7 ms·
SpaceX is building spy satellite network for US intelligence agency, sources say
- bparsons 3y agoWe were promised mars, but instead we got ubiquitous aerial surveillance of all human movement.
- rolph 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_hughes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_hughes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_musk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_musk i can still tell them apart, but the rhyme is uncanny.
- NN88 3y agoGranted, the US Government is going to eventually have to reel Elon’s, frankly racist, outbursts and controversial statements in and make him comply with a greater degree of courteousness and restraint.
- mlindner 3y agoElon is plenty of things but racist is not something he's been shown to be. That's a weird stereotype that people are lumping him into because of his other views.
- crotchfire 3y agoWe can neither confirm nor deny this connection.
- adontz 3y agoMusk has a long history of having opinions on policies. Why would DoD/CIA/NSA trust him with anything?
- dkarras 3y agoYeah, he also shows signs of being mentally unstable. Amplifies conspiracy theories. Is a Russia sympathizer, might even be compromised? Would be foolish to trust him with any sort of classified info.
- ikekkdcjkfke 3y agoBeing gaslit in mainstream media for a decade can do that
- jprd 3y agoElon Musk has been gaslighted? That can't be what you are trying to say.
- somenameforme 3y agoEverybody does. The only thing different about Musk is he takes us back to a time long since past where public figures were actually willing to voice their honest opinions, instead of just saying whatever they think will be well received.
- dzhiurgis 3y agoTrust has nothing to do with it when you got fixed cost contract
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- misnome 3y agoI mean, it's a commercialised payload launch system. I'd be surprised if they weren't.
- wmf 3y agoThat's not the cool part. Some fraction of the existing Starlink constellation are military satellites and nobody knows which ones. They're hiding in plain sight.
- uticus 3y agoExactly. The militarized ones interface with the others, ie they are part of the same constellation for all practical purposes.
- tetris11 3y agoShocked. Just shocking... (useless comment I know)
- Mr_P 3y agoNot really new news: https://www.space.com/spacex-starshield-space-force-contract https://www.space.com/spacex-starshield-space-force-contract (Oct 2023)
- uticus 3y agoOct 2023 is for Space Force, $70m. OP is for NRO, $1.8b. Yes published budget buckets tend to hide spending reality, but reported as a new contract with a new customer.
- ramesh31 3y ago"US defense contractor builds defense hardware for the US defense industry"
- bbor 3y agoI mean… yeah…? They’re basically a government contractor with a side hustle, and it doesn’t take a politics wonk to figure the American government spends more on the military than on NASA. > hundreds of satellites… $1.8 billion contract signed in 2021 with the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)… The contract signals growing trust by the intelligence establishment of a company whose owner has clashed with the Biden administration and sparked controversy, opens new tab over the use of Starlink satellite connectivity in the Ukraine war, the sources said. Uhhhh I meaaaaan kinda? It’s from 2021, and I doubt the NRO is open to switching partners for any reason, much less ephemeral foreign policy ones. Plus who would they even switch to, blue origin? They presumably are already behind 90% of existing NRO satellites. As far as national security is concerned, I’m only slightly worried that the obvious Russian asset that is Elon Musk would be able to do any damage via this contract. To say the least, the NRO is a secretive and security-conscious organization. If I trust anyone to institute proper information security protocols, it’s them. Well, other than that one time the president leaked their tech for fun at a press conference lol
- dotnet00 3y agoThe Russian asset claims are so incredibly overblown, the entire reason SpaceX exists is because the Russians pissed Musk off. All of the reporting surrounding Starlink in Ukraine has been misleadingly presented by the media for the sake of clicks, and Musk is hardly the only non-Russian person to suggest potentially compromising as a solution.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> Musk is hardly the only non-Russian person to suggest potentially compromising as a solution He is probably one of the few to have fed Ukrainian tactical positions and plans to the Russians. Musk isn’t a Russian asset. I prefer he be here than our sympathiser in China. But the reporting is far from overblown.
- rightbyte 3y ago> He is probably one of the few to have ... Really? Did he say so him self or how is that known.
