This is what the future of communication looks like. It's really a massive step forward. No one will have to die from exposure when their cars break down, no planes will go missing, and no more black spots in natural disasters. It is also quite dignified and civilised that we are using this technology first to help the most vulnerable.
Communication is and has always been an important element in human organisation. Imagine if corrupt governments could no longer shut down the internet and cell service. Even a world war probably wouldn't disrupt this. People will be really empowered by this technology, we just need more competition in this space. But one step at a time.
Also: simmer down Elon fans and haters, this is not only about Elon. Look at the bigger, global picture.
I don't know – would we risk Kessler Syndrome for a war? Win a piece of land and doom humanity for a hundred years of regress in space? Maybe, probably can't be ruled out.
As for jamming, is it feasible or practical to jam very large parts of the world? I can't imagine it would be. It seems to me like jamming would probably be used for specific military purposes and people would be left alone to communicate with each other otherwise.
It's not that I'm saying this could not be done. It could. But this is not the most likely scenario in my head. The immense benefit to all humanity is a very likely scenario, in contrast.
LoRa is another equally exciting technology that has a lot of potential in all the spaces I mentioned. I just can't currently imagine a reason it would go mass-market.
Yes. The military believes that our adversaries would attack their satellites. China, USA and India have demoed the capability to shoot satellites in non wartime, adding tons of debris.
Of course we would. And anyway the Starlink constellation is low enough that even destroying the whole constellation would have a minimal impact after a decade.
It's just a war game by a think-tank, not US policy or anything. Starlink would be the backbone of any autonomous swarm invasion, of course it would be the first thing to be targeted in a near peer war.
That's not really what the report is relying on. It's saying having a system of detections and interception satellites which can catch ~100 missiles forces the stakes to be more "all out or nothing" from large scale threats and "fully preventative" for small scale threats (e.g. North Korea). It also considers the satellite layer 1 of 3 layers that help achieve that small escalation prevention goal.
Nowhere does the report claim a Starlink type satellite layer would be or would need to be untouchable in a full scale WW3 scenario.
I don't have a crystal ball but maybe. It wouldn't be instant, it would be an escalation itself. Maybe they could launch dozens without anyone catching on over time though. At the same time, if North Korea started launching a bunch into orbit the world would probably react on both fronts (launched satellites and launch facilities) before they actually got to the nuclear war part. Or maybe not.
Anyways, what I'm getting at is I'm not saying one way or another said satellite layer would actually prevent certain WW3 scenarios for sure or not. I'm saying the report is in agreement with the above conversation in that it was never claimed the satellite layer itself would be unaffected by a full scale WW3 taking place. I.e. its mention is out of place.
With how close to earth Starlink satellites fly, it won't take hundreds of years. Without the occasional boost back into orbit, it'll only take a couple of years for them to fall back to earth. Same with most spy satellites. We can do without space internet for a few decades if we blow up several of these constellations.
As for further-away satellites (Iridium etc.), that's a bigger risk, but there aren't that many that make sense to target in a war.
If pieces got bumped into a higher apogee wouldn't their orbit end up with a lower perigee as well? If so I think that might actually be better for deorbiting quickly
Maybe not for Starlink itself, but its debris may be eccentric enough to hit satellites in higher orbits, thus causing an upward cascade of collisions resulting in debris clouds that do have a real possibility of remaining in orbit for many times the debris of Starlink.
I mean, yes, absolutely! I wouldn't trust world leaders to understand Kessler syndrome, let alone care about it. If a world leader is comfortable killing hundreds of thousands of people to make their nation "safe", targeting civilian infrastructure, I have no doubt that they'd blow up some stuff in orbit.
To be clear, I don't want to risk it. I'd prefer we didn't live in such a warlike world. But the current world leaders are out here bombing nuclear plants and residential districts. A few satellites will feel very, very far away to them.
LoRa will never take off since it doesn't have the bandwidth for wide usage. Short messages are the limit. It also can't replace this usage since there aren't nodes in the middle of the ocean. If anything, this will reduce the need for LoRa messaging.
While I really really hope no one would be that stupid as to risk a Kessler syndrome... I think it's really likely in a very specific situation:
A non-space-dominant power (so not Russia/China/USA) gets into a tiff with someone using satellites. This player does have access to at least the vaguest concept of a ballistic missile. They take said missile and program it to fly into space (as most beyond the tactical level do), and detonate.
Nuclear or not, they don't even have to hit the satellite, they just have to throw up shrapnel. Hell, you can replace most of the explosive warhead with ball bearings. It may not immediately take down a specific satellite but it's almost assured to fuck space up.
And in case it's not obvious, this seems like a very North Korean type thing to do. Their missiles aren't terribly reliable or accurate (so far), but good enough to get into space and ruin everyones day for a very long time there after. They have, what, a single satellite? [1] when everyone else has hundreds? Why not level the playing field and assure no one can use any of them - given enough time.
I'd be willing to be its in someones MAD playbook as well. It only takes a few hundred nukes to effectively end all life on earth, permanently. There are still 5,000 plus in both Russia and the US's stockpile [2], not to mention China, France and the UK has a couple hundred each. What do you do with some of those few thousand extra nukes? Detonate them in air and orbit to take out your Doomsday planes [3] and any potential orbital capabilities - just in case you survive.
But honestly, the Kessler Syndrome wouldn't really be a concern at that point since everything, including the roaches, would be a radioactive pile of glass.
By definition of going to war, they are willing to risk their very existence. Taking out satellites and making orbit entry fraught with hazards seems a very rational choice for many opponents on the world stage.
Your enemy has sat communications. You don’t. Well, it’s unlikely you’re going to get sat communications - so what do you do?
It’s logical to take out enemy communications.
The other side of the coin is, the enemy with the satellite can try to offer you the use of them as well, so you wouldn’t feel the need to destroy them - but will they?
i read that article, it says nothing about Starlink. I think you are thinking about a different concept which was Reagan's "Star Wars" missile defense system.
Planes have had access to sat Comms for decades. MH380 had it but it was deactivated. Most likely by a suicidal pilot. The engines had their own uplink that was still active. But Starlink isn't going to solve that kind of problem.
> Imagine if corrupt governments could no longer shut down the internet and cell service.
Even in the parts of the world where this occurs it has been shown to be nothing more than a surface level inconvenience.
> Communication is and has always been an important element in human organisation.
Precisely. We don't exactly need the internet or cell service. We've got techniques and historical methods going back to the beginning of, unsurprisingly, recorded history.
> People will be really empowered by this technology
They're already empowered. This will mostly just convenience them.
I agree with the sentiment but LEO constellations like Starlink can and have been disrupted, via sub-orbital jamming. Not to mention that in actual large conflict surface to LEO missiles will simply destroy large amounts of satellite constellations.
Starlink is supposedly harder to jam than typical satellite comms due to its use of phased array communication. IIRC you need to either be flying overhead or putting out a ton more power in a ground based jammer to be effective.
And as the other user mentioned, no country at the moment has the kind of stockpile of ASAT weapons needed to wipe the constellation (plus, due to orbital dynamics, there's a limit to how quickly they can take out satellites).
Between trying to wipe the constellation and jamming it, it'd be far more cost effective to jam even accounting for the higher power requirements/lower jamming range.
There would also be other interesting options like capturing and using enough terminals to force the entire cell to be disabled. That has been one of the challenges SpaceX has had to deal with near the frontlines in Ukraine.
Starlink satellites are vulnerable to repeated uplink transmitting their preamble code (which is public and the same across any user terminal). The satellites are so tuned to that code you can jam them through their receive sidelobes.. taking out all beams on the satellite.
A single omnidirectional transmitter on the ground can transmit this one preamble code in all directions and it jams all satellites in view. All Starlink satellites use the same uplink code and they can't change it because it's how new terminals enter the network.
No government currently exists that has nearly enough rockets to impact Starlink. There is a big difference between doing individual tests and taking down a constellation of 1000s.
I was curious why direct-to-cell hasn't been enabled everywhere, and it looks like it's because AT&T claims it would cause them an 18% decrease in network throughput/capacity. AT&T petitioned the FCC to block direct-to-cell rollout because of this.[1] SpaceX responded that AT&T's estimates of interference are incorrect, and that AT&T fails to account for many factors. Also, SpaceX argues that the public good of having cell phone access in remote areas outweighs the slight reduction of network capacity in areas with existing coverage.[2]
My guess is that the truth is somewhere in the middle. All else equal, adding more cell towers to an area will increase interference and decrease performance for existing networks, but I doubt it will be as bad as AT&T claims. Also T-Mobile made a deal with SpaceX to be the sole network with direct-to-cell for the first year after rollout. It seems more likely than not that AT&T is trying to hurt their competition using the FCC. If a different cell network had gotten an exclusive contract, I'm sure it would be T-Mobile petitioning the FCC to block direct-to-cell rollout.
No branch of the US government keeps statistics on how many people get lost in the wilderness and die each year, but it's definitely in the hundreds and possibly over 1,000.[3] Considering how often a working cell phone could save them, I think it's worth enabling direct-to-cell everywhere.
It also hasn't been enabled everywhere yet because the associated constellation is not complete yet. Current service is probably going to be intermittent. Basically, it's just better than nothing when in an emergency like this.
It's an excuse to establish 'facts on the ground' that the technology is useful which makes it harder to rollback via bureaucracy if it cuts into telco profits.
It requires larger antennas. Starlink had to launch the V2 satellites which are larger and have new, big antenna for Direct-to-cell. They were meant for Starship, but that was delayed so they developed V2 Mini for Falcon 9. The version with antenna started launching beginning of year. My understanding is that are close to numbers for providing global coverage.
That's amazing, I'm having trouble believing that a mobile phone's antenna can talk to space, 500km away. Do you know what sort of bandwidth these will have?
But just to clarify, because I'm also having a hard time imagining this, an LTE antenna in a cell phone can beam data to a satellite and have it picked up? Even at whatever low kbps? That is insane to me!
