5 ms·
A classified network of SpaceX satellites is emitting a mysterious signal
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- gchokov 1y agoGood luck looking for answers..
- ACCount37 1y agoThis reeks of SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar), and we know Starshield sats carry custom sensor payloads that normal Starlinks don't have.
- krona 1y ago> SAR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic-aperture_radar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic-aperture_radar?
- ACCount37 1y agoYeah, I just updated my own comment too for those not familiar with the term.
- Zigurd 1y agoI've been a pretty harsh critic of Starlink. I don't think it's going to compete well against terrestrial wireless links, specifically 5G FWA. But if they can actually do something interesting with distributed SAR in a large constellation, that's one of those national security breakthroughs that's worth every penny.
- stuff4ben 1y ago> national security breakthroughs Can you explain what you mean by this? Still not sure how SAR would fit in here...
- robszumski 1y agoIf a giant chunk of the constellation can act as a truly huge antenna, what can you get from that? Super high resolution? Seek/dwell time on a target that is effectively infinite?
- mdhb 1y agoAnd we are going to put that in the hands of Elon musk? Are you fucking kidding me?
- next_xibalba 1y agoIs there a viable alternative? SpaceX is the only launch provider and satellite operator that is progressing at a rapid pace and driving costs down.
- JKCalhoun 1y ago> Is there a viable alternative? Always a good answer. ;-)
- Zigurd 1y ago2/3 of Falcon 9 launches are for Starlink. No outside revenue. SpaceX continues to require new investment rounds. So the whole "driving costs down" thing might only work until investors expect some actual free cash flow. There have been 11 test launches of starship. You might've missed the last one because it didn't do anything new, except shedding parts and exploding less. There's a pretty good chance that program will never beat the cost of Falcon Heavy, or that the technology, like multiple refueling flights to get beyond low Earth orbit, is ever made workable.
- wongarsu 1y agoThe last Starship launch was indeed unspectacular because it didn't try pushing the envelope particularly hard. The previous launches were much more precarious, with many fire balls. But I'm a strong believer in iterative development. It's bad PR when everyone can see every failed prototype, but the "design it once, simulate, and make sure the first prototype flies without issues" boxes you in to conservative design decisions.
- ACCount37 1y agoThe issue with terrestrial wireless links is that you just aren't going to cover every inch of Earth's surface with terrestrial wireless links. At the same time: coverage comes cheap to Starlink. Which makes it perfect for serving areas no one wants to serve. Such as rural areas, anything outside the largest cities in underdeveloped countries, the open ocean, and so it goes.
- Zigurd 1y agoPlaces only Starllink can reach are an insufficient and shrinking TAM. The only places a terrestrial wireless provider doesn't want to serve are places that can't afford FWA even though it costs less.
- greenavocado 1y agoUntil the next war
- Incipient 1y agoStarlink has plenty of good use cases: - camper van coverage across whole countries/continents - rural farms/communities - global coverage for convenience (eg business travellers) - huge military use ...just depends if it's economically viable
- pavel_lishin 1y ago> Places only Starllink can reach are an insufficient and shrinking TAM. And yet, people live in those places, and you telling them that they're not economically worth serving isn't really solving their problem.
- lokar 1y agoPretending that they are worth economically serving with current tech or even tech that could be available soon does not help them either.
- 1y ago
- mensetmanusman 1y agoI’m surprised there are technologists that are harsh critics of low earth orbit satellites.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> if they can actually do something interesting with distributed SAR in a large constellation, that's one of those national security breakthroughs that's worth every penny ...could comprehensive SAR over the Earth's oceans uncloak submerged submarines when they're under power?
- yencabulator 1y agoRadio doesn't penetrate water well, for practical purposes almost at all.
- martinky24 1y agoWhat suggests SAR over downlink...?
- ACCount37 1y agoWeird band for a downlink, and runs continuously and indiscriminately? It being detectable over Canada suggesting the latter. If downlink - what receives it?
- ls612 1y agoStarshield with SAR that could support a missile lock would be a completely transformative capability in any pacific war scenario.
- cameldrv 1y agoYeah and the E-7 was recently cancelled. This is what Hegseth said to Congress a few months ago: “The answer is yes. I would. I would file this entire discussion under difficult choices that we have to make. But you know, the E-7, in particular, is sort of late, more expensive and ‘gold plated,’ and so filling the gap, and then shifting to space-based ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] is a portion of how we think we can do it best, considering all the challenges" I wonder if Starshield is the platform that is supposed to replace the E-3.
- dzhiurgis 1y agoThe fact we speak about it already sometimes suggests it has been already deployed, sometimes for many decades. Can it (a SAR sat doing a flyover) somehow be detected from ground?
- iamnothere 1y agoAnother day, another important international agreement violated. I appreciate what SpaceX has done for global communications, but do not under any circumstances flagrantly violate ITU guidelines. This undermines critical agreements that allow us to (for instance) use the ISM and amateur bands without pervasive jamming. The ITU is not a political football like the rest of the UN, it’s a highly technical, competent organization that’s well-regarded among spectrum users.
- Weeenion 1y ago7 Million people benefit from it, 8 Billion people don't. We should have done that A LOT slower without breaking shit left and right. Edit: Because of the one downvote: It affects astronomy and a PRIVATE company has impact on a war like in ukraine. And they are violating shit just because its Musk
- NitpickLawyer 1y ago> I appreciate what SpaceX has done for global communications, but do not under any circumstances flagrantly violate ITU guidelines. These are Starshields, not Starlinks. These are not operated by SpaceX. In the same way Boeing isn't spying on comms by building / launching an NRO satellite.
- iamnothere 1y agoGood point, in that case I suppose I should direct my criticism at the NRO. They more than anyone should understand the importance of ITU treaties, as having clear standards for the RF bands probably makes their job easier in many ways.
- Weeenion 1y agoI'm curious if you could destroy a SpaceX Satelite with a basic laser pointers. Easily enough for normal state actors and some university or engineering lab. You need only to track it and shoot your laser up there (its only 500km) and if it can't dissipate the energy fast enough, it would overheat.
- BobbyTables2 1y agoTry destroying a can of soda with a laser pointer first…
- Weeenion 1y agoDoes your laser pointer has a hard upper Watt limit? Consumer grade / privat buyable laser can easily be bought. And would i destroy a soda can by overheating it slowly and steadily because the can has no easy way of dissipating heat and has electronics in it which are not heat resistent?
- dylan604 1y agoI think "destroy" gets misconstrued in people's mind as exploding as a default. Rendering useless would be another way of describing it. Edit: what kind of laser would you be using to pull this off though? the amount of time the satellite would be visible and in range of your beam would be limited. they roughly have the same orbital period as the ISS which I've personally seen many times which is my point of reference. it's only visible for a very short time, so you'd need a very hot beam to work in that time frame. would it be effective as an additive heating. as in, would it cool off before the next time it came within range?
- JKCalhoun 1y agoDelivering that kind of power through all of the atmosphere between you and satellite is going to be a problem. And it's not sticking around overhead waiting for you to heat it up slowly.
- 1y ago
- ajross 1y agoI'm all for a good spy story, but this seems like a big shrug to me. Interference-sensitive satellite communication is done with directional dishes, who cares what some other satellite is transmitting? That's the kind of nonsense you already engineered around. And of course all communication managed by modern ICs is done with some kind of spread spectrum protocol with the property that "interference" is a routine/expected thing that doesn't degrade service. You can't break a modern satellite with an accidental transmission, you have to deliberately "jam" it. Is the ITU rule in question being violated? Probably. Is that actually impactful to real systems? Almost certainly not. Old rules are old. Our goal should be to work together to update them for the benefit of all (to be sure, not to violate them with impunity!), and not to scream about them as part of a proxy war about the CEO's political and conspiracy proclivities.
- iamnothere 1y ago(1) Some older satellites are still in use and this may affect them, especially if it becomes more common. (2) Defending these norms is important to prevent chaos on the radio bands. If we can do this, why not China? Russia? Europe? Erosion of norms has real consequences when you are dealing with a scarce resource like RF spectrum.
- ajross 1y agoI really think point 1 needs an example. Again, older satellites talk to dishes, not random off-axis antennas hundreds of miles away. > Erosion of norms has real consequences when you are dealing with a scarce resource like RF spectrum. So... no, that's wrong. Like 99% of all wireless data transferred anywhere is squeezed into a paltry 100 MHz in the 2.4 GHz ISM band, with no effective guardrails of any kind about who can use it, or with how many devices. Technology fixed this problem, dedicated bands have little to no value anymore[1], haven't for like two decades now, and any discussion like this needs to treat with that as a prior. Again, we all know this story isn't about rigorous adherence to international norms. It's about Musk doing shady spy stuff. [1] Outside some otherwise important edge cases like radio astronomy which aren't "communication" as generally understood.
- jmclnx 1y agoTo me, the main issue is not the signal itself, but the direction: >The use of those frequencies to "downlink" data runs counter to standards set by the International Telecommunication Union, a United Nations agency So, just another instance of the current admin violating an international treaty the US is part of.
- JKCalhoun 1y ago> Starshield's unusual transmissions have the potential to interfere with other scientific and commercial satellites, warns Scott Tilley, an amateur satellite tracker in Canada who first spotted the signals. Might that be the point? A space-based means of "hacking" satellites? Or is that kind of a dumb thing to do when you could do the same Earth-based?
- Jtsummers 1y agoPlenty to criticize the admin for, but these satellites have been going up since last year. Biden was president then, not Trump. This is TLAs being TLAs. They think they are special, and they are because they get little real scrutiny, unfortunately.
- anonymousiam 1y agoThe S-band uplinks are not typically used during operations. They're mostly used during transfer orbit operations and initial testing, and in emergencies when something goes wrong with the normal comms (safe mode). The S-band antennas on the satellite are typically omnidirectional, so they'll hear anything strong enough to overcome the noise floor. Those comms can be encrypted or in the clear, depending upon the situation. The military satellites that I'm familiar with stop listening to the S-band uplink when their normal uplink is operational, so interference shouldn't be an issue during normal operations. I'm not involved in this stuff anymore (now retired), but it's possible that the Starshield constellation supports transmitting on S-band (or L-Band) as a means to relay SGLS communications to satellites that are out-of-view. Having this capability would greatly benefit the workflow of transfer orbit operations and initial testing, by eliminating the constraint that the satellite must be in-view to communicate with it. It would also benefit anomaly resolution by allowing instant access to a malfunctioning spacecraft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Control_Network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Control_Network https://www.orbitalfocus.uk/Frequencies/FrequenciesSGLS.php https://www.orbitalfocus.uk/Frequencies/FrequenciesSGLS.php https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/473264/af-space-command-adds-new-antennas/ https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/473264/af-sp...
- stinkbeetle 1y ago> I'm not involved in this stuff anymore (now retired), but it's possible that the Starshield constellation supports transmitting on S-band (or L-Band) as a means to relay SGLS communications to satellites that are out-of-view. Having this capability would greatly benefit the workflow of transfer orbit operations and initial testing, by eliminating the constraint that the satellite must be in-view to communicate with it. It would also benefit anomaly resolution by allowing instant access to a malfunctioning spacecraft. That's interesting, thank you for the great comment. Would that kind of usage then not be counter to the standards, as suggested in the article?
- anonymousiam 1y agoAny sort of innovation may counter "standards", but without knowing the specific ITU terms for S-band, I can't say whether or not any regulation has been violated. The fact that somebody saw something pointed at Earth on a frequency generally reserved for uplinks doesn't necessarily mean that it would interfere with other spacecraft receiving the signals from the ground. Starlink (and presumably Starshield) operates in LEO, below most other LEO spacecraft. Maybe they're using a dish or even a phased array antenna, and pointing down instead of up. If so, the probability of interference is low.
- bob1029 1y agoThe mass of the starlink satellites has doubled twice since V1. It is not hard to assume that there is a significant DoD rideshare payload involved on the existing commercial satellites. Having a sensor platform on every single one would be incredible. The satellites that have been officially branded as Starshield (~183 we know of) could be part of cover or a more "kinetic" mission profile. If I was in charge at the Pentagon, I would want every one of those 10k birds to have my sensor package on it. I also don't think I would permit a commercial spaceflight vendor to perform as many launches as SpaceX has performed without some kind of arrangement like this in place.
- brookst 1y agoIt's an interesting theory, but I'm not sure it works. Do you design in these sensors and build in the normal starlink factory, where most people don't have security clearances? Or do you make thousands of people get security clearances, making it pretty obvious? And as soon as any data from a specific sensor leaks, adversaries would likely be able to pinpoint what satellite produced it. And then the contractual terms mandating commercial spaceflight vendors do this work. It all gets really complicated, with many thousands of people who are not part of traditional intelligence services all having to keep a massive secret.
- krisoft 1y ago> where most people don't have security clearances Are we sure about that? Because i see plenty of clearance required job listings to their redmond facility. > And as soon as any data from a specific sensor leaks, adversaries would likely be able to pinpoint what satellite produced it. Yeah. Thats why usually data from any satelite would be very closely held. Even with old satelites it was a big deal when the president just posted an image publicly. But i don’t understand your argument. Even if it leaks that wouldn’t make the sensor network worthless. Like this argument is true for any spy satelite. If the data from any sensor leaks it is bad. Not a reason to not make the satelite.
- brookst 1y ago
- timmmmmmay 1y agoThe relevant ITU recommendation specifically allows for space-to-space radio links. You can read it here: https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/sa/R-REC-SA.1154-0-199510-I!!PDF-E.pdf https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/sa/R-REC-SA.1154-0-... Why didn't the article author bother to read this?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> relevant ITU recommendation specifically allows for space-to-space radio links...Why didn't the article author bother to read this? How do you know they didn't? Scott Tilley isn't in space. He detected these signals. The material question is if those signals are propagating upwards.