- croes 3y ago>If successful, the sources said the program would significantly advance the ability of the U.S. government and military to quickly spot potential targets almost anywhere on the globe. Until satellites get destroyed by "accidents" and we get a belt of debris which makes the use of satellites much more complicated. Edit: accidents in quotes
- audunw 3y agoThe kind of LEO satellites that’s being considered here wouldn’t have such a big issue with space debris. In very low earth orbit the orbits decay rapidly, so debris is cleared fairly quickly. And using these low orbits is something SpaceX is in a unique position to exploit. SpaceX doesn’t care if the satellite falls down after 5 years because they can realistically replace a full constellation for a reasonable price within 5 years anyway. Having spy satellites in low orbits is also something that only works if you can launch hundreds or thousands of them since each one will cover a fairly small area. Again, something only SpaceX can realistically maintain. In fact, I think making higher orbits unusable for satellites would be extremely beneficial for USA right now, since they’re the only one who would have the capability of operating satellites in that environment without bankrupting themselves.
- croes 3y agoBut that would make SpaceX a legitimate military target. And making higher orbits unusable may be beneficial for the US military wise but really bad for all other purposes and countries which would be catastrophic in the long run.
- hackan 3y agoWhat a surprise! Who would have thought of that? :pretends to be shocked:
- credit_guy 3y agoThat's nothing. The real money will be in missile defense. Currently a single ground based interceptor costs, according to wikipedia [1], at least $74 million. Such an interceptor carries one kill vehicle [2] that weights about 64 kilograms. A Starship is able to put 100 tons of stuff in orbit, so it could send a huge swarm of such kill vehicles which could take care of hundreds of incoming threats. And because the Starship is reusable, this could all happen for cheaper than a single current interceptor. Starship has the potential to magnify basically overnight the US's missile defense capability by a factor of 100. Now you can do the math: F-35 has a lifetime cost north of 1 trillion, one single aircraft carrier has a price tag of $13 billion, one B-21 Raider is expected to cost about $600 million. How much would the US be willing to pay for an airtight ballistic missile defense system? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Interceptor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Interceptor [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoatmospheric_Kill_Vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoatmospheric_Kill_Vehicle
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- shade 3y agoAs I recall, this was more or less the concept behind Brilliant Pebbles [0], except Starship makes it cost-effective to launch. I'm not going to argue whether building it is a good idea, but it also seems like Starship has the potential to make launching a kinetic bombardment system [1] possible given the large payload capacity. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Pebbles#Brilliant_Pebbles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Pebbles#Brilliant_Pe... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#2003_United_States_Air_Force_proposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#2003_Unite...
- ironyman 3y agoLEO mega constellations are the future of space militarization. NRO + Space Development Agency is relentlessly moving ahead here with Starshield, next gen recon programs and missile tracking layers. Anyone who isn’t aggressively building production facilities to churn out tens of thousands of LEO satellites and the rockets necessary to launch them (ideally reusable rockets), and developing civilian commercial use cases from telecommunications to ADAS to spread some of the costs, might as well by living in the 2010s still.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoGood! I'm tired of US tech giants clutching pearls about working with their own government.
- briandw 3y agoI'm always wary of media reporting on Spacex. Reuters headlines on the starship launch was "Elon Musk's Starship explodes minutes after first test flight's liftoff" and "Spacex confirms loss of starship at end of third test flight" ABC "SpaceX Starship rocket disintegrates mid-air after launch". And the 60 Minutes piece implying that that Nasa couldn't rely on SpaceX because Starship. "RUD is SpaceX speak for "our Starship rocket just blew up again" "And now you've seen some of the perils of relying on SpaceX" Rather than taking about how the Falcon 9, that Nasa does rely on, is the most reliable rocket in history: https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/spacexs-falcon-9-rocket-has-set-a-record-for-most-consecutive-successes/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/spacexs-falcon-9-roc...
- 93po 3y agobe wary of media reporting on literally anything, journalism is hot garbage that is wrong and lies to you constantly
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]