Starlink direct-to-cell enabled for hurricane helene emergency messaging

147 pointsposted 9 months ago
by nynx
(twitter.com)

202 Comments

caseyy

9 months ago

This is what the future of communication looks like. It's really a massive step forward. No one will have to die from exposure when their cars break down, no planes will go missing, and no more black spots in natural disasters. It is also quite dignified and civilised that we are using this technology first to help the most vulnerable.

Communication is and has always been an important element in human organisation. Imagine if corrupt governments could no longer shut down the internet and cell service. Even a world war probably wouldn't disrupt this. People will be really empowered by this technology, we just need more competition in this space. But one step at a time.

Also: simmer down Elon fans and haters, this is not only about Elon. Look at the bigger, global picture.

acidburnNSA

9 months ago

Agree with all of that, except the world war part. Satellites will definitely be fair game in world war 3... probably one of the first targets.

Ham radio will live on!

caseyy

9 months ago

I don't know – would we risk Kessler Syndrome for a war? Win a piece of land and doom humanity for a hundred years of regress in space? Maybe, probably can't be ruled out.

As for jamming, is it feasible or practical to jam very large parts of the world? I can't imagine it would be. It seems to me like jamming would probably be used for specific military purposes and people would be left alone to communicate with each other otherwise.

It's not that I'm saying this could not be done. It could. But this is not the most likely scenario in my head. The immense benefit to all humanity is a very likely scenario, in contrast.

LoRa is another equally exciting technology that has a lot of potential in all the spaces I mentioned. I just can't currently imagine a reason it would go mass-market.

0xffff2

9 months ago

Of course we would. And anyway the Starlink constellation is low enough that even destroying the whole constellation would have a minimal impact after a decade.

wazer5

9 months ago

[flagged]

zamadatix

9 months ago

That's not really what the report is relying on. It's saying having a system of detections and interception satellites which can catch ~100 missiles forces the stakes to be more "all out or nothing" from large scale threats and "fully preventative" for small scale threats (e.g. North Korea). It also considers the satellite layer 1 of 3 layers that help achieve that small escalation prevention goal.

Nowhere does the report claim a Starlink type satellite layer would be or would need to be untouchable in a full scale WW3 scenario.

throw9474

9 months ago

wouldn't Russia/China/India just put nukes in orbit to be a step ahead?

zamadatix

9 months ago

I don't have a crystal ball but maybe. It wouldn't be instant, it would be an escalation itself. Maybe they could launch dozens without anyone catching on over time though. At the same time, if North Korea started launching a bunch into orbit the world would probably react on both fronts (launched satellites and launch facilities) before they actually got to the nuclear war part. Or maybe not.

Anyways, what I'm getting at is I'm not saying one way or another said satellite layer would actually prevent certain WW3 scenarios for sure or not. I'm saying the report is in agreement with the above conversation in that it was never claimed the satellite layer itself would be unaffected by a full scale WW3 taking place. I.e. its mention is out of place.

user

9 months ago

[deleted]

throw9474

9 months ago

[flagged]

jazzyjackson

9 months ago

It's just a war game by a think-tank, not US policy or anything. Starlink would be the backbone of any autonomous swarm invasion, of course it would be the first thing to be targeted in a near peer war.

jeroenhd

9 months ago

With how close to earth Starlink satellites fly, it won't take hundreds of years. Without the occasional boost back into orbit, it'll only take a couple of years for them to fall back to earth. Same with most spy satellites. We can do without space internet for a few decades if we blow up several of these constellations.

As for further-away satellites (Iridium etc.), that's a bigger risk, but there aren't that many that make sense to target in a war.

Heliosmaster

9 months ago

Energetic collisions can send debris on higher orbits with significant longer time to decays. It all depends on kinetic energy added

Rebelgecko

9 months ago

If pieces got bumped into a higher apogee wouldn't their orbit end up with a lower perigee as well? If so I think that might actually be better for deorbiting quickly

meowster

9 months ago

As long as it doesn't hit something while it's in apogee.

bryanlarsen

9 months ago

One collision might be barely statistically possible. Enough collisions to start Kessler takes a lot more than one.

meowster

9 months ago

Isn't it the Kessler Syndrome when the debris from the first collision creates the subsequent collisions?

throw9474

9 months ago

Diffuse debris while at higher orbit can take out satellites in those higher orbits (like Iridium, Kuiper, etc..)

mattashii

9 months ago

> it won't take hundreds of years

Maybe not for Starlink itself, but its debris may be eccentric enough to hit satellites in higher orbits, thus causing an upward cascade of collisions resulting in debris clouds that do have a real possibility of remaining in orbit for many times the debris of Starlink.

bryanlarsen

9 months ago

Eccentric orbits mean higher apogee but also lower perigee, which for something at Starlink altitude likely means perigee is below the Karman line. Which means they'd deorbit within 90 minutes. So they'd only have one chance to hit something in higher orbit. You won't get enough collisions to start Kessler.

mattashii

9 months ago

Starlink operational orbits are generally >500KM high (original license "at 525, 530, and 535 km", -Wikipedia).

