10 ms·

This issue has been such a mess, demonstrating how low reporting standards have dropped. For starters, the only thing Ukraine has been prevented from using Star

This issue has been such a mess, demonstrating how low reporting standards have dropped. For starters, the only thing Ukraine has been prevented from using Starlink for is as a guidance system for drones. On top of that, SpaceX asked for the government to fund Ukraine's use of Starlink, and if they were so worried about its importance, they should've just done that. It seems more than a little absurd to argue that SpaceX - unlike literally every other defense contractor - should both be footing most of the bill for the service and should have no say over how the service is then used. Then, adding on to that, there's a huge difference in terms of regulations between a US company essentially supplying long range guidance systems (and ongoing services which enable those systems) of its own volition to a foreign nation involved in a war and a US company contracted by the DoD to supply the same. This should especially considered in the context that the US has been extremely careful in limiting the range of the weapons it has supplied to Ukraine (with exactly the same reasoning SpaceX has used of not wanting to enable an escalation in the conflict), while Starlink is able to handle guidance well beyond that. This idiotic senator might as well be asking how they can trust ULA to keep launching satellites for the DoD when they won't unconditionally launch Rwanda's 300k satellite megaconstellation for free.

remarkEon 4y ago
Indeed. And if Starlink is used in guidance for offensive drone operations, Russia is going to view those satellites as legitimate military targets. I’m not convinced the people criticizing SpaceX’s decision to not do that (for free) have thought this all the way through.
- kirushik 4y ago
  Does this imply that GPS satellites are a legitimate military target for Russia right now? (I'm pretty sure GPS is used for guidance of drones and missiles pretty heavily there.) Or for a satellite top be a legit target the communication needs to be two-way? In such case I suspect Türksat satellite should be considered within scope, since Bayraktar TB2S (which reportedly has been used by Ukraine in this war) uses it for SATCOM. What about other military uses of Starlink, outside of guidance systems? Those are plentiful, and it's hard to see why there would be a drastic difference between guiding a drone and providing communication backbone for military operation coordination in the eyes of the Russians. After all, they are bombing civilian infrastructure just fine, and didn't even care to formally declare this "special military operation" a war... My point being, I don't think "legitimate target" has to do anything with Russia not shooting down any satellites; it's either lack of capacity or fear of retaliation, both being rather orthogonal to the targets "legitimacy" IMO.
  - dotnet00 4y ago
    Yeah I agree that SpaceX's concern is unlikely over potential attacks on their satellites. Not only is SpaceX able to put them up faster than Russia could shoot them down, attacking a Starlink satellite would be an act of war against the US regardless. I think SpaceX's concern is more related to domestic liability. The US's policy has been that they will not provide offensive aid for attacking into Russia. They've been very careful about the range of the systems they send for that reason. Unrestricted Starlink is not subject to those range limits. So, if the attacks which went deep into Russian territory involved Starlink mounted to drones, it would essentially be in violation of the US's own stated policy about military aid to Ukraine. Thus far this hasn't caused any trouble, but if something were to happen (eg an escalation), SpaceX might get thrown under the bus by the US government since they aren't contracted by the DoD to provide such service.
    - wazer5 4y ago
      Low earth orbit is easy to hit with anti-satellite missiles, can even use ASM-135 which is a interceptor fired from a fighter jet. GPS altitudes and up are a different story.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        There's over 3,500 Starlink satellites. That likely dramatically exceeds the number of anti-satellite missiles in the entire world, let alone Russia's.
        TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
        One hit will create thousands of fragments. How many consecutive hits would be necessary to create severe enough Kessler event to destroy most of the Stralink satellites? Dozens?
        XorNot 4y ago
        As everyone knows, the best possible way to deal with an aggressor is just straight appeasement. The risks are so large that appeasement is the only answer. If only we had historically tried appeasing belligerent foreign powers, think what wars would have been avoided... /sarcasm
- NickNameNick 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure spacex can launch starlink satalites much faster and cheaper than Russia can shoot them down. I'm sure spacex won't want to go down that route, but it's not a good tactic for Russia.
  - itsyaboi 4y ago
    Why would you need to shoot down all or even most of the satellites? Pop a couple, let the resulting debris fields do the rest.
    - NickNameNick 4y ago
