about fusion is that they describe it as a safe "waste free" type of nuclear power.
With the Tokamak designs they rely on neutron heating of a water (or other medium) tank as the primary external energy transfer mechanism. In order to get enough energy to be efficient using this method you would have to have one heck of a massive neutron flux. Neutron fluxes create active isotopes so there will be large amounts of radioactive material (RAM) created. Of course this can all be contained in a similar way that RAM from fission reactors are. There is an advantage over fission reactors in that since transuranic elements are not used the really long lived RAM will be very small to non existent but Tokamaks will create a lot of RAM including every nukes favorite Isotope CO-60.
Energy capture from a Boron proton fusion would have to involve heat collection from the collisions and scatters of the three resulting alphas. The biggest drawback there is that there is no easy mechanism to get them out of the reaction area. Neutrons literally walk right though walls but the alphas won't go far. The design would probably have to have a high enough operating temperature range at certain locations for standard heat transfer mechanisms to be efficient.
This quote is spot on:
"The fusion is quite real, unlike the cold-fusion fiasco. What seems like the biggest problems are energy break even and durability of the equipment. The conventional fusion reactor has achieved energy break even already, the next step for it is economic break even."
This doesn't seem to be junk science but still wouldn't be easy. In any case full development of it or a similar fusion methodology using different isotopes is certainly worth the effort. I'm not sure overall explorations should be limited to this combination either.
12 January, 2007
Nanotubes, Space Elevators and nano thin circuits - What if CI#7
What if you combine this NanoTube Sheet
With this
Coalescence of Beta Irradiated Carbon Nanotubes (sorry for the full article you have to pay but the summary is enough to get the mind moving) Or any number of other similar articles I have seen.
How about if you use electron streams from multiple angles so that the incidence beta radiation level is only high enough for covalent bonding in specific controlled points (or lines or planes[planes would be hard])
Stack the sheets and bond them?
Join Sheets edges?
Encase determined impurities?
Alter electrical characteristics in specific patterns?
What else?
How uniform are the sheets?
How much does tube damage degrade the Van Der Waals forces?
Can that degradation be overcome by increasing interbonding due to covalent interlinks?
Space Ribbon here we come.
With this
Coalescence of Beta Irradiated Carbon Nanotubes (sorry for the full article you have to pay but the summary is enough to get the mind moving) Or any number of other similar articles I have seen.
How about if you use electron streams from multiple angles so that the incidence beta radiation level is only high enough for covalent bonding in specific controlled points (or lines or planes[planes would be hard])
Stack the sheets and bond them?
Join Sheets edges?
Encase determined impurities?
Alter electrical characteristics in specific patterns?
What else?
How uniform are the sheets?
How much does tube damage degrade the Van Der Waals forces?
Can that degradation be overcome by increasing interbonding due to covalent interlinks?
Space Ribbon here we come.
28 December, 2006
Old Media Vs New Media
DBunker put an emphatic post up on Rago's recent rant against blogs.
I generally try to stay away from the political stuff.
For some reason I usually manage to tick off everyone in the discussion when I get going on them. Conservatives hate it when I go on about civil rights or separation of church and state and Liberals hate it when I talk about the free market and my thoughts on gun control. For that matter the Liberals I know typically get ticked off about my separation of church and state thoughts as well.
I do generally agree with the instapundit.
I want a world where a happily married gay couple (liberal trust cue) has a closet full of legally obtained assault weapons (conservative trust cue).
To put it in less contentious words I always vote in the manner I believe will limit the power of government over the rest of us the most. No matter who the "us" is and no matter what the parties are.
Generally I manage to hit the anti-trust cue's for pretty much every group when I get political.
Now that I have aired some of my political dirty laundry I really don't think the Rago article was a political item. It has been treated that way in half of the blog sphere. It fits the Evil Liberal MSM guy hates us meme to well to be ignored.
The fact of the matter is most of the Old Media simply doesn't get blogs. I know some of them and have talked at length with them about blogs but they simply don't understand the implications (or the possibilities).
Look to use one of Mike Murry's favorite topics - game theory - Blogging and Old Media are not in a zero sum game.
When Rago is a moron and attacks thousands of passionate and intelligent people it didn't have the effect of harming any of those people. As a matter of fact it upped the traffic for thousands of sites. It created fervour and therefore exchange of ideas.
It probably didn't hurt Rago that much either. I am sure that article got more traffic than any of the others he has written. Fellow "journalists" will commiserate and pat him on the back. Bloggers will be outraged and write at length about him often with links that many will follow imparting him with a voice he never had until then. In short everyone won this last round.
Of course if he keeps saying blatantly stupid things and believes in them sooner or later people will just ignore him. Just like David Duke and Cindy Sheehan who can only make the news by rising to new heights of idiocy and engaging with people who have clearly identified themselves as our enemies.
There is a more healthy and productive way for the two environments to engage. If you want call this Crazy Idea #6.
Full time media outlets (lets call this one Bob's Newspaper) need to assign one or more "reporters" and "editors" to the blog beat (yes I know most have already). Their job is basically one of engaging new bloggers and convincing them to feed directly (in addition to their main site) to Bob's Newpapers online site (probably via RSS).
They don't try to exercise control at all. Direct Control is what is making them fail. They just try to contain the mosh pit.
The "editor" fact checks the posts that get the most hits and feeds the data to the "Reporters". The reporters us this data along with (can't believe I am about to say this) original research to write stories about the blog posts. Everyone wins. Bob's newspaper gets a huge amount of free data and reporting while still being able to hold the worst stuff at arms length. Basically hundreds of unpaid freelancers. If the reporter trashes a blog hey that is traffic as well.