I think it is not unreasonable to expect any debris clouds from Starlink to impact orbits from 300km to 700km for many months, if not years. Even if the debris with highest eccentricity will quickly burn up in the upper atmosphere, there will likely remain a significant portion in orbits that are eccentric enough to be problematic for higher orbits for years, (slowly?) cascading the debris orbits upward. It doesn't have to happen immediately after impact, but kessler syndrome doesn't have to imply 100% guaranteed loss in a day either.

bryanlarsen

9 months ago

Debris has a much higher surface to mass ratio than satellites due to their smaller size and irregular shape. Therefore debris deorbits much quicker than satellites do.

300km orbit decays in about a month, so the risk is already reduced significantly.

And there's not much in the 500 - 700km range now. Kuiper will be there soon, but anybody that takes out Starlink is also going to take out Kuiper.

croes

9 months ago

The same type that risks a nuclear war would easily risk Kessler Syndrome.

And don't forget there are people who think their god would protect them.

whaaaaat

9 months ago

> would we risk Kessler Syndrome for a war?

I mean, yes, absolutely! I wouldn't trust world leaders to understand Kessler syndrome, let alone care about it. If a world leader is comfortable killing hundreds of thousands of people to make their nation "safe", targeting civilian infrastructure, I have no doubt that they'd blow up some stuff in orbit.

To be clear, I don't want to risk it. I'd prefer we didn't live in such a warlike world. But the current world leaders are out here bombing nuclear plants and residential districts. A few satellites will feel very, very far away to them.

user

9 months ago

[deleted]

user

9 months ago

[deleted]

bagels

9 months ago

Yes. The military believes that our adversaries would attack their satellites. China, USA and India have demoed the capability to shoot satellites in non wartime, adding tons of debris.

ianburrell

9 months ago

LoRa will never take off since it doesn't have the bandwidth for wide usage. Short messages are the limit. It also can't replace this usage since there aren't nodes in the middle of the ocean. If anything, this will reduce the need for LoRa messaging.

yarg

9 months ago

There a plenty of men who would be content to be kings of the ashes;

Don't consider this from the perspective of a reasonable person - ask yourself: what would psychopaths do?

aaomidi

9 months ago

It’s less that and more just basic strategy.

Your enemy has sat communications. You don’t. Well, it’s unlikely you’re going to get sat communications - so what do you do?

It’s logical to take out enemy communications.

The other side of the coin is, the enemy with the satellite can try to offer you the use of them as well, so you wouldn’t feel the need to destroy them - but will they?

michaelt

9 months ago

If I have a rocket/missile capable of reaching a communication satellite orbit... why don't I have sat communications?

gosub100

9 months ago

International sanctions.

throw9474

9 months ago

It's much easier to intercept than enter orbit. ASATs are 100 kg rockets.

kortilla

9 months ago

Russia has risked Kessler syndrome for less with ASAT missiles

ShakataGaNai

9 months ago

While I really really hope no one would be that stupid as to risk a Kessler syndrome... I think it's really likely in a very specific situation:

A non-space-dominant power (so not Russia/China/USA) gets into a tiff with someone using satellites. This player does have access to at least the vaguest concept of a ballistic missile. They take said missile and program it to fly into space (as most beyond the tactical level do), and detonate.

Nuclear or not, they don't even have to hit the satellite, they just have to throw up shrapnel. Hell, you can replace most of the explosive warhead with ball bearings. It may not immediately take down a specific satellite but it's almost assured to fuck space up.

And in case it's not obvious, this seems like a very North Korean type thing to do. Their missiles aren't terribly reliable or accurate (so far), but good enough to get into space and ruin everyones day for a very long time there after. They have, what, a single satellite? [1] when everyone else has hundreds? Why not level the playing field and assure no one can use any of them - given enough time.

I'd be willing to be its in someones MAD playbook as well. It only takes a few hundred nukes to effectively end all life on earth, permanently. There are still 5,000 plus in both Russia and the US's stockpile [2], not to mention China, France and the UK has a couple hundred each. What do you do with some of those few thousand extra nukes? Detonate them in air and orbit to take out your Doomsday planes [3] and any potential orbital capabilities - just in case you survive.

But honestly, the Kessler Syndrome wouldn't really be a concern at that point since everything, including the roaches, would be a radioactive pile of glass.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/north-koreas-first-...

[2] https://fas.org/initiative/status-world-nuclear-forces/

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_plane

gruez

9 months ago

>It only takes a few hundred nukes to effectively end all life on earth, permanently

Human civilization maybe, but "all life on earth" is a stretch

out_of_protocol

9 months ago

There's some life kilometers deep into the Earth, don't think it's possible to destroy that without deep-frying whole planet

gosub100

9 months ago

By definition of going to war, they are willing to risk their very existence. Taking out satellites and making orbit entry fraught with hazards seems a very rational choice for many opponents on the world stage.

aaomidi

9 months ago

If the recent Middle East events have shown anything, nothing is off the table with a ww3 scenario.

entropicwaves

9 months ago

[flagged]

floydnoel

9 months ago

i read that article, it says nothing about Starlink. I think you are thinking about a different concept which was Reagan's "Star Wars" missile defense system.

tzs

9 months ago

> This is what the future of communication looks like

Is there sufficient capacity?

For broadband Starlink has an upper limit on the density of its customers. By density I mean number of customers per km^2 rather than some prohibition against dumb people using Starlink :-)

Estimates of this limit vary. When I did a back of the envelope calculation a couple assuming all 12000 planned satellites get deployed I got 4.4 simultaneous people doing full speed downloads per km^2. I had to make some guesses for that, in particular the number of satellites visible. If the satellites were spread uniformly around the Earth then at any one time about 360 would be visible from any given location. But they aren't uniform. They have orbits that favor spending more time over the mid latitudes than the high latitudes. That increases the number visible from the mid and low latitudes and lowers the number visible from high latitudes. I just assumed an even 1000 at any one time in mid latitudes.

Others estimates are as high as 30 simultaneous people using full speed per km^2.

This is why providers of wired/fiber or terrestrial wireless broadband in decent sizes cities aren't worried about Starlink.

I'd expect Starlink LTE to have the same kind of limitation, albeit with very different numbers. The bandwidth needed for one 100 Mbps download would be enough for at least 1000 telephone quality voice streams, but I doubt the satellites have the same amount of bandwidth available over LTE as they do over whatever they are using for the internet stuff, so I don't see any way to get a good estimate.

ActorNightly

9 months ago

>Look at the bigger, global picture.

Global picture doesn't work with people in charge of this. If someone shows substantial evidence of mental decline, would you want them anywhere near anything that has to do with global communications?

throwaway48476

9 months ago

The aircraft body attenuates the signal. That's why all the antennas are placed outside.

wkat4242

9 months ago

Planes have had access to sat Comms for decades. MH380 had it but it was deactivated. Most likely by a suicidal pilot. The engines had their own uplink that was still active. But Starlink isn't going to solve that kind of problem.

numpad0

9 months ago

Why does this exact word "hate" always appear in the top comment on Musk related topics? Is someone grepping this string for some purposes?

croes

9 months ago

Satellites can be hacked, jammed or destroyed

LEO satellites need constant replacement.

bigfatkitten

9 months ago

> no planes will go missing

This doesn't change anything for aircraft because aviation has had this capability for decades.

Even light aircraft have ELTs and ADS-B, and larger aircraft operating in oceanic airspace also have real time position reporting via datalink over VHF radio and SATCOM.

> Imagine if corrupt governments could no longer shut down the internet and cell service.

Satellite operators will continue deny service to particular areas whenever they're told to, just as they do today.

delfinom

9 months ago

Eh? Planes going missing is because operators don't want to buy into satcom systems or the pilot pulled the fuses. Most US airlines fully know where their plane is at all times , complete with plane internal telemetry beamed to an engineering department at the airline.

acover

9 months ago

Drones staying connected in enemy territory.

akira2501

9 months ago

> Imagine if corrupt governments could no longer shut down the internet and cell service.

Even in the parts of the world where this occurs it has been shown to be nothing more than a surface level inconvenience.

> Communication is and has always been an important element in human organisation.

Precisely. We don't exactly need the internet or cell service. We've got techniques and historical methods going back to the beginning of, unsurprisingly, recorded history.

> People will be really empowered by this technology

They're already empowered. This will mostly just convenience them.

gruez

9 months ago

>> Imagine if corrupt governments could no longer shut down the internet and cell service.

>Even in the parts of the world where this occurs it has been shown to be nothing more than a surface level inconvenience.

"Internet shutdowns" like the ones in Kashmir involves all internet being shut down, not just a few sites being blocked on the ISP's DNS servers. That's hardly a "surface level inconvenience".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_India#I...

akira2501

9 months ago

You've misunderstood me. People who have ears and mouths will communicate. