3 ms·

> For which there is no evidence at all https://www.pcmag.com/news/pentagon-impressed-by-starlinks-fast-signal-jamming-workaround-in-ukraine https://www.pcmag.

> For which there is no evidence at all https://www.pcmag.com/news/pentagon-impressed-by-starlinks-fast-signal-jamming-workaround-in-ukraine https://www.pcmag.com/news/pentagon-impressed-by-starlinks-f... Are you in the denial phase or the ignorance one? If the former, why would the government take part in a conspiracy to pretend that Starlink didn’t require special support to work in that environment? If the latter, why would you even boldly claim “there is no evidence at all” without even doing a cursory search?

jacquesm 4y ago
Operating a receiver in a warzone is always going to be tricky, and operating a transmitter even more so because it might give your opponent targeting information (and that includes jammers, which you really don't want to leave sitting around for too long or artillery will find them for sure). The fact is: the Russians have to date been unsuccessful in suppressing Starlink signals, for a variety of reasons including some countermeasures. But let's not pretend that the main cost is in that aspect of operating the service. The main cost is in making and launching the satellites and once those costs have been sunk further use of the system assuming the terminals are bought and paid for. As time goes on and parties are getting more inventive likely there will be some more defenses against countermeasures. But a LEO based satellite system has a number of advantages over a GEO based one and those operate in war zones all the time. Hacks of Starlink satellites and terminals have - afaik - not happened. GGGP claimed: "The expensive part is not the terminals, it is providing continuous reliable service in a hostile environment with a determined adversary." -> I see no evidence for that. It is a cost, but not the cost. Note that Elon has a vested interest in making it appear as though he is spending a lot of money on keeping Starlink online in Ukraine, personally I would not put it past him to inflate those costs.
- kortilla 4y ago
  > see no evidence for that. It is a cost, but not the cost. Because you are not looking. The fact that spacex is having to spend engineering time at all making improvements to operate in an actively jammed environment means software and possibly hardware engineering resources not being spent on scaling the network, working on their next gen constellation, etc. For a company that runs as lean as SpaceX on engineering headcount (based on reading Blind and Glassdoor reviews), that opportunity cost is easily tens of millions of dollars. You’re also drastically misunderstanding the lifetime and duty cycles of LEO sats. Those things have to have time to dump heat and charge their batteries. Serving in Ukraine means worse coverage in America 90 mins later. It’s not just a magic mirror in the sky that costs nothing to cover the ground.

jacquesm 4y ago

Operating a receiver in a warzone is always going to be tricky, and operating a transmitter even more so because it might give your opponent targeting information (and that includes jammers, which you really don't want to leave sitting around for too long or artillery will find them for sure). The fact is: the Russians have to date been unsuccessful in suppressing Starlink signals, for a variety of reasons including some countermeasures. But let's not pretend that the main cost is in that aspect of operating the service. The main cost is in making and launching the satellites and once those costs have been sunk further use of the system assuming the terminals are bought and paid for. As time goes on and parties are getting more inventive likely there will be some more defenses against countermeasures. But a LEO based satellite system has a number of advantages over a GEO based one and those operate in war zones all the time. Hacks of Starlink satellites and terminals have - afaik - not happened. GGGP claimed: "The expensive part is not the terminals, it is providing continuous reliable service in a hostile environment with a determined adversary." -> I see no evidence for that. It is a cost, but not the cost. Note that Elon has a vested interest in making it appear as though he is spending a lot of money on keeping Starlink online in Ukraine, personally I would not put it past him to inflate those costs.

kortilla 4y ago
> see no evidence for that. It is a cost, but not the cost. Because you are not looking. The fact that spacex is having to spend engineering time at all making improvements to operate in an actively jammed environment means software and possibly hardware engineering resources not being spent on scaling the network, working on their next gen constellation, etc. For a company that runs as lean as SpaceX on engineering headcount (based on reading Blind and Glassdoor reviews), that opportunity cost is easily tens of millions of dollars. You’re also drastically misunderstanding the lifetime and duty cycles of LEO sats. Those things have to have time to dump heat and charge their batteries. Serving in Ukraine means worse coverage in America 90 mins later. It’s not just a magic mirror in the sky that costs nothing to cover the ground.