      Kessler syndrome isn't magic. Space is big. Starlink satalites are small. And they're low enough thst atmospheric drag will deorbit must of the small debris very quickly.
      - itsyaboi 4y ago
        I disagree. Considering that StarLink satellites have a orbital period of ~95 minutes, I doubt that debris fields de-orbiting "very quickly" as you so precisely put it will be quick enough. And even so, just shotgun your payload of tungsten flechettes into a orbit a bit higher than the satellites and let gravity do the rest. I'm sure people smarter than me have considered these scenarios and done the economic math.
- andy_ppp 4y ago
  I really wonder about space junk if we start down this road, would the debris stay in orbit spinning round the earth or would it be pulled into the atmosphere?
  - wongarsu 4y ago
    It would come down, most of it very quickly, the rest eventually. The satellites are low enough to deorbit from drag alone within five years or so if their thrusters fail. Blowing them up increases surface area, which increases drag, bringing most of it down much faster. The way orbit mechanics works, if you impart energy on an object at just one point in its orbit, the orbit will change overall but still go through that point. Some debris will be put in an elliptical orbit where it will start crossing higher altitudes, but will also still cross the original altitude, causing it to be affected by drag and eventually deorbit. The worry is what it would damage until it comes down. At some debris density you start setting off a chain reaction (and arguably we are already there, it's just very slow right now)
    - ChatGTP 4y ago
      Could the blast itself be quite strong and blow debris further outwards into space ?
      - modeless 4y ago
        As the parent comment explained, unless the debris reaches escape velocity (in which case it is no longer a problem) it will periodically return to the altitude of the explosion or (more likely) lower, just due to how orbital mechanics works.
        ChatGTP 4y ago
        Sorry, missed that, thanks.
- appplemac 4y ago
  Just to clarify that the Starlink service isn’t being provided for free — many of volunteers (and not just them) are paying for subscriptions with their credit cards. [1] I’m sure there are additional costs for Starlink operations in Ukraine vs other countries, such as extra measures against jamming etc so the operation is less profitable in Ukraine than elsewhere. And from what I understand there are some terminals that work without a subscription (although I haven’t seen any info about them specifically). But it’s not free for many users in Ukraine. [1]: https://wccftech.com/ukrainians-are-paying-for-starlink-themselves-say-charity-workers-in-rebuff-to-musk/ https://wccftech.com/ukrainians-are-paying-for-starlink-them...
Giorgi 4y ago
It was Musk himself who announced that they will be providing Starlink, nobody forced him to, he was praised for it. Now, after failing to blackmail DoD for funding, he is trying to limit it and is shit on and rightfully so. Not to mention his recent dumbfuck proRussian comments on twitter. All in all - don't bite what you can't chew.
- dotnet00 4y ago
  Yeah, the lesson for SpaceX certainly has been that no good deed goes unpunished. Instead of assuming that everyone will act in good faith, they'll just have to assume everyone's like you and turn down future public requests for emergency aid until they have everything down on paper. Of course then you'll be complaining about the rich/big companies not helping anyone.
  - clouddrover 4y ago
    > Instead of assuming that everyone will act in good faith Musk never acts in good faith. Just one example is his desperate and failed six month attempt to back out of the Twitter deal that he himself proposed and agreed to: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/10/why-musk-gave-up-hes-almost-certain-to-lose-twitter-case-law-professor-says/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/10/why-musk-gave-up... The correct assumption when dealing with Musk is that he will act in bad faith. That is his track record.
    - mlindner 4y ago
      Musk historically almost always acts in good faith. He's never been in it for the money.
      - clouddrover 4y ago
        > He's never been in it for the money. Ah, so he must be in it for the bullshit and the lies. Like with his supposed full self-driving. Falsely claiming FSD "next year", year after year: https://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-promises-full-self-driving-next-year-for-th-1848432496 https://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-promises-full-self-driving-ne... In reality Teslas can't even park themselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsb2XBAIWyA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsb2XBAIWyA Falsely claiming all Teslas have the hardware for FSD in 2016: https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now-have-full-self-driving-hardware https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now... In reality the older Teslas now won't get Hardware 4: https://electrek.co/2023/01/26/elon-musk-kills-hope-tesla-retrofitting-new-autopilot-self-driving-hardware/ https://electrek.co/2023/01/26/elon-musk-kills-hope-tesla-re... That's some real good good faith.
schneems 4y ago