Bloggers win because, lets face the truth here, most of us are hit junkies and check our stats constantly. They link to us and our stats go up.
The best "Editors" will keep track of the facts and who is right most often. They might even start up a Fact based rating system to give kudo's points to blogs that are consistently right.
Slashdot and Digg kind of do this stuff already with a few exceptions.
In Slashdot or Digg if what is written matches a popular meme it will do well regardless whether it is correct or not and you see a lot of gaming on the system using these gut reactions. By adding in a level of accuracy incentive things get better.
In any case D-Bunker ( I have to think up an easier nick name for his pseudonym) is right in that they (the MSM [conservative trust cue here]) are missing the boat in many ways. I am just not sure he was right about Rago's blunder really missing it. If Rago is smart he could turn this into a New Coke thing. Of course judging from his responses so far he isn't that smart.
I generally try to stay away from the political stuff.
For some reason I usually manage to tick off everyone in the discussion when I get going on them. Conservatives hate it when I go on about civil rights or separation of church and state and Liberals hate it when I talk about the free market and my thoughts on gun control. For that matter the Liberals I know typically get ticked off about my separation of church and state thoughts as well.
I do generally agree with the instapundit.
I want a world where a happily married gay couple (liberal trust cue) has a closet full of legally obtained assault weapons (conservative trust cue).
To put it in less contentious words I always vote in the manner I believe will limit the power of government over the rest of us the most. No matter who the "us" is and no matter what the parties are.
Generally I manage to hit the anti-trust cue's for pretty much every group when I get political.
Now that I have aired some of my political dirty laundry I really don't think the Rago article was a political item. It has been treated that way in half of the blog sphere. It fits the Evil Liberal MSM guy hates us meme to well to be ignored.
The fact of the matter is most of the Old Media simply doesn't get blogs. I know some of them and have talked at length with them about blogs but they simply don't understand the implications (or the possibilities).
Look to use one of Mike Murry's favorite topics - game theory - Blogging and Old Media are not in a zero sum game.
When Rago is a moron and attacks thousands of passionate and intelligent people it didn't have the effect of harming any of those people. As a matter of fact it upped the traffic for thousands of sites. It created fervour and therefore exchange of ideas.
It probably didn't hurt Rago that much either. I am sure that article got more traffic than any of the others he has written. Fellow "journalists" will commiserate and pat him on the back. Bloggers will be outraged and write at length about him often with links that many will follow imparting him with a voice he never had until then. In short everyone won this last round.
Of course if he keeps saying blatantly stupid things and believes in them sooner or later people will just ignore him. Just like David Duke and Cindy Sheehan who can only make the news by rising to new heights of idiocy and engaging with people who have clearly identified themselves as our enemies.
There is a more healthy and productive way for the two environments to engage. If you want call this Crazy Idea #6.
Full time media outlets (lets call this one Bob's Newspaper) need to assign one or more "reporters" and "editors" to the blog beat (yes I know most have already). Their job is basically one of engaging new bloggers and convincing them to feed directly (in addition to their main site) to Bob's Newpapers online site (probably via RSS).
They don't try to exercise control at all. Direct Control is what is making them fail. They just try to contain the mosh pit.
The "editor" fact checks the posts that get the most hits and feeds the data to the "Reporters". The reporters us this data along with (can't believe I am about to say this) original research to write stories about the blog posts. Everyone wins. Bob's newspaper gets a huge amount of free data and reporting while still being able to hold the worst stuff at arms length. Basically hundreds of unpaid freelancers. If the reporter trashes a blog hey that is traffic as well.
Bloggers win because, lets face the truth here, most of us are hit junkies and check our stats constantly. They link to us and our stats go up.
The best "Editors" will keep track of the facts and who is right most often. They might even start up a Fact based rating system to give kudo's points to blogs that are consistently right.
Slashdot and Digg kind of do this stuff already with a few exceptions.
In Slashdot or Digg if what is written matches a popular meme it will do well regardless whether it is correct or not and you see a lot of gaming on the system using these gut reactions. By adding in a level of accuracy incentive things get better.
In any case D-Bunker ( I have to think up an easier nick name for his pseudonym) is right in that they (the MSM [conservative trust cue here]) are missing the boat in many ways. I am just not sure he was right about Rago's blunder really missing it. If Rago is smart he could turn this into a New Coke thing. Of course judging from his responses so far he isn't that smart.
13 December, 2006
Save the Users - or - Help Me Help You - CI4
Crazy Idea #4 - Potential new revenue stream for ISP's. - Digg this
About 6 to 10 years ago ( I can't remember exactly when but suppose it was about the time of code red or NIMDA) I was staring at a pile of papers on my desk. They were a dump of that months syslog and were about 6 inches high. The log for the previous month was in my hand and was only two pages long.
We had set up a pretty useful system for tracking down people that were trying to hack into our company. Our Internet facing Cisco router served as the first layer of defense. There was an ACL that watched incoming traffic and dumped all but a few ports. For HTML we got fancy and looked for some rudimentary "signatures" (about 40-50 of them) that caught things like unicode attacks and a few other items. Next in line was a SNORT box. They would log these events then forward them to a DMZ syslog behind the firewall. We also forwarded our Checkpoint firewall (which was the next line of defense after SNORT) logs to that box.
