5 ms·

It sounds like they’re trying to sell two things: 1. Hosted payloads, where DoD entities pay to have something (telescope, Sigint equipment, whatever) strapped

It sounds like they’re trying to sell two things: 1. Hosted payloads, where DoD entities pay to have something (telescope, Sigint equipment, whatever) strapped on to a starlink satellite with comms all figured out for them. Probably a good deal if your stuff fits on that big flat satellite. SpaceX starlink launches do sway the launch market significantly enough (offering a launch at half othe price or less, beholden to starlink orbits) that it can seem worth it. 2. A government friendly starlink service which has security features like hardware managed encryption. The cynic in me wonders if there just isn’t enough market for commercial starlink. But honestly it makes sense to sell the empty edges, kilograms, and bandwidth to the government. They have a lot of money.

georgeg23 4y ago
It's part of this program, https://www.science.org/content/article/decades-after-reagan-s-star-wars-trump-calls-missile-defenses-would-blast-warheads-sky https://www.science.org/content/article/decades-after-reagan... More on Wikipedia: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities
- mlindner 4y ago
  That doesn't seem related. That's 3 years ago.
  - georgeg23 4y ago
    As the wikipedia article says (SpaceNews reference), the first SpaceX element for the program is finally launching this month (Dec 2022). But yes, it was first announced under the Trump administration in 2019 when the Science article came out.
  - kidme5 4y ago
    Yes they're related. This is SpaceX making public (to a partial extent) what they have long been doing for the Space Development Agency (a Mike Griffin government program closely aligned with Starlink). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career
TOMDM 4y ago
Also the more the government is bought into Starlink, the larger the pressure is to sideline regulatory problems.
shostack 4y ago
Makes you wonder, given the sensitivity of this, how the government feels about having Elon at the helm of it given some of his business ties.
- rl3 4y ago
  Or in light of his recent behavior that could charitably be interpreted as slightly unstable. But hey, the government somehow survived our last President and that was a far greater risk in just about every way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump%27s_disclosures_of_classified_information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump%27s_disclosures_o...
- mike_d 4y ago
  They don't care, Gwynne Shotwell runs the company. But I do foresee a future in which the SEC bars Musk from holding any executive position for any number of things he has done.
  - mlindner 4y ago
    > They don't care, Gwynne Shotwell runs the company. This isn't really true in as much as no one person can "run" a company. She acts as in her role as Chief Operations Officer and President of the company. She doesn't set long term vision and she doesn't generally handle projects that are in early incubation. > But I do foresee a future in which the SEC bars Musk from holding any executive position for any number of things he has done. We should try to keep our thoughts within the realm of realistic.
    - NickNameNick 4y ago
      Isn't spacex privately held? That'd mean that the SEC's opinions of Musks character, however valid, would have even less weight there than they might at Tesla or wherever else.
    - mike_d 4y ago
      > This isn't really true in as much as no one person can "run" a company. People seem to think Musk runs quite a few companies. > We should try to keep our thoughts within the realm of realistic. Anyone else would have had their ability to hold an executive position at a publicly traded company revoked by the SEC for this: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1026872652290379776 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1026872652290379776
beambot 4y ago
If anything, the war in Ukraine has demonstrated how useful something like starlink can be. It makes sense that the DoD would gladly pay up to create a dedicated, hardened network for its own utility with specialized tweaks...
- Retric 4y ago
  The DoD already had something like Starlink. SpaceX is trying to sell a lower cost version of the same thing, but cost savings isn’t that compelling for congress who sees costs as much as a feature as a bug.
  - skorpeon87 4y ago
    > The DoD already had something like Starlink. The NDSA doesn't actually exist yet, and SpaceX is presently the only company that could launch the larger versions of it.
    - Retric 4y ago
      They already have global coverage via a range of communication satellites used by various programs going back decades. For example the F-16 program had an independent network for effectively global coverage via 4 geostationary satellites. Other systems used polar orbits for actual global coverage. Starlink has more total bandwidth and lower orbits, but the US military only needs so much bandwidth.
      - beambot 4y ago
        4x giant geostationary assets have a drastically different adversarial profile compared to 10,000 mini assets.
        Retric 4y ago
        The DoD has far more than just 4 satellites up there. Anyway, it’s vastly easier to destroy LEO satellites than Geostationary ones. A surprisingly tiny missile fired from an aircraft doing Mach 2 can take out Starlink satellites as you only need vertical speed the satellite provides energy at collision, but geostationary orbit takes significantly more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon
skybrian 4y ago
To get more revenue from limited capacity, it helps to go after customers who can pay more. (Also, demand from governments is likely somewhat geographically different than demand from consumers.)
shapefrog 4y ago
> They have a lot of money. They will also pay $10,000 for a toilet seat. If you maintain the same markup the $110 a month sub will be $110,000 for the government
euroderf 4y ago
They split the arpanet into a military net and a civilian net. Time to do the same for starlink eh.