There’s a saying: "Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics." The problem as I see it isn’t the satellites specifically, they want to have a firm of understanding of what can and cannot happen. When you’re moving millions/billions of dollars of hardware, where mistakes cost lives, you bet I want to be sure I know what a CEO can and cannot decide on a whim. Especially this particular CEO with his many recent very public and very bad whims (across multiple companies, not just SpaceX).
- mlindner 4y ago
  This is what contracts are for. There was no contract signed here.
- yumraj 4y ago
  > Especially this particular CEO … Not just whims, this particular CEO has massive business interests in China which will result in a major conflict of interest in a potential US-China direct or indirect conflict.
  - mlindner 4y ago
    > Not just whims, this particular CEO has massive business interests in China which will result in a major conflict of interest in a potential US-China direct or indirect conflict. Most CEOs of most large companies have large business interests in China. If it's a concern for one it's a concern for all.
  - 123pie123 4y ago
    I never realized that I wonder if Elon could sell SpaceX secrets / IP to China?
    - wmf 4y ago
      That sounds like an ITAR violation.
      - 4y ago
Krasnol 4y ago
Wait a moment. SpaceX willingly paid for a batch of those devices when it served its own purposes. It was good advertising for them to provide those. They weren't even defense contractors at that time. Also: DoD just like some other EU countries bought additional devices and services. Everything was great until....the mad owner of the company started embarrassing himself with his side business and comments and suddenly financing became a problem. Musk has become a problem and seems to have lost his mind, so I can very much understand if someone who wants to do business with him, would take all precautions possible.
- dotnet00 4y ago
  Everything you've said is entirely divorced from reality.
  - Krasnol 4y ago
    You're right, SpaceX never paid for them. They just said they did: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/08/us-quietly-paying-millions-send-starlink-terminals-ukraine-contrary-spacexs-claims/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/08/us-quietl... Everything else is true, though.
    - letmevoteplease 4y ago
      Even your article acknowledges that SpaceX "donated a significant sum to Ukraine’s cause." They are just not footing 100% of the bill. It is not clear why they would be expected to do so. According to Musk, "25,300 terminals were sent to Ukraine, but, at present, only 10,630 are paying for service."[1] [1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1582098412501364736 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1582098412501364736"
      - Krasnol 4y ago
        So the guy who claimed that the US Government didn't pay even though it did pay is supposed to be a trustworthy source?
more_corn 4y ago
To be fair, SpaceX offered starlink for free. Then later the man-child twitted some bullshit about ceding large parts of Ukraine to their invader as some weird attempt to mollify the aggressor. When Ukraine rightly told him to fuck off he decided to pull the plug. It was only later that he made up the thing about cost. The way it played out could cause some cautious people to look for some assurances. Asking how you can trust someone who has proven himself to be mercurial, thin -skinned and prone to snap decisions, prone to conspiracy thinking, and with a proven track record of retaliation against anyone who questions his decisions up to and including baseless accusations of heinous crimes… Pretty good question actually.
- mlindner 4y ago
  Ukraine never told him to fuck off, and the plug was never pulled. That was the misreporting talked about in the post you replied to.
- dzhiurgis 4y ago
  > some bullshit about ceding large parts of Ukraine to their invader Interesting this idea still is a huge taboo in Eastern Europe, while rest of the world kinda moved on. btw this is same bullshit that China proposed
  - jhgb 4y ago
    > while rest of the world kinda moved on So "rest of the world" negotiates with terrorists nowadays?
  - TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
    Because last time when we were ceding territories of other countries to appease a dictator, it was year 1938 and we were ceding parts of Czechoslovakia. Guess what? It did not worked and WW2 started a year later. Really, is it so hard to learn from a recent history?
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      Who is 'we' here. The US didn't do anything in 1938. And the Brits and have done so lots of times since then. And lets not pretend the US doesn't have a long history of ceding issues to dictators if convenient. Handing over Afghanistan to the Taliban is apparently totally ok, but not defending Crimea is like the Münich conference. Looking at isolated cases in history you can come up with lots of example for anything and everything. Its a typical politician move to pick the singular events and then act as if it is a universal lesson for every situation. One can make the argument, but just say 'Münich' as if it settles everything is dumb.
Tozen 4y ago