I had some Greps cron'ed to run periodically and forward their results to our SMTP server using a little mail script I wrote. HELO, MAIL TO, MAIL FROM, DATA, egrep, EHLO. We had some Network General Sniffers that alarmed for certain specific types of traffic (mostly stuff that looked like scans) and forwarded an email to the same address. The system worked really well and had for several years. We would have about 2 or three false alarms a week and just a few real ones a year. We even managed to track a few of them down and got involved with authorities in the country they were in. (two convictions, one promotion [he worked for us in another country and was trying to fix things])
It all changed overnight.
Pretty much everybody reading this blog is a security professional that went through this. (or possibly a controls engineer that I suspect is about to go through it. Remember 8 to 10 year lag)
It started with the large scale automated scans. Usually some idiot that had gotten hold of SATAN, SAINT or an early ping sweep utility and didn't know how to use it right. (honestly these started several years before) They were irritating but you could filter them in your greps. Early versions of Nessus and other versions of NMAP and HPING were more irritating because they were harder to filter and the ACL would miss chunks of them.
Then the worms ate into our brain.
Within a month or two those of us that had set up automated detection mechanisms were buried under an indecipherable morass of logs. Since then we as an industry have gotten a lot better at designing filters and managing the information chaos. Through a combination of layers, good design, luck and major initiatives by IT vendors we have somehow gotten to an acceptable equilibrium with the worms (at least for now) but the root problem has never rally been solved.
Staring at that pile of paper I had an idea. The only people who could fix this was the users and the only organizations that could help them were the ISP's. The ISP's could help their users and make money at it at the same time.
I have dropped this idea for almost three years because ISP's started to give away AV for free but recent events have revived it for me.
It is pretty simple really. The ISP (or someone hired by them) watches for suspect traffic from their address ranges. If they see hints of it they watch that address closer. If it is verified that the machine is acting improperly they use their systems to tie the address to a user and then an email. They all have the data just in different formats it might be RADIUS, MAC registrations, Mail logins, Cable modem registrations or just access logs.
They then send a email to the user informing them that there is probably a security problem on one of their systems. If they go to this web site (linked in the email) and follow the instructions it can be cleaned for free. For a simple fee of $5 a month (added to their existing bill) they can be added to the premium security service that will help to maintain their system in a clean state. For $10 a month they can be added to the platinum service that includes additional services and advanced protections.
Think of it. It is targeted marketing to someone who definitely has a need. Probably someone who is ignorant of the product and industry but has been barraged with mainstream news panic stories so is primed to react.
The first objection I usually hear is "why would they open the mail, They'll think it's spam"
Hello!!! They are infected by a trojan or worm so they obviously don't have that great of a brain-email-spam-phishing filter to begin with. Plus the carriers never need to ask for credit cards or other information. They build trust with a well developed mail and clearly branded site. If they want to be careful they can verify any orders out of band. Any info security people I plugged this with years ago looked at it with a paranoid eye.
The user doesn't.
They are link lemmings.
Besides it is certainly possible for problem accounts to send an actual snail mail.
Next objection - Exploratory Cost
It would be somewhat different for every ISP but most of the time the start up system would be very easy and inexpensive. You need some kind of Honeypot or IDS to catch the bad traffic. Chances are it already exists. You need to write a simple app to verify what traffic is actually bad. An app to link addresses to users. A site with a web based AV and spyware scan (honestly just use the company that is already being given away free). And an email app. If it makes money from the start up design then expand it to meet the needs/demand. Most ISP's already have these pieces they just need to develop the offering. At the very least it would defer some of the AV costs at the most a tidy profit center in the long run.
Next Objection - Why not do it for free
Because it doesn't have to be free. Oh the ISP's should still offer the free AV items but if a user isn't savy enough to use it then they might like a premium service that take the brain work out of it. A simple agent (uh oh I said the A word) to make sure that the AV and anti Spyware apps are up to date and working well could do. For the premium service they might throw in shredding apps, child filters, weekly security popup tip (that can be turned off of course), utilities (semi optimized) and/or periodic human verification. Pick and choose the mix to compete with the other guys. Obviously the Free AV approach isn't working that well any more.
Next Objection - Invasion of privacy!!!
First they are already watching this traffic for troubleshooting and incident response anyway so at the most this will bring it to the users attention (which is arguably a laudable goal in itself). Second it is entirely possible to set this up using only a honeypot that has no other uses and doesn't originate connections. If they don't come to you then you don't look at their traffic. There would still be plenty of opportunities.
The ISP's make more money, the users have more secure systems, the rest of us have a slightly improved security environment at least until the next gen of the battle. Everyone wins but the illegal spammers and worms.
Just another crazy idea.
About 6 to 10 years ago ( I can't remember exactly when but suppose it was about the time of code red or NIMDA) I was staring at a pile of papers on my desk. They were a dump of that months syslog and were about 6 inches high. The log for the previous month was in my hand and was only two pages long.
We had set up a pretty useful system for tracking down people that were trying to hack into our company. Our Internet facing Cisco router served as the first layer of defense. There was an ACL that watched incoming traffic and dumped all but a few ports. For HTML we got fancy and looked for some rudimentary "signatures" (about 40-50 of them) that caught things like unicode attacks and a few other items. Next in line was a SNORT box. They would log these events then forward them to a DMZ syslog behind the firewall. We also forwarded our Checkpoint firewall (which was the next line of defense after SNORT) logs to that box.
I had some Greps cron'ed to run periodically and forward their results to our SMTP server using a little mail script I wrote. HELO, MAIL TO, MAIL FROM, DATA, egrep, EHLO. We had some Network General Sniffers that alarmed for certain specific types of traffic (mostly stuff that looked like scans) and forwarded an email to the same address. The system worked really well and had for several years. We would have about 2 or three false alarms a week and just a few real ones a year. We even managed to track a few of them down and got involved with authorities in the country they were in. (two convictions, one promotion [he worked for us in another country and was trying to fix things])
It all changed overnight.