As far as I'm aware, the V2 minis are different from the DTC sats. V2 mini just has expanded network bandwidth. DTC are a specific variant of the V2 mini with the hardware needed for DTC. Not all V2 launches, even now, are DTC variants.
If you look at the kidme5, samegene321, and george23 accounts in this discussion you'll note that they predominantly comment about Musk in Musk-related threads (usually SpaceX, it seems), often sporadically with large delays between when they make comments (weeks and months). They also post the same things as each other (though this is non-obvious, kidme3 deleted the content of one of their dead comments, but it's verbatim what samegene321 posted). It's either an individual or a coincidentally very narrowly-focused group of people who not only think the same, but write the same.
I feel like I can spot musk-bashing astroturfing a mile away because they repeat the exact same criticisms that made big headlines but aren't actually true, but there's maybe like a tiny nugget of nuance to the topic, and it's repeated forever and ever like it's fact and Elon is literally hitler and tesla doesnt actually exist and space isn't real too and elon is just lying to you.
but also he's a xenophobic, transphobic asshole who supports politicians eroding really basic rights and liberties for people, so fuck em
If you tie yourself to a specific politician, especially in a massively polarised environment, you're going to alienate many people, and it's hardly like Musk wasn't controversial before twitter and his swing to MAGA.
I believe it's fair and based on recent changes in musk's political outlook which many disagree with. His public persona really didn't used to be like this, and he never would have been so popular in the first place if that was the case.
Musk is, to say the least, polarising, and thus attracts a lot of people who take either highly favourable or intensely sceptical stances on everything he says. These two groups then feed off each other - those critical of Musk often feel compelled to counterbalance what they see as overly charitable interpretations of his statements or the actions of companies associated with him, and vice versa I guess.
In this particular topic, Musk has a history of being... opportunistic to disasters and tries to 'help out' to various degrees of success (see his weird mini-sub saga for the thai cave rescue, and Starlink's involvement in Ukraine/Russia war).
Personally, I think he's a terrible human being who uses his platform to spread vile hate which is incompatible with a modern world, and I tend not to separate the art from the artist (if you could call either of them that). But otherwise I'm not brigading out here.
Musk is also spreading the "this might be the last election you ever vote in" meme, which is pure projection from the extreme right wing that has taken over so much of the USA. So I have a large amount of derision for provocateurs like Musk, who can simply fly his private jet to another country if the USA becomes embroiled in civil war. https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-claims-during-trump-081...
I utterly loathe the people that would cause violence and stolen elections, and musk is one of them.
And, to the people that would back the extreme right: they will turn on you the very nanosecond it becomes convenient to them.
> "this might be the last election you ever vote in" meme
To be fair the left is saying the same, because Trump will end democracy, this time for real.
I am not American, so often only the crazy/extremist views reach me over the ocean, but I did read over the past years the hope in leftist circles, that migrants will make Florida and Texas first a purple and then blue.
Predates it by many years. It actually even predates the cave submarine, but strongly intensified then and increased roughly constantly until the present day.
What utter nonsense, pure speculation based on nothing and nothing.
And that whole Russia conspiracy, outside it being nonsense doesn't even make sense. Russia doesn't need SpaceX to launch anything, SpaceX wouldn't launch anything for Russia if they knew anyway and if DoD knew they would certainty easily stop it whatever is 'legal'.
Instead of coming up with elaborate stories, its much simpler. He became very politically vocal and that makes you incredibly controversial. Musk was always somewhat controversial but going all in on MAGA stuff made him 10x more so.
A lot of stories around him were already spread long before, and those are just picked up by more people now. And of course its not really about 'false' narratives anymore, a lot of what makes him unpopular are simply the things he literally said outright.
He is a narcissistic nepobaby, heavy on the baby. If he didn't win the genetic lottery he would be a tyrannical deli manager for some poor teenagers somewhere. His companies exist and thrive in spite of him, with dedicated teams for wrangling his stupider impulses. He desperately wants to be seen as some kind of 12 year olds conception of the good guy, and when he doesn't get it he reacts like the 12 year old would.
is father was a somewhat wealthy engineer. That about it. His farther wasn't some billionaire. Being born in South Africa to a somewhat wealthy family isn't exactly the golden lottery ticket. Evidence by the fact that most people born somewhat wealthy in South Afirca simply try to buy a house in England and get a job at some banking company or work for some mining company.
If you to go back to Musk birth year and had to pick 'most likely to be most powerful non government person in the world' how many people would you go threw before Musk?
What actually helped him more then wealth is that his mother was Canadian and that allowed him to study in Canada and that eventually allowed him a way to get to Silicon Valley. That doesn't just happen, most people from South Africa don't end up in Silicon Valley creating startups. He struggled more in collage then many others because he wasn't at good terms with his father. His father eventually invested a few 10000s $ in his first startup, many people with small business get more from their parents to get started.
And the idea that his companies 'thrive' in spite of him is just wrong. Tesla was going to shit before he stepped in. Literally everybody that worked closely within would disagree with you, and that includes many people that have long left his employment. Companies with terrible CEO don't just trip into being worth 100 billion $ or more. If he was CEO for a year or so and the company was already successful, maybe. But SpaceX started with a few people in shed and he took over Tesla when it was basically a pile of garbage.