> On top of that, SpaceX asked for the government to fund Ukraine's use of Starlink, and if they were so worried about its importance, they should've just done that. Exactly. SpaceX was doing a favor, at first, but the service still costs money. For the service to continue, it clearly needs funding. Just about any company will have a limit to how much they can or will provide for free. The answer to the problem, is mainly money. Provide contracts and money for the SpaceX service, and that will likely resolve the issue.
tguvot 4y ago
>This issue has been such a mess, demonstrating how low reporting standards have dropped. For starters, the only thing Ukraine has been prevented from using Starlink for is as a guidance system for drones. not exactly. there were a lot of reports that starlink functionality constrained to Ukrainian territory beyond "conflict line". When during September/October counterattacks Ukrainian forces advanced, starlinks didn't function and it created operational problems. >On top of that, SpaceX asked for the government to fund Ukraine's use of Starlink, and if they were so worried about its importance, they should've just done that. IIRC, it was mostly funded but usaid,etc.
- mlindner 4y ago
  > not exactly. there were a lot of reports that starlink functionality constrained to Ukrainian territory beyond "conflict line". When during September/October counterattacks Ukrainian forces advanced, starlinks didn't function and it created operational problems. Reports that Ukrainian leadership themselves denied. Starlink regularly has regional service outages (look on the starlink subreddit and just search "outage"), even in areas where there isn't an opponent trying to actively jam it as there is in Ukraine. Occam's razor and all that.
  - tguvot 4y ago
    >Reports that Ukrainian leadership themselves denied. they denied starlink service been shut down in general for new dishes/etc. what I described was month or more before that >Starlink regularly has regional service outages (look on the starlink subreddit and just search "outage"), i have starlink myself > even in areas where there isn't an opponent trying to actively jam it as there is in Ukraine. they can only jam it with jam. their latest advertised starlink jammer actually jams wifi ap
    - mlindner 4y ago
      > they denied starlink service been shut down in general for new dishes/etc. what I described was month or more before that My memory was that they denied it had ever happened, and my point still stands about general unreliability issues.
clouddrover 4y ago
> the only thing Ukraine has been prevented from using Starlink for is as a guidance system for drones I can't tell if this is supposed to be humorous or not. Ukraine is involved in an existential fight for its right to be a nation and a people. It's war. A war that Ukraine did not seek out. A war brought to Ukraine by Russia. A war that has cost many Ukrainian lives and will cost still more. Ukraine is not going to care about terms of service set by a petulant man-child who has advocated for submission to Russia. Especially not when volunteers and soldiers on the ground are paying for Starlink access themselves: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/15/the-hell-with-it-elon-musk-says-spacex-will-fund-starlink-internet-in-ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/15/the-hell-with-...
- jhgb 4y ago
  > Ukraine is not going to care about terms of service Well in that case they won't provided that service. That's how it usually goes. If it creates a significant legal liability to the service provider (which is the reason for many ToS clauses), the service provider would be absolutely stupid to not shut things down in such cases.
- dotnet00 4y ago
  Now say the same but for why the world insists that none of its aid be used to attack into internationally recognized Russian territory and why Ukraine isn't allowed to do so with HIMARS etc. I know this place loses its sanity whenever the bad rocket man is mentioned, but all they did is put themselves in line with the US's stated policy about the target of their aid to Ukraine.
  - clouddrover 4y ago
    So the new position you've shifted to is that Starlink should be usable for all purposes within Ukraine, just like all other aid. If you can't keep a consistent position from one post to the next maybe you don't have much of an argument.
    - dotnet00 4y ago
MagicMoonlight 4y ago
Starlink was offered for free and then elon started receiving payments from eastern people in trench coats and suddenly he starts talking about negotiating peace. Then he suddenly turns off starlink to try and sway a major battle. How can you trust someone like that not to betray you?
- mlindner 4y ago
  Starlink was never turned off. And there's been no evidence of him receiving payments from anyone for political purposes. And I mean just think about it, if someone tried they'd have to pay him a whole lot to not just run with it to twitter and mock the people who tried to bribe him.
- dotnet00 4y ago
  "he suddenly turns off starlink" That too had been a lie by CNN. They issued a correction two weeks after reporting that, which explained that the "outage" was a third party unrelated to SpaceX deciding not to pay for the terminals it had provided of its own volition and Ukraine had been fully aware, swapping those out with other terminals beforehand.