Pretty much everybody reading this blog is a security professional that went through this. (or possibly a controls engineer that I suspect is about to go through it. Remember 8 to 10 year lag)
It started with the large scale automated scans. Usually some idiot that had gotten hold of SATAN, SAINT or an early ping sweep utility and didn't know how to use it right. (honestly these started several years before) They were irritating but you could filter them in your greps. Early versions of Nessus and other versions of NMAP and HPING were more irritating because they were harder to filter and the ACL would miss chunks of them.
Then the worms ate into our brain.
Within a month or two those of us that had set up automated detection mechanisms were buried under an indecipherable morass of logs. Since then we as an industry have gotten a lot better at designing filters and managing the information chaos. Through a combination of layers, good design, luck and major initiatives by IT vendors we have somehow gotten to an acceptable equilibrium with the worms (at least for now) but the root problem has never rally been solved.
Staring at that pile of paper I had an idea. The only people who could fix this was the users and the only organizations that could help them were the ISP's. The ISP's could help their users and make money at it at the same time.
I have dropped this idea for almost three years because ISP's started to give away AV for free but recent events have revived it for me.
It is pretty simple really. The ISP (or someone hired by them) watches for suspect traffic from their address ranges. If they see hints of it they watch that address closer. If it is verified that the machine is acting improperly they use their systems to tie the address to a user and then an email. They all have the data just in different formats it might be RADIUS, MAC registrations, Mail logins, Cable modem registrations or just access logs.
They then send a email to the user informing them that there is probably a security problem on one of their systems. If they go to this web site (linked in the email) and follow the instructions it can be cleaned for free. For a simple fee of $5 a month (added to their existing bill) they can be added to the premium security service that will help to maintain their system in a clean state. For $10 a month they can be added to the platinum service that includes additional services and advanced protections.
Think of it. It is targeted marketing to someone who definitely has a need. Probably someone who is ignorant of the product and industry but has been barraged with mainstream news panic stories so is primed to react.
The first objection I usually hear is "why would they open the mail, They'll think it's spam"
Hello!!! They are infected by a trojan or worm so they obviously don't have that great of a brain-email-spam-phishing filter to begin with. Plus the carriers never need to ask for credit cards or other information. They build trust with a well developed mail and clearly branded site. If they want to be careful they can verify any orders out of band. Any info security people I plugged this with years ago looked at it with a paranoid eye.
The user doesn't.
They are link lemmings.
Besides it is certainly possible for problem accounts to send an actual snail mail.
Next objection - Exploratory Cost
It would be somewhat different for every ISP but most of the time the start up system would be very easy and inexpensive. You need some kind of Honeypot or IDS to catch the bad traffic. Chances are it already exists. You need to write a simple app to verify what traffic is actually bad. An app to link addresses to users. A site with a web based AV and spyware scan (honestly just use the company that is already being given away free). And an email app. If it makes money from the start up design then expand it to meet the needs/demand. Most ISP's already have these pieces they just need to develop the offering. At the very least it would defer some of the AV costs at the most a tidy profit center in the long run.
Next Objection - Why not do it for free
Because it doesn't have to be free. Oh the ISP's should still offer the free AV items but if a user isn't savy enough to use it then they might like a premium service that take the brain work out of it. A simple agent (uh oh I said the A word) to make sure that the AV and anti Spyware apps are up to date and working well could do. For the premium service they might throw in shredding apps, child filters, weekly security popup tip (that can be turned off of course), utilities (semi optimized) and/or periodic human verification. Pick and choose the mix to compete with the other guys. Obviously the Free AV approach isn't working that well any more.
Next Objection - Invasion of privacy!!!
First they are already watching this traffic for troubleshooting and incident response anyway so at the most this will bring it to the users attention (which is arguably a laudable goal in itself). Second it is entirely possible to set this up using only a honeypot that has no other uses and doesn't originate connections. If they don't come to you then you don't look at their traffic. There would still be plenty of opportunities.
The ISP's make more money, the users have more secure systems, the rest of us have a slightly improved security environment at least until the next gen of the battle. Everyone wins but the illegal spammers and worms.
Just another crazy idea.
06 December, 2006
Bittorrent - and true virtualization - Crazy Idea?
Yesterday in my MPAA post I was a bit harsh on Bittorrent.
A number of religious adherents jumped to its defense.
My reply was basically, yes it can be used for good a tool is not in and of itself evil, but lets be honest it usually is insecure and used for less than reputable things.
They do have some good backing. They managed to Raise Money.
This is probably because they do have very innovative mechanisms of transferring data.
Something that I think would be interesting to see is a combination of Grid computing with file storage and transfer mechanisms wrapped with security layers that are easy for the end user to configure and easy for the user of the grid to use to protect their data.
A number of religious adherents jumped to its defense.
My reply was basically, yes it can be used for good a tool is not in and of itself evil, but lets be honest it usually is insecure and used for less than reputable things.
They do have some good backing. They managed to Raise Money.
This is probably because they do have very innovative mechanisms of transferring data.
Something that I think would be interesting to see is a combination of Grid computing with file storage and transfer mechanisms wrapped with security layers that are easy for the end user to configure and easy for the user of the grid to use to protect their data.
