4 ms·

Starlink is the future here right? You can’t sever a satellite link like you can with a cable. Well, actually I guess you technically can. But it’s definitely

Starlink is the future here right? You can’t sever a satellite link like you can with a cable. Well, actually I guess you technically can. But it’s definitely way more difficult.

actionfromafar 4y ago
Shower(-ish) thought: such cables are lasting and obvious artefacts for the future. These cables will stay where they are for eons. These Starlink satellites are like dragonflies. Once they are no longer continuosly replenished by new launches, they will disappear.
acuozzo 4y ago
You can lower the SNR to the point at which it's unusable. A system of distributed, hidden, state-sanctioned jammers doing C&C over a unaffected back channel would be roughly equivalent to "cutting an undersea cable", I believe.
- ElectricalUnion 4y ago
  > A system of distributed, hidden, state-sanctioned jammers I don't see how a system that likely would need to be larger that the Duga-1 "Russian Woodpecker" can be hidden, and the Duga-1 wasn't even particularly powerful enough at jamming radio stations - well, it was a over-the-horizon radar, not a jammer, but the power and size requirements for an actual effective jammer are still there.
- peter_d_sherman 4y ago
  >You can lower the SNR to the point at which it's unusable. This would be the equivalent to blotting out an AM or FM radio channel by outputting white (or other) RF noise on a given frequency -- or frequency range. >A system of distributed, hidden, state-sanctioned jammers doing C&C over a unaffected back channel would be roughly equivalent to "cutting an undersea cable", I believe. Roughly equivalent, yes... 100% exactly equivalent, well, maybe not... I don't know if Starlink is capable of frequency hopping or not -- nor the range of frequencies it is permitted to hop around in if it is -- but, if, let's say (for the purpose of discussion) that the following things were true: a) Starlink can and does frequency hop; b) The range of frequencies that Starlink is permitted to frequency hop in was infinite (1 HZ - infinite HZ) -- not true obviously, but if that that was the case, then: >A system of distributed, hidden, state-sanctioned jammers doing C&C over a unaffected back channel would be roughly equivalent to "cutting an undersea cable", I believe. Yes -- but it would have to simultaneously broadcast white (or other) noise RF on all RF frequencies simultaneously -- and it would have to use a sh-tload of power to accomplish that. The state-sanctioned jammers might have a lot of power to back them up -- but remember that the power of an RF signal falls away according to distance according to the inverse square law, that is, it does not fall off linearly, it falls off exponentially (like the light of an incandescent light bulb) -- so again, it would need one hell of a lot of power to block each and every Starlink (or other satellite) subscriber in a given country... If Starlink only uses one set frequency -- then blocking would be a whole lot easier (no need to expend unnecessary power blocking multiple RF frequencies) -- so perhaps the "system of distributed, hidden, state-sanctioned jammers doing C&C over a unaffected back channel" -- with enough power, could in fact work...
  - Anarch157a 4y ago
    > one hell of a lot of power Which is much easier to generate/store on land than on space. > RF signal falls away according to distance according to the inverse square law On land, a state actor, operating on its own territory, could put jammers every 50 km, which is much closer to the receivers than satellites that orbit at 550 km. Even if the jammers transmitted at the same power as a Starlink sat, being 10x closer would mean jamming signal 100x stronger.
    - peter_d_sherman 4y ago
      >being 10x closer would mean jamming signal 100x stronger. At a specific frequency. The effect is similar to how a nearer radio station at a given frequency -- will typically block out others that are at the same frequency, yet farther away... But does a strong radio station nearby mean that all other radio stations at all other radio frequencies are simultaneously blocked? No -- someone can simply turn the dial and tune in to a different radio frequency, and listen to another "unblocked" / "unjammed" station... If Starlink frequency hops, that is, automatically changes its frequency if bands of the RF spectrum are blocked -- then it will be much more difficult for the state actor to block all of them at the same time -- especially if each individual Starlink subscriber could frequency hop with no pre-set pattern, that is, independent of all of the others...
ElectricalUnion 4y ago
> You can’t sever a satellite link like you can with a cable. What do you mean? China, Russia, India and the USA have anti-satellite weapons around if they really want, and "destroy everyone's stuff with a kessler syndrome collisional cascading" works very well when the USA is the one with the most to lose.
- postingawayonhn 4y ago
  There are far too many Starlink satellites to destroy a meaningful number.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  Ironically, very-low-Earth-orbit as used by Starlink (lifepan measured in single-digit years) means that collateral damage from a-sat weapons would likely be limited. E.g., where Kessler Syndrome in even modestly-higher orbits would remain a problem for decades, at Starlink altitudes, most of the debris itself should de-orbit over a relatively short period of years. That could actually increase likelihood of such attacks.
bogomipz 4y ago
Starlink is an access technology. The Tier 1 backbone providers of the Internet are still terrestrial which means terrestrial fiber and submarine cables. Starlink still has to buy transit from the people with fiber. I think Starlink purchases transit from GTT, Lumen, Zayo and buncg of others. A fiber cut could still impact Starlink. Think of what happens when your ISP goes down but the Wifi on your routers is still up. It's somewhat similar.