remarkEon 4y ago

Indeed. And if Starlink is used in guidance for offensive drone operations, Russia is going to view those satellites as legitimate military targets. I’m not convinced the people criticizing SpaceX’s decision to not do that (for free) have thought this all the way through.

kirushik 4y ago
Does this imply that GPS satellites are a legitimate military target for Russia right now? (I'm pretty sure GPS is used for guidance of drones and missiles pretty heavily there.) Or for a satellite top be a legit target the communication needs to be two-way? In such case I suspect Türksat satellite should be considered within scope, since Bayraktar TB2S (which reportedly has been used by Ukraine in this war) uses it for SATCOM. What about other military uses of Starlink, outside of guidance systems? Those are plentiful, and it's hard to see why there would be a drastic difference between guiding a drone and providing communication backbone for military operation coordination in the eyes of the Russians. After all, they are bombing civilian infrastructure just fine, and didn't even care to formally declare this "special military operation" a war... My point being, I don't think "legitimate target" has to do anything with Russia not shooting down any satellites; it's either lack of capacity or fear of retaliation, both being rather orthogonal to the targets "legitimacy" IMO.
- dotnet00 4y ago
  Yeah I agree that SpaceX's concern is unlikely over potential attacks on their satellites. Not only is SpaceX able to put them up faster than Russia could shoot them down, attacking a Starlink satellite would be an act of war against the US regardless. I think SpaceX's concern is more related to domestic liability. The US's policy has been that they will not provide offensive aid for attacking into Russia. They've been very careful about the range of the systems they send for that reason. Unrestricted Starlink is not subject to those range limits. So, if the attacks which went deep into Russian territory involved Starlink mounted to drones, it would essentially be in violation of the US's own stated policy about military aid to Ukraine. Thus far this hasn't caused any trouble, but if something were to happen (eg an escalation), SpaceX might get thrown under the bus by the US government since they aren't contracted by the DoD to provide such service.
  - wazer5 4y ago
    Low earth orbit is easy to hit with anti-satellite missiles, can even use ASM-135 which is a interceptor fired from a fighter jet. GPS altitudes and up are a different story.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      There's over 3,500 Starlink satellites. That likely dramatically exceeds the number of anti-satellite missiles in the entire world, let alone Russia's.
      - TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
        One hit will create thousands of fragments. How many consecutive hits would be necessary to create severe enough Kessler event to destroy most of the Stralink satellites? Dozens?
        XorNot 4y ago
        As everyone knows, the best possible way to deal with an aggressor is just straight appeasement. The risks are so large that appeasement is the only answer. If only we had historically tried appeasing belligerent foreign powers, think what wars would have been avoided... /sarcasm
NickNameNick 4y ago
I'm pretty sure spacex can launch starlink satalites much faster and cheaper than Russia can shoot them down. I'm sure spacex won't want to go down that route, but it's not a good tactic for Russia.
- itsyaboi 4y ago
  Why would you need to shoot down all or even most of the satellites? Pop a couple, let the resulting debris fields do the rest.
  - NickNameNick 4y ago
    Kessler syndrome isn't magic. Space is big. Starlink satalites are small. And they're low enough thst atmospheric drag will deorbit must of the small debris very quickly.
    - itsyaboi 4y ago
      I disagree. Considering that StarLink satellites have a orbital period of ~95 minutes, I doubt that debris fields de-orbiting "very quickly" as you so precisely put it will be quick enough. And even so, just shotgun your payload of tungsten flechettes into a orbit a bit higher than the satellites and let gravity do the rest. I'm sure people smarter than me have considered these scenarios and done the economic math.
andy_ppp 4y ago
I really wonder about space junk if we start down this road, would the debris stay in orbit spinning round the earth or would it be pulled into the atmosphere?
- wongarsu 4y ago
  It would come down, most of it very quickly, the rest eventually. The satellites are low enough to deorbit from drag alone within five years or so if their thrusters fail. Blowing them up increases surface area, which increases drag, bringing most of it down much faster. The way orbit mechanics works, if you impart energy on an object at just one point in its orbit, the orbit will change overall but still go through that point. Some debris will be put in an elliptical orbit where it will start crossing higher altitudes, but will also still cross the original altitude, causing it to be affected by drag and eventually deorbit. The worry is what it would damage until it comes down. At some debris density you start setting off a chain reaction (and arguably we are already there, it's just very slow right now)
  - ChatGTP 4y ago
    Could the blast itself be quite strong and blow debris further outwards into space ?
    - modeless 4y ago
      As the parent comment explained, unless the debris reaches escape velocity (in which case it is no longer a problem) it will periodically return to the altitude of the explosion or (more likely) lower, just due to how orbital mechanics works.
      - ChatGTP 4y ago
        Sorry, missed that, thanks.
appplemac 4y ago
Just to clarify that the Starlink service isn’t being provided for free — many of volunteers (and not just them) are paying for subscriptions with their credit cards. [1] I’m sure there are additional costs for Starlink operations in Ukraine vs other countries, such as extra measures against jamming etc so the operation is less profitable in Ukraine than elsewhere. And from what I understand there are some terminals that work without a subscription (although I haven’t seen any info about them specifically). But it’s not free for many users in Ukraine. [1]: https://wccftech.com/ukrainians-are-paying-for-starlink-themselves-say-charity-workers-in-rebuff-to-musk/ https://wccftech.com/ukrainians-are-paying-for-starlink-them...