02 December, 2006
Crazy Idea #2 - Biofuel X Challenge or VC Challenge
Unfortunately I don't have the money to back this up myself but looking at some of the items yesterday in the VC's post I got to thinking about a twist on an idea I have been toying with for a bit.
Develop a remotely automated "production plant" that is sized to fit within a standard sized shipping container.
The plant would have to be able to receive farm waste (It must receive any bio farm waste) and process it into three outputs. BioDiesel, Ethanol and unprocessable waste. A farmer would order it and after processing their normal crops would feed their waste into it. The useful outputs would go to appropriate external tanks. Periodically someone would pick them up (or more properly their contents) for delivery to refineries.
The keys are:
Entire thing sized to fit in (or as part of) a standard shipping container.
Remotely operated and monitored. Perhaps even to the extent of optimization software being remote.
Requires nothing more than the dumping of farm waste and removal of unprocessable waste by the farm hands.
Economics:
Most of the cost would be development costs. Once the basic design is set it should be relatively inexpensive to make. Viability would be dependant on how much Bio diesel and Ethanol can be produced per time unit and relative work requirements for the farmers. Economy of scale would certainly apply.
A few models of use
Direct sale to the farms and agriculture groups.
Purchase by Oil/Energy Companies (any BP guys reading you guys are into green)and disperse to farms for free. The farmers get steeply discounted diesel oil for their work or might even produce enough for free oil and cash payments.
Governmental support in terms of augment of subsidies based on participation with goal to supplant "Foreign Oil" and reduce cumulative CO2 emissions.
This weeks crazy idea. Spread the Meme
Last weeks at the end of this post
SO VC's and DARPA step up.
Develop a remotely automated "production plant" that is sized to fit within a standard sized shipping container.
The plant would have to be able to receive farm waste (It must receive any bio farm waste) and process it into three outputs. BioDiesel, Ethanol and unprocessable waste. A farmer would order it and after processing their normal crops would feed their waste into it. The useful outputs would go to appropriate external tanks. Periodically someone would pick them up (or more properly their contents) for delivery to refineries.
The keys are:
Entire thing sized to fit in (or as part of) a standard shipping container.
Remotely operated and monitored. Perhaps even to the extent of optimization software being remote.
Requires nothing more than the dumping of farm waste and removal of unprocessable waste by the farm hands.
Economics:
Most of the cost would be development costs. Once the basic design is set it should be relatively inexpensive to make. Viability would be dependant on how much Bio diesel and Ethanol can be produced per time unit and relative work requirements for the farmers. Economy of scale would certainly apply.
A few models of use
Direct sale to the farms and agriculture groups.
Purchase by Oil/Energy Companies (any BP guys reading you guys are into green)and disperse to farms for free. The farmers get steeply discounted diesel oil for their work or might even produce enough for free oil and cash payments.
Governmental support in terms of augment of subsidies based on participation with goal to supplant "Foreign Oil" and reduce cumulative CO2 emissions.
This weeks crazy idea. Spread the Meme
Last weeks at the end of this post
SO VC's and DARPA step up.
26 November, 2006
Nuke vs Diesel Strategic Cost and a Crazy Idea
Continued from
Strategic
Stealth
Range
Endurance
Speed
Area Control
Operating Arenas
On a strategic level the superiority of Nuclear vessels becomes even more pronounced. Even with the 212 long distance stealth is not realistically possible. At least in terms of true strategic distance. It is certainly possible for diesel boats to snorkel but every time they start they are far more subject to being located. They don't have the safety margins for under ice operations and are unable to linger. Much of the strategic value in submarine operations is related to uncertainty. The longer the period of time between last contact and the current time the less certainty there is regarding what areas are threatened or being monitored. Again the Nukes have the clear advantage. On a tactical level nukes have a slight advantage but on a strategic level the competition is not even close.
The effective range of a Nuclear vessel is unlimited. Within a week or so they can be anywhere in the oceans or seas from anywhere. They can do this surprisingly quickly. Diesel boats top speed is significantly slower regardless of their mode of operation. At most a diesels range even at slower speeds is a few thousand miles. This may sound like a lot but considering they will have to refuel at the end it is a significant limitation. There is also a significant logistic advantage to this. There is less or no supply chain to protect. Less risk to re-provision vessels and less opportunities for hostiles to harm support vessels. Again this measure goes hands down to the nukes.
Range and endurance are related but not the same. Staying time on station for a properly provisioned nuclear vessel could literally be months. The advantage this provides has significant impacts to the entire planning, logistics and cost structure of the Navy as a whole. Intelligence gathering missions are more effective and misdirection is easier. Area monitoring and denial are easier to facilitate and more effective. Once more this item goes hands down to the nuclear vessels.
In the long range speed category Nuclear vessels are several orders of magnitude superior to the best diesel vessels. Week long flank runs are possible. Diesels that do flank speed for more than a few days would have to be re-provisioned leading to the limitations mentioned above. In addition to this advantage although I don't know for absolute certain I think that the top speed for nuke vessels is likely to be quite a bit higher than diesel boats.
Area control is a function of all of the items that have already been discussed both in tactics and strategy. In the Navy as a whole a sub is much less effective at this than carriers but they do have one thing going for them. Uncertainty is the subs friend in this area. By stealthily maneuvering and positioning a significant amount of ocean can be denied to the enemy. They also are able to identify and locate objects that may not be easily located by surface vessels. If the submarine is unable to move relatively quickly or opposing forces are able to periodically locate it the entire advantage is lost. It would take several Diesel boats to effectively patrol the same area as a nuclear vessel.