Starlink is the future here right? You can’t sever a satellite link like you can with a cable. Well, actually I guess you technically can. But it’s definitely way more difficult.

actionfromafar 4y ago

Shower(-ish) thought: such cables are lasting and obvious artefacts for the future. These cables will stay where they are for eons. These Starlink satellites are like dragonflies. Once they are no longer continuosly replenished by new launches, they will disappear.

acuozzo 4y ago

You can lower the SNR to the point at which it's unusable. A system of distributed, hidden, state-sanctioned jammers doing C&C over a unaffected back channel would be roughly equivalent to "cutting an undersea cable", I believe.

ElectricalUnion 4y ago
> A system of distributed, hidden, state-sanctioned jammers I don't see how a system that likely would need to be larger that the Duga-1 "Russian Woodpecker" can be hidden, and the Duga-1 wasn't even particularly powerful enough at jamming radio stations - well, it was a over-the-horizon radar, not a jammer, but the power and size requirements for an actual effective jammer are still there.
peter_d_sherman 4y ago
>You can lower the SNR to the point at which it's unusable. This would be the equivalent to blotting out an AM or FM radio channel by outputting white (or other) RF noise on a given frequency -- or frequency range. >A system of distributed, hidden, state-sanctioned jammers doing C&C over a unaffected back channel would be roughly equivalent to "cutting an undersea cable", I believe. Roughly equivalent, yes... 100% exactly equivalent, well, maybe not... I don't know if Starlink is capable of frequency hopping or not -- nor the range of frequencies it is permitted to hop around in if it is -- but, if, let's say (for the purpose of discussion) that the following things were true: a) Starlink can and does frequency hop; b) The range of frequencies that Starlink is permitted to frequency hop in was infinite (1 HZ - infinite HZ) -- not true obviously, but if that that was the case, then: >A system of distributed, hidden, state-sanctioned jammers doing C&C over a unaffected back channel would be roughly equivalent to "cutting an undersea cable", I believe. Yes -- but it would have to simultaneously broadcast white (or other) noise RF on all RF frequencies simultaneously -- and it would have to use a sh-tload of power to accomplish that. The state-sanctioned jammers might have a lot of power to back them up -- but remember that the power of an RF signal falls away according to distance according to the inverse square law, that is, it does not fall off linearly, it falls off exponentially (like the light of an incandescent light bulb) -- so again, it would need one hell of a lot of power to block each and every Starlink (or other satellite) subscriber in a given country... If Starlink only uses one set frequency -- then blocking would be a whole lot easier (no need to expend unnecessary power blocking multiple RF frequencies) -- so perhaps the "system of distributed, hidden, state-sanctioned jammers doing C&C over a unaffected back channel" -- with enough power, could in fact work...
- Anarch157a 4y ago
  > one hell of a lot of power Which is much easier to generate/store on land than on space. > RF signal falls away according to distance according to the inverse square law On land, a state actor, operating on its own territory, could put jammers every 50 km, which is much closer to the receivers than satellites that orbit at 550 km. Even if the jammers transmitted at the same power as a Starlink sat, being 10x closer would mean jamming signal 100x stronger.
  - peter_d_sherman 4y ago
    >being 10x closer would mean jamming signal 100x stronger. At a specific frequency. The effect is similar to how a nearer radio station at a given frequency -- will typically block out others that are at the same frequency, yet farther away... But does a strong radio station nearby mean that all other radio stations at all other radio frequencies are simultaneously blocked? No -- someone can simply turn the dial and tune in to a different radio frequency, and listen to another "unblocked" / "unjammed" station... If Starlink frequency hops, that is, automatically changes its frequency if bands of the RF spectrum are blocked -- then it will be much more difficult for the state actor to block all of them at the same time -- especially if each individual Starlink subscriber could frequency hop with no pre-set pattern, that is, independent of all of the others...

ElectricalUnion 4y ago

> You can’t sever a satellite link like you can with a cable. What do you mean? China, Russia, India and the USA have anti-satellite weapons around if they really want, and "destroy everyone's stuff with a kessler syndrome collisional cascading" works very well when the USA is the one with the most to lose.

postingawayonhn 4y ago
There are far too many Starlink satellites to destroy a meaningful number.
dredmorbius 4y ago
Ironically, very-low-Earth-orbit as used by Starlink (lifepan measured in single-digit years) means that collateral damage from a-sat weapons would likely be limited. E.g., where Kessler Syndrome in even modestly-higher orbits would remain a problem for decades, at Starlink altitudes, most of the debris itself should de-orbit over a relatively short period of years. That could actually increase likelihood of such attacks.

bogomipz 4y ago

Starlink is an access technology. The Tier 1 backbone providers of the Internet are still terrestrial which means terrestrial fiber and submarine cables. Starlink still has to buy transit from the people with fiber. I think Starlink purchases transit from GTT, Lumen, Zayo and buncg of others. A fiber cut could still impact Starlink. Think of what happens when your ISP goes down but the Wifi on your routers is still up. It's somewhat similar.