Giorgi 4y ago

It was Musk himself who announced that they will be providing Starlink, nobody forced him to, he was praised for it. Now, after failing to blackmail DoD for funding, he is trying to limit it and is shit on and rightfully so. Not to mention his recent dumbfuck proRussian comments on twitter. All in all - don't bite what you can't chew.

dotnet00 4y ago
Yeah, the lesson for SpaceX certainly has been that no good deed goes unpunished. Instead of assuming that everyone will act in good faith, they'll just have to assume everyone's like you and turn down future public requests for emergency aid until they have everything down on paper. Of course then you'll be complaining about the rich/big companies not helping anyone.
- clouddrover 4y ago
  > Instead of assuming that everyone will act in good faith Musk never acts in good faith. Just one example is his desperate and failed six month attempt to back out of the Twitter deal that he himself proposed and agreed to: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/10/why-musk-gave-up-hes-almost-certain-to-lose-twitter-case-law-professor-says/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/10/why-musk-gave-up... The correct assumption when dealing with Musk is that he will act in bad faith. That is his track record.
  - mlindner 4y ago
    Musk historically almost always acts in good faith. He's never been in it for the money.
    - clouddrover 4y ago
      > He's never been in it for the money. Ah, so he must be in it for the bullshit and the lies. Like with his supposed full self-driving. Falsely claiming FSD "next year", year after year: https://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-promises-full-self-driving-next-year-for-th-1848432496 https://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-promises-full-self-driving-ne... In reality Teslas can't even park themselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsb2XBAIWyA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsb2XBAIWyA Falsely claiming all Teslas have the hardware for FSD in 2016: https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now-have-full-self-driving-hardware https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-tesla-cars-being-produced-now... In reality the older Teslas now won't get Hardware 4: https://electrek.co/2023/01/26/elon-musk-kills-hope-tesla-retrofitting-new-autopilot-self-driving-hardware/ https://electrek.co/2023/01/26/elon-musk-kills-hope-tesla-re... That's some real good good faith.

schneems 4y ago

There’s a saying: "Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics." The problem as I see it isn’t the satellites specifically, they want to have a firm of understanding of what can and cannot happen. When you’re moving millions/billions of dollars of hardware, where mistakes cost lives, you bet I want to be sure I know what a CEO can and cannot decide on a whim. Especially this particular CEO with his many recent very public and very bad whims (across multiple companies, not just SpaceX).