One of the biggest items that advocates of diesel boats attest is their ability to operate in shallow water. Right now it is true that this is an area that nuclear boats are challenged. This is not due to any inherent weaknesses in nuclear power however this is primarily a function of the size of the vessels. It is true that the need for water flow for cooling can be problematic but designing baffles and alternate cooling mechanisms is a far less intimidating proposition than the challenges of designing mechanisms to overcome the weaknesses of Diesel boats.
Overall on a strategic level Nuclear vessels are probably 10 to 20 times as effective as a diesel boat.
Economic arguments are perhaps the most persuasive points in favor of diesel boats over Nuclear subs. I don't know what the current class construction costs are but more than 2 or 3 Billion USD per vessel would not surprise me in the least. It is unlikely that the newest diesel boats break 500 Million USD. This seems to be a very significant difference but as bubblehead points out in this post (more here) there are a number of items that would mean that the construction costs for US boats would be higher even if they are identical vessels. Furthermore if the designs are for smaller and simpler boats nuclear vessels could be cheaper.
Cost of operation is harder to determine. If the same operational tempo and deployment requirements are applied then nuclear boats are likely to be much less expensive. They don't consume nearly as much fuel (the still have a Diesel but it is only used in emergencies and drills). An additional operational cost that isn't often identified for diesel boats is the cost of the cost of the support structure to supply them away from home. More strain will be placed on oilers. Since subs often operate in different areas than surface vessels new oilers are likely to have to be bought. Over a 20 to 30 year lifespan these differences are likely to be pronounced. The need to refuel and the cost of a refueling overhaul probably evens this out however. Decommissioning of nuclear vessels is undoubtedly more expensive and probably costs nearly as much as the construction costs. This one is clearly in favor of the Diesels. Overall Nukes are probably 2 to 3 times as expensive as a diesel sub but since on a tactical level a nuke is worth 3 or more diesels and since on a strategic level they are worth 10 time or more that cost is well justified.
There are many different efforts to make diesel boats more effective. This is great sooner or later something will surpass the nukes. one of these efforts is the 212.
The 212 is a new U boat class that the German navy is building. It has some brilliant innovations that enable it to operate for extended periods of time. Most of the articles I have read place the operational time for the 212 at up to three weeks of submerged operations. This is amazing for a non nuclear vessel (even though it is an order of magnitude less than nukes). I very seriously doubt that it can do 2/3 bell or even the equivalent speed as a nuke boats 1/3 for three weeks however. As brilliant as the 212's use of fuel cells is they are still far away from true nuclear capabilities.
This brings me to my crazy idea. Combine the capabilities of either a hydrogen/oxygen fuel cell or perhaps better yet hydrogen peroxide fuel cell with decay based RTG's. The RTG's could probably be placed external to the hull simplifying cooling requirements. I doubt it is likely that you could ever design an RTG based system that on its own could achieve greater than 4 or 5 knots because their power density and power to weight ration are pretty crappy but you could use them for slow speeds and to "recharge" the fuel cell storage. I'm sure this could get close to fission overall but it might permit something that is in between and might provide a location to get rid of some of the fission "waste" that we currently are unable (by treaty) to reprocess.
Like I said Crazy idea.
Strategic
Stealth
Range
Endurance
Speed
Area Control
Operating Arenas
On a strategic level the superiority of Nuclear vessels becomes even more pronounced. Even with the 212 long distance stealth is not realistically possible. At least in terms of true strategic distance. It is certainly possible for diesel boats to snorkel but every time they start they are far more subject to being located. They don't have the safety margins for under ice operations and are unable to linger. Much of the strategic value in submarine operations is related to uncertainty. The longer the period of time between last contact and the current time the less certainty there is regarding what areas are threatened or being monitored. Again the Nukes have the clear advantage. On a tactical level nukes have a slight advantage but on a strategic level the competition is not even close.
The effective range of a Nuclear vessel is unlimited. Within a week or so they can be anywhere in the oceans or seas from anywhere. They can do this surprisingly quickly. Diesel boats top speed is significantly slower regardless of their mode of operation. At most a diesels range even at slower speeds is a few thousand miles. This may sound like a lot but considering they will have to refuel at the end it is a significant limitation. There is also a significant logistic advantage to this. There is less or no supply chain to protect. Less risk to re-provision vessels and less opportunities for hostiles to harm support vessels. Again this measure goes hands down to the nukes.
Range and endurance are related but not the same. Staying time on station for a properly provisioned nuclear vessel could literally be months. The advantage this provides has significant impacts to the entire planning, logistics and cost structure of the Navy as a whole. Intelligence gathering missions are more effective and misdirection is easier. Area monitoring and denial are easier to facilitate and more effective. Once more this item goes hands down to the nuclear vessels.
In the long range speed category Nuclear vessels are several orders of magnitude superior to the best diesel vessels. Week long flank runs are possible. Diesels that do flank speed for more than a few days would have to be re-provisioned leading to the limitations mentioned above. In addition to this advantage although I don't know for absolute certain I think that the top speed for nuke vessels is likely to be quite a bit higher than diesel boats.
Area control is a function of all of the items that have already been discussed both in tactics and strategy. In the Navy as a whole a sub is much less effective at this than carriers but they do have one thing going for them. Uncertainty is the subs friend in this area. By stealthily maneuvering and positioning a significant amount of ocean can be denied to the enemy. They also are able to identify and locate objects that may not be easily located by surface vessels. If the submarine is unable to move relatively quickly or opposing forces are able to periodically locate it the entire advantage is lost. It would take several Diesel boats to effectively patrol the same area as a nuclear vessel.
