3 ms·

Musk’s recent involvement in Ukraine’s use of starlink makes me deeply hesitant to rely on SpaceX for communications, especially when Russia is involved as is l

by vsnf 3y ago

Musk’s recent involvement in Ukraine’s use of starlink makes me deeply hesitant to rely on SpaceX for communications, especially when Russia is involved as is likely the case here. A service that is like starlink not run by Musk could be the way forward, of course.

ceejayoz 3y ago
Amazon's trying: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_Systems SpaceX's (not so) secret sauce is the cheap launches, though. That's going to be hard to beat for at least 5-10 years.
dotnet00 3y ago
That story was widespread, and ultimately false, with the correction never reported as loudly. SpaceX had always had the cells over Crimea disabled, Ukraine was not aware. Ukraine asked for the service to be enabled there for their drone, this went against SpaceX's policies and the US's policies, so they refused. At that point, the US had not given Ukraine any guided weaponry that had enough range to hit Crimea, Ukraine was looking to use Starlink as a guidance system, this would've created all sorts of issues and since Ukraine had asked for the cell to be unblocked IIRC a day beforehand, there wasn't enough time to even consider working through the various risks it'd expose SpaceX to.
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  Even if it didn't happen, it highlights the fact that it might be possible, right?
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    Sure, no country or company that needs reliable communications should rely on the stability of any single point, similar to how the DoD insists on dissimilar redundancy in national security launch providers, expecting the options to have supply chains with very little overlap such that issues with one don't affect the other.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  There have been problems with suddenly-lost connectivity in the past as well, because the Ukrainians advanced far faster onto Russian-occupied territory than SpaceX and the US government expected them to be able to.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- epistasis 3y ago
  I think the larger point is that access is controlled by a single point of failure, and that single point of failure is exceedingly unreliable these days. We would need an organization, not an individual, in control and that organization would have to be truly dedicated to net neutrality. Not dedicated to net neutrality when it serves them and their friends, or net neutrality as an empty marketing slogan, but actual real net neutrality. (Plus, your "correction" doesn't even come slide to covering all the issues that have been experienced, and the correction itself needs a few layers of correction, but that's all beside the main point.)
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
Could be, but I'm also uncomfortable with using civilian tech / utilities like this for warfare; if a government wants sattelite internet, they can launch their own. And I presume they have.

by vsnf 3y ago

ceejayoz 3y ago

Amazon's trying: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_Systems SpaceX's (not so) secret sauce is the cheap launches, though. That's going to be hard to beat for at least 5-10 years.

dotnet00 3y ago

That story was widespread, and ultimately false, with the correction never reported as loudly. SpaceX had always had the cells over Crimea disabled, Ukraine was not aware. Ukraine asked for the service to be enabled there for their drone, this went against SpaceX's policies and the US's policies, so they refused. At that point, the US had not given Ukraine any guided weaponry that had enough range to hit Crimea, Ukraine was looking to use Starlink as a guidance system, this would've created all sorts of issues and since Ukraine had asked for the cell to be unblocked IIRC a day beforehand, there wasn't enough time to even consider working through the various risks it'd expose SpaceX to.

ChatGTP 3y ago
Even if it didn't happen, it highlights the fact that it might be possible, right?
- dotnet00 3y ago
  Sure, no country or company that needs reliable communications should rely on the stability of any single point, similar to how the DoD insists on dissimilar redundancy in national security launch providers, expecting the options to have supply chains with very little overlap such that issues with one don't affect the other.
mschuster91 3y ago
There have been problems with suddenly-lost connectivity in the past as well, because the Ukrainians advanced far faster onto Russian-occupied territory than SpaceX and the US government expected them to be able to.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
epistasis 3y ago
I think the larger point is that access is controlled by a single point of failure, and that single point of failure is exceedingly unreliable these days. We would need an organization, not an individual, in control and that organization would have to be truly dedicated to net neutrality. Not dedicated to net neutrality when it serves them and their friends, or net neutrality as an empty marketing slogan, but actual real net neutrality. (Plus, your "correction" doesn't even come slide to covering all the issues that have been experienced, and the correction itself needs a few layers of correction, but that's all beside the main point.)

Cthulhu_ 3y ago

Could be, but I'm also uncomfortable with using civilian tech / utilities like this for warfare; if a government wants sattelite internet, they can launch their own. And I presume they have.