mlindner 4y ago
This is what contracts are for. There was no contract signed here.
yumraj 4y ago
> Especially this particular CEO … Not just whims, this particular CEO has massive business interests in China which will result in a major conflict of interest in a potential US-China direct or indirect conflict.
- mlindner 4y ago
  > Not just whims, this particular CEO has massive business interests in China which will result in a major conflict of interest in a potential US-China direct or indirect conflict. Most CEOs of most large companies have large business interests in China. If it's a concern for one it's a concern for all.
- 123pie123 4y ago
  I never realized that I wonder if Elon could sell SpaceX secrets / IP to China?
  - wmf 4y ago
    That sounds like an ITAR violation.
    - 4y ago

Krasnol 4y ago

Wait a moment. SpaceX willingly paid for a batch of those devices when it served its own purposes. It was good advertising for them to provide those. They weren't even defense contractors at that time. Also: DoD just like some other EU countries bought additional devices and services. Everything was great until....the mad owner of the company started embarrassing himself with his side business and comments and suddenly financing became a problem. Musk has become a problem and seems to have lost his mind, so I can very much understand if someone who wants to do business with him, would take all precautions possible.

dotnet00 4y ago
Everything you've said is entirely divorced from reality.
- Krasnol 4y ago
  You're right, SpaceX never paid for them. They just said they did: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/08/us-quietly-paying-millions-send-starlink-terminals-ukraine-contrary-spacexs-claims/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/08/us-quietl... Everything else is true, though.
  - letmevoteplease 4y ago
    Even your article acknowledges that SpaceX "donated a significant sum to Ukraine’s cause." They are just not footing 100% of the bill. It is not clear why they would be expected to do so. According to Musk, "25,300 terminals were sent to Ukraine, but, at present, only 10,630 are paying for service."[1] [1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1582098412501364736 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1582098412501364736"
    - Krasnol 4y ago
      So the guy who claimed that the US Government didn't pay even though it did pay is supposed to be a trustworthy source?

more_corn 4y ago

To be fair, SpaceX offered starlink for free. Then later the man-child twitted some bullshit about ceding large parts of Ukraine to their invader as some weird attempt to mollify the aggressor. When Ukraine rightly told him to fuck off he decided to pull the plug. It was only later that he made up the thing about cost. The way it played out could cause some cautious people to look for some assurances. Asking how you can trust someone who has proven himself to be mercurial, thin -skinned and prone to snap decisions, prone to conspiracy thinking, and with a proven track record of retaliation against anyone who questions his decisions up to and including baseless accusations of heinous crimes… Pretty good question actually.

mlindner 4y ago
Ukraine never told him to fuck off, and the plug was never pulled. That was the misreporting talked about in the post you replied to.
dzhiurgis 4y ago
> some bullshit about ceding large parts of Ukraine to their invader Interesting this idea still is a huge taboo in Eastern Europe, while rest of the world kinda moved on. btw this is same bullshit that China proposed
- jhgb 4y ago
  > while rest of the world kinda moved on So "rest of the world" negotiates with terrorists nowadays?
- TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
  Because last time when we were ceding territories of other countries to appease a dictator, it was year 1938 and we were ceding parts of Czechoslovakia. Guess what? It did not worked and WW2 started a year later. Really, is it so hard to learn from a recent history?
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Who is 'we' here. The US didn't do anything in 1938. And the Brits and have done so lots of times since then. And lets not pretend the US doesn't have a long history of ceding issues to dictators if convenient. Handing over Afghanistan to the Taliban is apparently totally ok, but not defending Crimea is like the Münich conference. Looking at isolated cases in history you can come up with lots of example for anything and everything. Its a typical politician move to pick the singular events and then act as if it is a universal lesson for every situation. One can make the argument, but just say 'Münich' as if it settles everything is dumb.