One of the biggest items that advocates of diesel boats attest is their ability to operate in shallow water. Right now it is true that this is an area that nuclear boats are challenged. This is not due to any inherent weaknesses in nuclear power however this is primarily a function of the size of the vessels. It is true that the need for water flow for cooling can be problematic but designing baffles and alternate cooling mechanisms is a far less intimidating proposition than the challenges of designing mechanisms to overcome the weaknesses of Diesel boats.
Overall on a strategic level Nuclear vessels are probably 10 to 20 times as effective as a diesel boat.
Economic arguments are perhaps the most persuasive points in favor of diesel boats over Nuclear subs. I don't know what the current class construction costs are but more than 2 or 3 Billion USD per vessel would not surprise me in the least. It is unlikely that the newest diesel boats break 500 Million USD. This seems to be a very significant difference but as bubblehead points out in this post (more here) there are a number of items that would mean that the construction costs for US boats would be higher even if they are identical vessels. Furthermore if the designs are for smaller and simpler boats nuclear vessels could be cheaper.
Cost of operation is harder to determine. If the same operational tempo and deployment requirements are applied then nuclear boats are likely to be much less expensive. They don't consume nearly as much fuel (the still have a Diesel but it is only used in emergencies and drills). An additional operational cost that isn't often identified for diesel boats is the cost of the cost of the support structure to supply them away from home. More strain will be placed on oilers. Since subs often operate in different areas than surface vessels new oilers are likely to have to be bought. Over a 20 to 30 year lifespan these differences are likely to be pronounced. The need to refuel and the cost of a refueling overhaul probably evens this out however. Decommissioning of nuclear vessels is undoubtedly more expensive and probably costs nearly as much as the construction costs. This one is clearly in favor of the Diesels. Overall Nukes are probably 2 to 3 times as expensive as a diesel sub but since on a tactical level a nuke is worth 3 or more diesels and since on a strategic level they are worth 10 time or more that cost is well justified.
There are many different efforts to make diesel boats more effective. This is great sooner or later something will surpass the nukes. one of these efforts is the 212.
The 212 is a new U boat class that the German navy is building. It has some brilliant innovations that enable it to operate for extended periods of time. Most of the articles I have read place the operational time for the 212 at up to three weeks of submerged operations. This is amazing for a non nuclear vessel (even though it is an order of magnitude less than nukes). I very seriously doubt that it can do 2/3 bell or even the equivalent speed as a nuke boats 1/3 for three weeks however. As brilliant as the 212's use of fuel cells is they are still far away from true nuclear capabilities.
This brings me to my crazy idea. Combine the capabilities of either a hydrogen/oxygen fuel cell or perhaps better yet hydrogen peroxide fuel cell with decay based RTG's. The RTG's could probably be placed external to the hull simplifying cooling requirements. I doubt it is likely that you could ever design an RTG based system that on its own could achieve greater than 4 or 5 knots because their power density and power to weight ration are pretty crappy but you could use them for slow speeds and to "recharge" the fuel cell storage. I'm sure this could get close to fission overall but it might permit something that is in between and might provide a location to get rid of some of the fission "waste" that we currently are unable (by treaty) to reprocess.
Like I said Crazy idea.
25 November, 2006
Nuke vs Diesel Subs and a Crazy idea
Bubblehead has an interesting post essentially about people who don't have a clue spouting garbage ideas. Other than the idiots that constantly read the wrong outcome into every military action (and still somehow end up get invited to talk to the Times or CNN again next week to be wrong again) there was one piece that caught my eye. The idea that a Diesel fleet would even have a chance to compete realistically against a nuclear fleet is ridiculous. Bubblehead says that he will leave the counter for that to others. Well here goes.
There are a few items that make a Submarine an effective war fighting asset.
Tactical
Stealth
Endurance
Speed
Detection Capability
Weapon Systems
Strategic
Stealth
Range
Endurance
Speed
Area Control
Flexibility
Operating Areas
Economic
Cost of Construction
Cost of Operation
Cost of Decommissioning
So lets start with the tactical items
Stealth is really the main item that separates the submarine capabilities from other war machines. One of the main things that Diesel advocates espouse is that they are quieter than Nuclear Subs. This is certainly true of older SSN's but even then it is only applicable when the Diesel is running on electrical power. The newer SSN's are so much quieter than the older that there is little difference. Without going into t0o many specifics the primary consideration for stealth is a function of two items when comparing the tactical capabilities of two boat. The relative detectability range of each boat in comparison with sensor capabilities of each is the primary consideration. Both Nuclear and Diesel boats have detectability ranges that are comparable or at least so close that it makes little difference. The nuclear vessels have one significant advantage. They are able to maintain a relatively high consistent speed and energy output (within the quiet operation ranges) effectively indefinitely. The Diesel subs on the other hand can only operate for a finite period of time before they have to recharge their batteries. There is one exception to this the 212 which I will address later. This is a function of the clear advantage that nukes have in terms of endurance. Engagements between Diesels and Nukes become a game of the Nukes moving at a relatively high quiet speed (still well below the speed that they are easily detectable) while gathering a large area of data. They are able to move relatively freely when trying to gain information for solutions. If they get short but uncertain hits they have the energy available to develop more detailed data. If they feel it is advantageous they can move away and reengage from a more opportune angle without have to factor in how much time they have left. A standard diesel's range under battery is extremely limited. They have to husband it and carefully choose when and where to expend their power. This is a significant tactical advantage and a reason that despite claims to the contrary, nuclear powered vessels have the clear superiority in this arena. In engagements involving multiple hostiles this advantage is dramatically more important. In all of the games I remember being in with Diesel subs the nuke had the clear advantage and always came out on top. There were only a few exceptions to this. In an artificially tightly constricted operational area most of the nukes advantages are mitigated because they are unable to move around freely. Many people claim that this is a significant mitigate in terms of shallow water (more on this later) and harbor operations. The reality is that in a real engagement, control of area is what is important, and that will leave more than enough leeway for the nukes endurance based stealth advantages to play out on a tactical level. There was one set of games with the Brits that it was clearly a function of them having a genius for a CO. He used dozens of brilliant moves but even then it basically came to a draw after about 10 engagements over a week(I don't think the Brits have Diesels anymore). Every other hide and seek I can remember the nuke easily won.