To claim a successful business person was lucky is possible, if it happened once. But being CEO of two multi-billion $ businesses at the same for 20+ and both being considered incredibly successful and influential, that's all luck. You got the be kidding. And these are not some random internet companies, space and car companies routinely were considered some of the hardest industries to break into. There is a whole grep of people wealthier then Musk who tried to break into Space, they all failed. There are tons of failed car companies. Even when Tesla was created, they had problems getting funding and many other companies got more, nobody remembers companies like 'Good Place' anymore.
Again, I understand that somebody doesn't like Musk, but your position is utterly ridiculous. It takes a truly dissociated mind to come believe that nonsense.
Starlink is nice but does the US not possess an air platform that can loiter while providing mobile phone service? Seems like a useful thing to have for civil defense. Wasn't Project Loon supposedly capable of covering a state-sized area with 4G coverage?
Additionally, direct-to-cell has already been enabled in a bunch of places for them to do the validation where they were demonstrating text messages etc and showing off on Twitter.
I can't see the flagged post, but if you think "Elon Musk owns communications infrastructure he can turn off selectively" isn't political, I think you might need to reconsider what's in bounds for political. He's already done it to interfere with a war and he's widely meddled with what "free" speech he'll permit on his X platform.
His ownership of cellular signal is deeply intertwined with politics.
One of the many Musk myths that continue to float around. There are dozens of them at this point.
The turning off did not happen, it was a misunderstanding by a biographer that he later corrected. (Naturally the correction got a tiny fraction of the reach of the original)
This is what the future of communication looks like. It's really a massive step forward. No one will have to die from exposure when their cars break down, no planes will go missing, and no more black spots in natural disasters. It is also quite dignified and civilised that we are using this technology first to help the most vulnerable.
Communication is and has always been an important element in human organisation. Imagine if corrupt governments could no longer shut down the internet and cell service. Even a world war probably wouldn't disrupt this. People will be really empowered by this technology, we just need more competition in this space. But one step at a time.
Also: simmer down Elon fans and haters, this is not only about Elon. Look at the bigger, global picture.
Agree with all of that, except the world war part. Satellites will definitely be fair game in world war 3... probably one of the first targets.
Ham radio will live on!
I don't know – would we risk Kessler Syndrome for a war? Win a piece of land and doom humanity for a hundred years of regress in space? Maybe, probably can't be ruled out.
As for jamming, is it feasible or practical to jam very large parts of the world? I can't imagine it would be. It seems to me like jamming would probably be used for specific military purposes and people would be left alone to communicate with each other otherwise.
It's not that I'm saying this could not be done. It could. But this is not the most likely scenario in my head. The immense benefit to all humanity is a very likely scenario, in contrast.
LoRa is another equally exciting technology that has a lot of potential in all the spaces I mentioned. I just can't currently imagine a reason it would go mass-market.
Yes. The military believes that our adversaries would attack their satellites. China, USA and India have demoed the capability to shoot satellites in non wartime, adding tons of debris.
Of course we would. And anyway the Starlink constellation is low enough that even destroying the whole constellation would have a minimal impact after a decade.
The new "Iron Dome in Space" weapons program relies on Starlink being untouchable,
http://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughMuskSpam/comments/1eu994l/musk...
It's just a war game by a think-tank, not US policy or anything. Starlink would be the backbone of any autonomous swarm invasion, of course it would be the first thing to be targeted in a near peer war.
Um.. orbital Iron Dome is literally #8 on the GOP Platform for 2024: (almost certainly Starlink-based)
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-republican-pa...
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
That's not really what the report is relying on. It's saying having a system of detections and interception satellites which can catch ~100 missiles forces the stakes to be more "all out or nothing" from large scale threats and "fully preventative" for small scale threats (e.g. North Korea). It also considers the satellite layer 1 of 3 layers that help achieve that small escalation prevention goal.
Nowhere does the report claim a Starlink type satellite layer would be or would need to be untouchable in a full scale WW3 scenario.
wouldn't Russia/China/India just put nukes in orbit to be a step ahead?
I don't have a crystal ball but maybe. It wouldn't be instant, it would be an escalation itself. Maybe they could launch dozens without anyone catching on over time though. At the same time, if North Korea started launching a bunch into orbit the world would probably react on both fronts (launched satellites and launch facilities) before they actually got to the nuclear war part. Or maybe not.
Anyways, what I'm getting at is I'm not saying one way or another said satellite layer would actually prevent certain WW3 scenarios for sure or not. I'm saying the report is in agreement with the above conversation in that it was never claimed the satellite layer itself would be unaffected by a full scale WW3 taking place. I.e. its mention is out of place.
[flagged]
With how close to earth Starlink satellites fly, it won't take hundreds of years. Without the occasional boost back into orbit, it'll only take a couple of years for them to fall back to earth. Same with most spy satellites. We can do without space internet for a few decades if we blow up several of these constellations.
As for further-away satellites (Iridium etc.), that's a bigger risk, but there aren't that many that make sense to target in a war.
Energetic collisions can send debris on higher orbits with significant longer time to decays. It all depends on kinetic energy added
If pieces got bumped into a higher apogee wouldn't their orbit end up with a lower perigee as well? If so I think that might actually be better for deorbiting quickly
Diffuse debris while at higher orbit can take out satellites in those higher orbits (like Iridium, Kuiper, etc..)
> it won't take hundreds of years
Maybe not for Starlink itself, but its debris may be eccentric enough to hit satellites in higher orbits, thus causing an upward cascade of collisions resulting in debris clouds that do have a real possibility of remaining in orbit for many times the debris of Starlink.
Precisely
Russia has risked Kessler syndrome for less with ASAT missiles
> would we risk Kessler Syndrome for a war?
I mean, yes, absolutely! I wouldn't trust world leaders to understand Kessler syndrome, let alone care about it. If a world leader is comfortable killing hundreds of thousands of people to make their nation "safe", targeting civilian infrastructure, I have no doubt that they'd blow up some stuff in orbit.
To be clear, I don't want to risk it. I'd prefer we didn't live in such a warlike world. But the current world leaders are out here bombing nuclear plants and residential districts. A few satellites will feel very, very far away to them.
The same type that risks a nuclear war would easily risk Kessler Syndrome.
And don't forget there are people who think their god would protect them.
[flagged]
LoRa will never take off since it doesn't have the bandwidth for wide usage. Short messages are the limit. It also can't replace this usage since there aren't nodes in the middle of the ocean. If anything, this will reduce the need for LoRa messaging.
While I really really hope no one would be that stupid as to risk a Kessler syndrome... I think it's really likely in a very specific situation:
A non-space-dominant power (so not Russia/China/USA) gets into a tiff with someone using satellites. This player does have access to at least the vaguest concept of a ballistic missile. They take said missile and program it to fly into space (as most beyond the tactical level do), and detonate.
Nuclear or not, they don't even have to hit the satellite, they just have to throw up shrapnel. Hell, you can replace most of the explosive warhead with ball bearings. It may not immediately take down a specific satellite but it's almost assured to fuck space up.
And in case it's not obvious, this seems like a very North Korean type thing to do. Their missiles aren't terribly reliable or accurate (so far), but good enough to get into space and ruin everyones day for a very long time there after. They have, what, a single satellite? [1] when everyone else has hundreds? Why not level the playing field and assure no one can use any of them - given enough time.
I'd be willing to be its in someones MAD playbook as well. It only takes a few hundred nukes to effectively end all life on earth, permanently. There are still 5,000 plus in both Russia and the US's stockpile [2], not to mention China, France and the UK has a couple hundred each. What do you do with some of those few thousand extra nukes? Detonate them in air and orbit to take out your Doomsday planes [3] and any potential orbital capabilities - just in case you survive.
But honestly, the Kessler Syndrome wouldn't really be a concern at that point since everything, including the roaches, would be a radioactive pile of glass.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/north-koreas-first-...
[2] https://fas.org/initiative/status-world-nuclear-forces/
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_plane
By definition of going to war, they are willing to risk their very existence. Taking out satellites and making orbit entry fraught with hazards seems a very rational choice for many opponents on the world stage.
There a plenty of men who would be content to be kings of the ashes;
Don't consider this from the perspective of a reasonable person - ask yourself: what would psychopaths do?
It’s less that and more just basic strategy.
Your enemy has sat communications. You don’t. Well, it’s unlikely you’re going to get sat communications - so what do you do?
It’s logical to take out enemy communications.
The other side of the coin is, the enemy with the satellite can try to offer you the use of them as well, so you wouldn’t feel the need to destroy them - but will they?
If I have a rocket/missile capable of reaching a communication satellite orbit... why don't I have sat communications?
It's much easier to intercept than enter orbit. ASATs are 100 kg rockets.
International sanctions.
[flagged]
If the recent Middle East events have shown anything, nothing is off the table with a ww3 scenario.
[flagged]
i read that article, it says nothing about Starlink. I think you are thinking about a different concept which was Reagan's "Star Wars" missile defense system.
Starlink is the commercial prequel for Reagan's (now Trump's) "Star Wars 2.0"
https://ioc.exchange/@muskfiles/112522370451697720
Why does this exact word "hate" always appear in the top comment on Musk related topics? Is someone grepping this string for some purposes?
The aircraft body attenuates the signal. That's why all the antennas are placed outside.
Planes have had access to sat Comms for decades. MH380 had it but it was deactivated. Most likely by a suicidal pilot. The engines had their own uplink that was still active. But Starlink isn't going to solve that kind of problem.
> Imagine if corrupt governments could no longer shut down the internet and cell service.
Even in the parts of the world where this occurs it has been shown to be nothing more than a surface level inconvenience.
> Communication is and has always been an important element in human organisation.
Precisely. We don't exactly need the internet or cell service. We've got techniques and historical methods going back to the beginning of, unsurprisingly, recorded history.
> People will be really empowered by this technology
They're already empowered. This will mostly just convenience them.
Satellites can be hacked, jammed or destroyed
LEO satellites need constant replacement.
Drones staying connected in enemy territory.
I agree with the sentiment but LEO constellations like Starlink can and have been disrupted, via sub-orbital jamming. Not to mention that in actual large conflict surface to LEO missiles will simply destroy large amounts of satellite constellations.
Starlink is supposedly harder to jam than typical satellite comms due to its use of phased array communication. IIRC you need to either be flying overhead or putting out a ton more power in a ground based jammer to be effective.
And as the other user mentioned, no country at the moment has the kind of stockpile of ASAT weapons needed to wipe the constellation (plus, due to orbital dynamics, there's a limit to how quickly they can take out satellites).
Between trying to wipe the constellation and jamming it, it'd be far more cost effective to jam even accounting for the higher power requirements/lower jamming range.
There would also be other interesting options like capturing and using enough terminals to force the entire cell to be disabled. That has been one of the challenges SpaceX has had to deal with near the frontlines in Ukraine.
You can build a Faraday cage with a hole in the roof and starlink will be mostly unjammable.
Starlink satellites are vulnerable to repeated uplink transmitting their preamble code (which is public and the same across any user terminal). The satellites are so tuned to that code you can jam them through their receive sidelobes.. taking out all beams on the satellite.
Won't you need n jammers = n satellites in view for this? I haven't seen anyone commit to investing in this.
You could use a phased array to target each of them rapidly
A single omnidirectional transmitter on the ground can transmit this one preamble code in all directions and it jams all satellites in view. All Starlink satellites use the same uplink code and they can't change it because it's how new terminals enter the network.
No government currently exists that has nearly enough rockets to impact Starlink. There is a big difference between doing individual tests and taking down a constellation of 1000s.
I was curious why direct-to-cell hasn't been enabled everywhere, and it looks like it's because AT&T claims it would cause them an 18% decrease in network throughput/capacity. AT&T petitioned the FCC to block direct-to-cell rollout because of this.[1] SpaceX responded that AT&T's estimates of interference are incorrect, and that AT&T fails to account for many factors. Also, SpaceX argues that the public good of having cell phone access in remote areas outweighs the slight reduction of network capacity in areas with existing coverage.[2]
My guess is that the truth is somewhere in the middle. All else equal, adding more cell towers to an area will increase interference and decrease performance for existing networks, but I doubt it will be as bad as AT&T claims. Also T-Mobile made a deal with SpaceX to be the sole network with direct-to-cell for the first year after rollout. It seems more likely than not that AT&T is trying to hurt their competition using the FCC. If a different cell network had gotten an exclusive contract, I'm sure it would be T-Mobile petitioning the FCC to block direct-to-cell rollout.
No branch of the US government keeps statistics on how many people get lost in the wilderness and die each year, but it's definitely in the hundreds and possibly over 1,000.[3] Considering how often a working cell phone could save them, I think it's worth enabling direct-to-cell everywhere.
1. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1081242986780/1
2. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1021391547062/1
3. https://nypost.com/2020/07/04/why-hundreds-of-people-vanish-...
It also hasn't been enabled everywhere yet because the associated constellation is not complete yet. Current service is probably going to be intermittent. Basically, it's just better than nothing when in an emergency like this.
It's an excuse to establish 'facts on the ground' that the technology is useful which makes it harder to rollback via bureaucracy if it cuts into telco profits.
Too bad that didn't work for RDOF.
This would be trivial to test via deployment to merchant mariners in vast swathes of empty, international waters.
Does anyone know how this works? Do the satellites speak LTE/5G? Can cell phones really communicate with satellites directly without larger antennas?
It works with any phone with LTE.
It requires larger antennas. Starlink had to launch the V2 satellites which are larger and have new, big antenna for Direct-to-cell. They were meant for Starship, but that was delayed so they developed V2 Mini for Falcon 9. The version with antenna started launching beginning of year. My understanding is that are close to numbers for providing global coverage.
That's amazing, I'm having trouble believing that a mobile phone's antenna can talk to space, 500km away. Do you know what sort of bandwidth these will have?
The bandwidth will be small. I saw 2-5 Mbps for the whole cell covering a city. Devices will be limited to messages, small amounts of data, and voice.
But just to clarify, because I'm also having a hard time imagining this, an LTE antenna in a cell phone can beam data to a satellite and have it picked up? Even at whatever low kbps? That is insane to me!
Yes. It's been demonstrated a few times.
That's still the difference between lost in the mountains and "my coordinates are X, Y".
But it's still a mobile phone transmission power (1W?) and then r^2. Distinguishing that from noise seems mind-boggling.
Really just makes one think what sort of capability military has.
As far as I'm aware, the V2 minis are different from the DTC sats. V2 mini just has expanded network bandwidth. DTC are a specific variant of the V2 mini with the hardware needed for DTC. Not all V2 launches, even now, are DTC variants.
Yeah and only a few of each launch are direct to cell capable. Probably until starship works.
They're using T-Mobile's 1900MHz 5G band for this.
I wonder what the user experience was like. Did they have to select "Starlink" instead of "T-Mobile"?
If not, was there some kind TMobile-signed-starlink's-key situation?
It's an interesting interplay between preferring user consent versus wanting things to just start working when they need to.
This is for where there is no T-mobile coverage, so there is no need to choose satellite over a terrestrial station.
Roaming is generally automatic with no "consent" involved.
True. This vid was a major eye opener for how insecure the current staus quo is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVyu7NB7W6Y
In the limit, security is opposed to everything that's good and nice, safety included.
I'm not surprised that China, Russia & UK have plans for their own constellations, and eventually India too.
I think they would if they could.
They would need the funds and talent.
SpaceX have been able to do it on this scale due to reusable rockets
Off topic: what is up with the persistent anti-Musk crusading in this thread (and on HN in general)?
If you look at the kidme5, samegene321, and george23 accounts in this discussion you'll note that they predominantly comment about Musk in Musk-related threads (usually SpaceX, it seems), often sporadically with large delays between when they make comments (weeks and months). They also post the same things as each other (though this is non-obvious, kidme3 deleted the content of one of their dead comments, but it's verbatim what samegene321 posted). It's either an individual or a coincidentally very narrowly-focused group of people who not only think the same, but write the same.
I feel like I can spot musk-bashing astroturfing a mile away because they repeat the exact same criticisms that made big headlines but aren't actually true, but there's maybe like a tiny nugget of nuance to the topic, and it's repeated forever and ever like it's fact and Elon is literally hitler and tesla doesnt actually exist and space isn't real too and elon is just lying to you.
but also he's a xenophobic, transphobic asshole who supports politicians eroding really basic rights and liberties for people, so fuck em
> or a coincidentally very narrowly-focused group of people
Yea, coincident with money.
If you tie yourself to a specific politician, especially in a massively polarised environment, you're going to alienate many people, and it's hardly like Musk wasn't controversial before twitter and his swing to MAGA.
I believe it's fair and based on recent changes in musk's political outlook which many disagree with. His public persona really didn't used to be like this, and he never would have been so popular in the first place if that was the case.
Musk is, to say the least, polarising, and thus attracts a lot of people who take either highly favourable or intensely sceptical stances on everything he says. These two groups then feed off each other - those critical of Musk often feel compelled to counterbalance what they see as overly charitable interpretations of his statements or the actions of companies associated with him, and vice versa I guess.
In this particular topic, Musk has a history of being... opportunistic to disasters and tries to 'help out' to various degrees of success (see his weird mini-sub saga for the thai cave rescue, and Starlink's involvement in Ukraine/Russia war).
Personally, I think he's a terrible human being who uses his platform to spread vile hate which is incompatible with a modern world, and I tend not to separate the art from the artist (if you could call either of them that). But otherwise I'm not brigading out here.
> and Starlink's involvement in Ukraine/Russia war
Why is that in the same statement as the sub thing? Starlink has been absolutely instrumental to the success of Ukraine.
It’s probably because of the stuff he says and does OP
https://www.vice.com/en/article/twitter-elon-musk-dom-lucre-...
https://www.salon.com/2024/09/27/misinformation-superspreade...
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/elon-musk-...
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/18/media/elon-musk-trump-rally-b...
For less-polarizing examples: https://elonmusk.today
Musk is backing the republican party of the USA, using the reach of twitter and the power of his fortune.
The GOP has destroyed the trust involved in elections, purely on the ego of trump, and thrown away the peaceful transfer of power.
GOP state members have stated that they will discard the result of the election, sending their own picked electors. That will inevitably fall under the purview of the supreme court of the USA, who have shown themselves to be partisan and who will hand the election to trump. What happens after that is anybody's guess. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/republicans-set-stage-... + https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/08/supreme...
Musk is also spreading the "this might be the last election you ever vote in" meme, which is pure projection from the extreme right wing that has taken over so much of the USA. So I have a large amount of derision for provocateurs like Musk, who can simply fly his private jet to another country if the USA becomes embroiled in civil war. https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-claims-during-trump-081...
I utterly loathe the people that would cause violence and stolen elections, and musk is one of them.
And, to the people that would back the extreme right: they will turn on you the very nanosecond it becomes convenient to them.
California is basically a single party state at this point; something that Musk would be aware of; it seems that is what he is referring to.
> Musk is also spreading the "this might be the last election you ever vote in" meme
It’s hilarious that you’re spreading the left version of that meme and can’t even tell.
> "this might be the last election you ever vote in" meme
To be fair the left is saying the same, because Trump will end democracy, this time for real.
I am not American, so often only the crazy/extremist views reach me over the ocean, but I did read over the past years the hope in leftist circles, that migrants will make Florida and Texas first a purple and then blue.
He bought Twitter. The hate precisely coincides with that event.
Predates it by many years. It actually even predates the cave submarine, but strongly intensified then and increased roughly constantly until the present day.
he had to buy twitter
[flagged]
What utter nonsense, pure speculation based on nothing and nothing.