Tozen 4y ago

> On top of that, SpaceX asked for the government to fund Ukraine's use of Starlink, and if they were so worried about its importance, they should've just done that. Exactly. SpaceX was doing a favor, at first, but the service still costs money. For the service to continue, it clearly needs funding. Just about any company will have a limit to how much they can or will provide for free. The answer to the problem, is mainly money. Provide contracts and money for the SpaceX service, and that will likely resolve the issue.

tguvot 4y ago

>This issue has been such a mess, demonstrating how low reporting standards have dropped. For starters, the only thing Ukraine has been prevented from using Starlink for is as a guidance system for drones. not exactly. there were a lot of reports that starlink functionality constrained to Ukrainian territory beyond "conflict line". When during September/October counterattacks Ukrainian forces advanced, starlinks didn't function and it created operational problems. >On top of that, SpaceX asked for the government to fund Ukraine's use of Starlink, and if they were so worried about its importance, they should've just done that. IIRC, it was mostly funded but usaid,etc.

mlindner 4y ago
> not exactly. there were a lot of reports that starlink functionality constrained to Ukrainian territory beyond "conflict line". When during September/October counterattacks Ukrainian forces advanced, starlinks didn't function and it created operational problems. Reports that Ukrainian leadership themselves denied. Starlink regularly has regional service outages (look on the starlink subreddit and just search "outage"), even in areas where there isn't an opponent trying to actively jam it as there is in Ukraine. Occam's razor and all that.
- tguvot 4y ago
  >Reports that Ukrainian leadership themselves denied. they denied starlink service been shut down in general for new dishes/etc. what I described was month or more before that >Starlink regularly has regional service outages (look on the starlink subreddit and just search "outage"), i have starlink myself > even in areas where there isn't an opponent trying to actively jam it as there is in Ukraine. they can only jam it with jam. their latest advertised starlink jammer actually jams wifi ap
  - mlindner 4y ago
    > they denied starlink service been shut down in general for new dishes/etc. what I described was month or more before that My memory was that they denied it had ever happened, and my point still stands about general unreliability issues.

clouddrover 4y ago

> the only thing Ukraine has been prevented from using Starlink for is as a guidance system for drones I can't tell if this is supposed to be humorous or not. Ukraine is involved in an existential fight for its right to be a nation and a people. It's war. A war that Ukraine did not seek out. A war brought to Ukraine by Russia. A war that has cost many Ukrainian lives and will cost still more. Ukraine is not going to care about terms of service set by a petulant man-child who has advocated for submission to Russia. Especially not when volunteers and soldiers on the ground are paying for Starlink access themselves: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/15/the-hell-with-it-elon-musk-says-spacex-will-fund-starlink-internet-in-ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/15/the-hell-with-...

jhgb 4y ago
> Ukraine is not going to care about terms of service Well in that case they won't provided that service. That's how it usually goes. If it creates a significant legal liability to the service provider (which is the reason for many ToS clauses), the service provider would be absolutely stupid to not shut things down in such cases.
dotnet00 4y ago
Now say the same but for why the world insists that none of its aid be used to attack into internationally recognized Russian territory and why Ukraine isn't allowed to do so with HIMARS etc. I know this place loses its sanity whenever the bad rocket man is mentioned, but all they did is put themselves in line with the US's stated policy about the target of their aid to Ukraine.
- clouddrover 4y ago
  So the new position you've shifted to is that Starlink should be usable for all purposes within Ukraine, just like all other aid. If you can't keep a consistent position from one post to the next maybe you don't have much of an argument.
  - dotnet00 4y ago

MagicMoonlight 4y ago

Starlink was offered for free and then elon started receiving payments from eastern people in trench coats and suddenly he starts talking about negotiating peace. Then he suddenly turns off starlink to try and sway a major battle. How can you trust someone like that not to betray you?

mlindner 4y ago
Starlink was never turned off. And there's been no evidence of him receiving payments from anyone for political purposes. And I mean just think about it, if someone tried they'd have to pay him a whole lot to not just run with it to twitter and mock the people who tried to bribe him.
dotnet00 4y ago
"he suddenly turns off starlink" That too had been a lie by CNN. They issued a correction two weeks after reporting that, which explained that the "outage" was a third party unrelated to SpaceX deciding not to pay for the terminals it had provided of its own volition and Ukraine had been fully aware, swapping those out with other terminals beforehand.