The next significant tactical measure is speed. I don't have to spend much time on this one. The nukes easily and demonstrably win. There is no comparison.
On the surface the detection capability would seem to be even. It is primarily a function of what equipment on board. There are slight advantages in detection capability to the quieter sub but the effect only plays out for significant differences. There is one way in which the nukes have an advantage in this arena. With a nearly unlimited energy budget designers don't have to limit their choices in terms of numbers or energy use. Likewise Captains don't have to worry about energy budget in operations. This is a significant advantage. More and better equipment can be installed. Redundant operators can monitor equipment in multiple modes simultaneously increasing the likelihood of proper interpretation of gathered data. Overall this area is mostly influenced by the quality of equipment available but even here nukes have the advantage in terms of design and operability flexibility.
Weapon systems have a lot in common with with sensor capabilities in that they are largely dependant on what systems can be chosen. In this case what can be chosen is mostly independant of the power source.
Overall Nukes have a 3 to one or more advantage tactically.
This post has taken more time than I expected so I am going to break it into parts.
I'll get strategic, cost and my crazy idea later.
There are a few items that make a Submarine an effective war fighting asset.
Tactical
Stealth
Endurance
Speed
Detection Capability
Weapon Systems
Strategic
Stealth
Range
Endurance
Speed
Area Control
Flexibility
Operating Areas
Economic
Cost of Construction
Cost of Operation
Cost of Decommissioning
So lets start with the tactical items
Stealth is really the main item that separates the submarine capabilities from other war machines. One of the main things that Diesel advocates espouse is that they are quieter than Nuclear Subs. This is certainly true of older SSN's but even then it is only applicable when the Diesel is running on electrical power. The newer SSN's are so much quieter than the older that there is little difference. Without going into t0o many specifics the primary consideration for stealth is a function of two items when comparing the tactical capabilities of two boat. The relative detectability range of each boat in comparison with sensor capabilities of each is the primary consideration. Both Nuclear and Diesel boats have detectability ranges that are comparable or at least so close that it makes little difference. The nuclear vessels have one significant advantage. They are able to maintain a relatively high consistent speed and energy output (within the quiet operation ranges) effectively indefinitely. The Diesel subs on the other hand can only operate for a finite period of time before they have to recharge their batteries. There is one exception to this the 212 which I will address later. This is a function of the clear advantage that nukes have in terms of endurance. Engagements between Diesels and Nukes become a game of the Nukes moving at a relatively high quiet speed (still well below the speed that they are easily detectable) while gathering a large area of data. They are able to move relatively freely when trying to gain information for solutions. If they get short but uncertain hits they have the energy available to develop more detailed data. If they feel it is advantageous they can move away and reengage from a more opportune angle without have to factor in how much time they have left. A standard diesel's range under battery is extremely limited. They have to husband it and carefully choose when and where to expend their power. This is a significant tactical advantage and a reason that despite claims to the contrary, nuclear powered vessels have the clear superiority in this arena. In engagements involving multiple hostiles this advantage is dramatically more important. In all of the games I remember being in with Diesel subs the nuke had the clear advantage and always came out on top. There were only a few exceptions to this. In an artificially tightly constricted operational area most of the nukes advantages are mitigated because they are unable to move around freely. Many people claim that this is a significant mitigate in terms of shallow water (more on this later) and harbor operations. The reality is that in a real engagement, control of area is what is important, and that will leave more than enough leeway for the nukes endurance based stealth advantages to play out on a tactical level. There was one set of games with the Brits that it was clearly a function of them having a genius for a CO. He used dozens of brilliant moves but even then it basically came to a draw after about 10 engagements over a week(I don't think the Brits have Diesels anymore). Every other hide and seek I can remember the nuke easily won.
The next significant tactical measure is speed. I don't have to spend much time on this one. The nukes easily and demonstrably win. There is no comparison.
On the surface the detection capability would seem to be even. It is primarily a function of what equipment on board. There are slight advantages in detection capability to the quieter sub but the effect only plays out for significant differences. There is one way in which the nukes have an advantage in this arena. With a nearly unlimited energy budget designers don't have to limit their choices in terms of numbers or energy use. Likewise Captains don't have to worry about energy budget in operations. This is a significant advantage. More and better equipment can be installed. Redundant operators can monitor equipment in multiple modes simultaneously increasing the likelihood of proper interpretation of gathered data. Overall this area is mostly influenced by the quality of equipment available but even here nukes have the advantage in terms of design and operability flexibility.
Weapon systems have a lot in common with with sensor capabilities in that they are largely dependant on what systems can be chosen. In this case what can be chosen is mostly independant of the power source.
Overall Nukes have a 3 to one or more advantage tactically.
This post has taken more time than I expected so I am going to break it into parts.
I'll get strategic, cost and my crazy idea later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
