Bamford's book "Body of Secrets" has a lot of good discussion on
moon-bounce work by the NSA. As Phillip wrote, two of the main
applications were passive eavesdropping on Soviet communucations
(though satellites later did a *much* better job) and
very non-directional communications to/from spy sh
John Young wrote:
> Don't overlook what is reportedly happening on the back side of the
> moon. The URL for an IF-mooncam was posted here a while ago. The
> stream is encrypted but with weak crypto -- the crypto-processor is
> 1968-9 vintage. The cam is part of a data package placed on the dark
>
At 02:17 PM 8/6/01 -0700, John Young wrote:
>Don't overlook what is reportedly happening on the back side of
>the moon. The URL for an IF-mooncam was posted here a while
>ago. The stream is encrypted but with weak crypto -- the
>crypto-processor is 1968-9 vintage. The cam is part of a data
>pack
> John Young Wrote:
> Don't overlook what is reportedly happening on the back side of
> the moon. The URL for an IF-mooncam was posted here a while
> ago. The stream is encrypted but with weak crypto -- the
> crypto-processor is 1968-9 vintage. The cam is part of a data
> package placed on the dar
Don't overlook what is reportedly happening on the back side of
the moon. The URL for an IF-mooncam was posted here a while
ago. The stream is encrypted but with weak crypto -- the
crypto-processor is 1968-9 vintage. The cam is part of a data
package placed on the dark side in a classified opera
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote:
> >Check the web.
>
> I did, actually.
You checked the wrong thing; you should check the moon landing and
Congress' budget for NASA...I sent a URL to the list earlier. IF (big if)
the US ever does drop out of the treaty they will still be able to claim
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
>On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote:
>
>> Second, it pretty much means the US is going to have to withdraw
>> from the space treaty of 1965, which bans space weapons. This
>> latter is actually more interesting to me, because that treaty
>> also ba
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote:
> Second, it pretty much means the US is going to have to withdraw
> from the space treaty of 1965, which bans space weapons. This
> latter is actually more interesting to me, because that treaty
> also bans national claims of sovereignty over off-ear