georgeg23 4y ago

It's part of this program, https://www.science.org/content/article/decades-after-reagan-s-star-wars-trump-calls-missile-defenses-would-blast-warheads-sky https://www.science.org/content/article/decades-after-reagan... More on Wikipedia: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities

mlindner 4y ago
That doesn't seem related. That's 3 years ago.
- georgeg23 4y ago
  As the wikipedia article says (SpaceNews reference), the first SpaceX element for the program is finally launching this month (Dec 2022). But yes, it was first announced under the Trump administration in 2019 when the Science article came out.
- kidme5 4y ago
  Yes they're related. This is SpaceX making public (to a partial extent) what they have long been doing for the Space Development Agency (a Mike Griffin government program closely aligned with Starlink). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career

TOMDM 4y ago

Also the more the government is bought into Starlink, the larger the pressure is to sideline regulatory problems.

shostack 4y ago

Makes you wonder, given the sensitivity of this, how the government feels about having Elon at the helm of it given some of his business ties.

rl3 4y ago
Or in light of his recent behavior that could charitably be interpreted as slightly unstable. But hey, the government somehow survived our last President and that was a far greater risk in just about every way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump%27s_disclosures_of_classified_information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump%27s_disclosures_o...
mike_d 4y ago
They don't care, Gwynne Shotwell runs the company. But I do foresee a future in which the SEC bars Musk from holding any executive position for any number of things he has done.
- mlindner 4y ago
  > They don't care, Gwynne Shotwell runs the company. This isn't really true in as much as no one person can "run" a company. She acts as in her role as Chief Operations Officer and President of the company. She doesn't set long term vision and she doesn't generally handle projects that are in early incubation. > But I do foresee a future in which the SEC bars Musk from holding any executive position for any number of things he has done. We should try to keep our thoughts within the realm of realistic.
  - NickNameNick 4y ago
    Isn't spacex privately held? That'd mean that the SEC's opinions of Musks character, however valid, would have even less weight there than they might at Tesla or wherever else.
  - mike_d 4y ago
    > This isn't really true in as much as no one person can "run" a company. People seem to think Musk runs quite a few companies. > We should try to keep our thoughts within the realm of realistic. Anyone else would have had their ability to hold an executive position at a publicly traded company revoked by the SEC for this: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1026872652290379776 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1026872652290379776

beambot 4y ago

If anything, the war in Ukraine has demonstrated how useful something like starlink can be. It makes sense that the DoD would gladly pay up to create a dedicated, hardened network for its own utility with specialized tweaks...

Retric 4y ago
The DoD already had something like Starlink. SpaceX is trying to sell a lower cost version of the same thing, but cost savings isn’t that compelling for congress who sees costs as much as a feature as a bug.
- skorpeon87 4y ago
  > The DoD already had something like Starlink. The NDSA doesn't actually exist yet, and SpaceX is presently the only company that could launch the larger versions of it.
  - Retric 4y ago
    They already have global coverage via a range of communication satellites used by various programs going back decades. For example the F-16 program had an independent network for effectively global coverage via 4 geostationary satellites. Other systems used polar orbits for actual global coverage. Starlink has more total bandwidth and lower orbits, but the US military only needs so much bandwidth.
    - beambot 4y ago
      4x giant geostationary assets have a drastically different adversarial profile compared to 10,000 mini assets.
      - Retric 4y ago
        The DoD has far more than just 4 satellites up there. Anyway, it’s vastly easier to destroy LEO satellites than Geostationary ones. A surprisingly tiny missile fired from an aircraft doing Mach 2 can take out Starlink satellites as you only need vertical speed the satellite provides energy at collision, but geostationary orbit takes significantly more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon

skybrian 4y ago

To get more revenue from limited capacity, it helps to go after customers who can pay more. (Also, demand from governments is likely somewhat geographically different than demand from consumers.)

shapefrog 4y ago

> They have a lot of money. They will also pay $10,000 for a toilet seat. If you maintain the same markup the $110 a month sub will be $110,000 for the government

euroderf 4y ago

They split the arpanet into a military net and a civilian net. Time to do the same for starlink eh.