And that whole Russia conspiracy, outside it being nonsense doesn't even make sense. Russia doesn't need SpaceX to launch anything, SpaceX wouldn't launch anything for Russia if they knew anyway and if DoD knew they would certainty easily stop it whatever is 'legal'.
Instead of coming up with elaborate stories, its much simpler. He became very politically vocal and that makes you incredibly controversial. Musk was always somewhat controversial but going all in on MAGA stuff made him 10x more so.
A lot of stories around him were already spread long before, and those are just picked up by more people now. And of course its not really about 'false' narratives anymore, a lot of what makes him unpopular are simply the things he literally said outright.
[flagged]
He is a narcissistic nepobaby, heavy on the baby. If he didn't win the genetic lottery he would be a tyrannical deli manager for some poor teenagers somewhere. His companies exist and thrive in spite of him, with dedicated teams for wrangling his stupider impulses. He desperately wants to be seen as some kind of 12 year olds conception of the good guy, and when he doesn't get it he reacts like the 12 year old would.
The guy is a real jerk.
is father was a somewhat wealthy engineer. That about it. His farther wasn't some billionaire. Being born in South Africa to a somewhat wealthy family isn't exactly the golden lottery ticket. Evidence by the fact that most people born somewhat wealthy in South Afirca simply try to buy a house in England and get a job at some banking company or work for some mining company.
If you to go back to Musk birth year and had to pick 'most likely to be most powerful non government person in the world' how many people would you go threw before Musk?
What actually helped him more then wealth is that his mother was Canadian and that allowed him to study in Canada and that eventually allowed him a way to get to Silicon Valley. That doesn't just happen, most people from South Africa don't end up in Silicon Valley creating startups. He struggled more in collage then many others because he wasn't at good terms with his father. His father eventually invested a few 10000s $ in his first startup, many people with small business get more from their parents to get started.
And the idea that his companies 'thrive' in spite of him is just wrong. Tesla was going to shit before he stepped in. Literally everybody that worked closely within would disagree with you, and that includes many people that have long left his employment. Companies with terrible CEO don't just trip into being worth 100 billion $ or more. If he was CEO for a year or so and the company was already successful, maybe. But SpaceX started with a few people in shed and he took over Tesla when it was basically a pile of garbage.
To claim a successful business person was lucky is possible, if it happened once. But being CEO of two multi-billion $ businesses at the same for 20+ and both being considered incredibly successful and influential, that's all luck. You got the be kidding. And these are not some random internet companies, space and car companies routinely were considered some of the hardest industries to break into. There is a whole grep of people wealthier then Musk who tried to break into Space, they all failed. There are tons of failed car companies. Even when Tesla was created, they had problems getting funding and many other companies got more, nobody remembers companies like 'Good Place' anymore.
Again, I understand that somebody doesn't like Musk, but your position is utterly ridiculous. It takes a truly dissociated mind to come believe that nonsense.
[flagged]
Guy had a terrible upbringing, beaten and likely molested by his father.
IMO historically he directed his trauma and negativity into work, but now that he's on ketamine he just lets it flow everywhere.
Not sure which one is worse.
he involved himself in politics, so everyone who have strong feelings against his "side" or for his opponents, project it on him in a form of hate.
Inevitable consequence of the two party system and/or fptp election system
Starlink is nice but does the US not possess an air platform that can loiter while providing mobile phone service? Seems like a useful thing to have for civil defense. Wasn't Project Loon supposedly capable of covering a state-sized area with 4G coverage?
Google replaced loon with starlink and point to point laser tech
What weird phrasing. Loon just shutdown on its own and did not participate in any of the sat laser development for Starlink.
I'm asking why the US doesn't own a blimp with a base station taped to the bottom.
That would require the government to be innovative.
[dead]
[flagged]
That’s not what that link says at all.
Additionally, direct-to-cell has already been enabled in a bunch of places for them to do the validation where they were demonstrating text messages etc and showing off on Twitter.
[flagged]
I read the full thing. It’s only two messages and it’s about brilliant pebbles.
Absolutely nothing about sidelobe interference from the direct to cell sats (which are not the same thing as starshield).
[flagged]
Okay, but this political stuff is unrelated to the topic at hand.
I can't see the flagged post, but if you think "Elon Musk owns communications infrastructure he can turn off selectively" isn't political, I think you might need to reconsider what's in bounds for political. He's already done it to interfere with a war and he's widely meddled with what "free" speech he'll permit on his X platform.
His ownership of cellular signal is deeply intertwined with politics.
The commenter removed the content of their flagged post, that's why it shows the way it does even if you have showdead on in your profile.
If you mean you generally can't see flagged posts, go other your profile and check the "showdead" option.
> He's already done it to interfere with a war
One of the many Musk myths that continue to float around. There are dozens of them at this point.
The turning off did not happen, it was a misunderstanding by a biographer that he later corrected. (Naturally the correction got a tiny fraction of the reach of the original)
everything is political to someone, whether we like it or not
[flagged]
That's an anonymous post. It's not even conspiracy theory.
does it matter as long as people believe it?
[flagged]
[dead]