4 ms·

I don't see Starlink shutting down subscribers if the Belarussian government asks them to, at least not very quickly. If the terminals are available, this is g

by enkid 6y ago

I don't see Starlink shutting down subscribers if the Belarussian government asks them to, at least not very quickly. If the terminals are available, this is going to make all of the national internet projects (Russia, China, Iran) much more difficult to pull off.

toast0 6y ago
My guess is Starlink isn't going to turn off subscribers for small countries, but large countries like Russia and China may have more influence. The real question is if there's going to be enough receivers to make a difference.
- est31 6y ago
  Any country which has the capability of shooting down satellites has more influence than countries which can't do it. But even a country with like 100 million residents, if it doesn't have a space program (or someone protecting it with a space program), it doesn't have much of a say.
  - enkid 6y ago
    Countries that have that capability can't shoot down 40000 of them.
    - throw1234651234 6y ago
      If this becomes a thing, they will put a laser on a satellite and call it a day. All of the big 3 (military, not economically, you know who I am talking about) can do this easily. edit: In response to below - they are putting SHORAD lasers on Strykers soon. Things have become a lot more compact.
      - est31 6y ago
        High powered lasers on an aircraft carrier work because it has a nuclear power plant onboard. How will you launch a nuclear power plant into space? Note that the response to star wars contributed to the Soviet Union's bankruptcy :).
        Enginerrrd 6y ago
        Depends on duty cycle. It may only need enough power for a couple of big bursts. Chemical lasers might work quite well here if you can address temperature fluctuation issues. The power output can be sufficiently massive with a relatively compact storage of that power. The downside is just that they can't be easily recharged.
        ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        Soviet union had nuclear powered radar sattelites for reconnaissance, with a real reactor onboard, not RTG. it's definately doable. But the whole point of a laser is that you don't need to put it in space, it could be a large facility on the ground. Main considerations are political impact, not technical feasability. As for Soviet bancrupcy, impact of Chernobyl was definately much larger than space program shenanigans.
    - sergeykish 6y ago
      A few hits would provide enough junk for runaway process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
      - marvin 6y ago
        I don't think a country with space capability is seriously considering making orbit useless over censorship. That'd be like shooting yourself in the foot right after you've trained for a marathon, in order to ingratiate yourself with firearms manufacturers.
        sergeykish 6y ago
        And private company would not consider such risk either. Like with nuclear weapon ability to shoot is enough. Funny how it works with s/country/private company/ s/space/nuclear/, s/orbit/land/
  - grecy 6y ago
    Even countries that have the ability to shoot down satellites probably aren't going to shoot down hundreds or thousands of starlink sats, which is what it would take to end coverage.
    - est31 6y ago
      Good point, and indeed they can't, but they can cause a mess by shooting down a few. The other satellites will have to evade the debris which will cause headaches to the operator company.
  - tomatotomato37 6y ago
    Anti-satellite weaponry doesn't really apply here for the same reason land based artillery doesn't apply for trying to block pirate radio coming from a neighboring country
    - est31 6y ago
      You can also use a different analogy of an airplane that's in a foreign country's airspace without permission, not following any instructions by ATC.
      - SahAssar 6y ago
        The international law is very different for space and airspace.
  - bleepblorp 6y ago
    Shooting down an American-owned satellite would be an act of war against the United States. Not many countries have enough control over the US domestic political process to keep the potential risks of that low enough to justify the benefits.
- baybal2 6y ago
  > My guess is Starlink isn't going to turn off subscribers for small countries, but large countries like Russia and China may have more influence. That Musk guy lives in America? What about some extra persuasion?
AnssiH 6y ago
I'll be surprised if Starlink satellites are going to be transmitting any signals to countries where they are not holding the appropriate licenses to do so.
- petre 6y ago
  Do GPS sats stop transmiting while over adversary tertitory? No. But GPS is a military project.
notatoad 6y ago
Starlink requires a proprietary receiver, right? I suspect these authoritarian regimes won't be allowing starlink installations on the ground unless they get to have a kill switch.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
nix23 6y ago
You can use scramblers for satellite communication, that why you have to register your satellite phone in Russia otherwise it barely works. Source: Myself, in a very bad situation without a working Sattelitephone

by enkid 6y ago

toast0 6y ago

My guess is Starlink isn't going to turn off subscribers for small countries, but large countries like Russia and China may have more influence. The real question is if there's going to be enough receivers to make a difference.

est31 6y ago
Any country which has the capability of shooting down satellites has more influence than countries which can't do it. But even a country with like 100 million residents, if it doesn't have a space program (or someone protecting it with a space program), it doesn't have much of a say.
- enkid 6y ago
  Countries that have that capability can't shoot down 40000 of them.
  - throw1234651234 6y ago
    If this becomes a thing, they will put a laser on a satellite and call it a day. All of the big 3 (military, not economically, you know who I am talking about) can do this easily. edit: In response to below - they are putting SHORAD lasers on Strykers soon. Things have become a lot more compact.
    - est31 6y ago
      High powered lasers on an aircraft carrier work because it has a nuclear power plant onboard. How will you launch a nuclear power plant into space? Note that the response to star wars contributed to the Soviet Union's bankruptcy :).
      - Enginerrrd 6y ago
        Depends on duty cycle. It may only need enough power for a couple of big bursts. Chemical lasers might work quite well here if you can address temperature fluctuation issues. The power output can be sufficiently massive with a relatively compact storage of that power. The downside is just that they can't be easily recharged.
      - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        Soviet union had nuclear powered radar sattelites for reconnaissance, with a real reactor onboard, not RTG. it's definately doable. But the whole point of a laser is that you don't need to put it in space, it could be a large facility on the ground. Main considerations are political impact, not technical feasability. As for Soviet bancrupcy, impact of Chernobyl was definately much larger than space program shenanigans.
  - sergeykish 6y ago
    A few hits would provide enough junk for runaway process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
    - marvin 6y ago
      I don't think a country with space capability is seriously considering making orbit useless over censorship. That'd be like shooting yourself in the foot right after you've trained for a marathon, in order to ingratiate yourself with firearms manufacturers.
      - sergeykish 6y ago
        And private company would not consider such risk either. Like with nuclear weapon ability to shoot is enough. Funny how it works with s/country/private company/ s/space/nuclear/, s/orbit/land/
- grecy 6y ago
  Even countries that have the ability to shoot down satellites probably aren't going to shoot down hundreds or thousands of starlink sats, which is what it would take to end coverage.
  - est31 6y ago
    Good point, and indeed they can't, but they can cause a mess by shooting down a few. The other satellites will have to evade the debris which will cause headaches to the operator company.
- tomatotomato37 6y ago
  Anti-satellite weaponry doesn't really apply here for the same reason land based artillery doesn't apply for trying to block pirate radio coming from a neighboring country
  - est31 6y ago
    You can also use a different analogy of an airplane that's in a foreign country's airspace without permission, not following any instructions by ATC.
    - SahAssar 6y ago
      The international law is very different for space and airspace.
- bleepblorp 6y ago
  Shooting down an American-owned satellite would be an act of war against the United States. Not many countries have enough control over the US domestic political process to keep the potential risks of that low enough to justify the benefits.
baybal2 6y ago
> My guess is Starlink isn't going to turn off subscribers for small countries, but large countries like Russia and China may have more influence. That Musk guy lives in America? What about some extra persuasion?

AnssiH 6y ago

I'll be surprised if Starlink satellites are going to be transmitting any signals to countries where they are not holding the appropriate licenses to do so.

petre 6y ago
Do GPS sats stop transmiting while over adversary tertitory? No. But GPS is a military project.

notatoad 6y ago

Starlink requires a proprietary receiver, right? I suspect these authoritarian regimes won't be allowing starlink installations on the ground unless they get to have a kill switch.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

nix23 6y ago

You can use scramblers for satellite communication, that why you have to register your satellite phone in Russia otherwise it barely works. Source: Myself, in a very bad situation without a working Sattelitephone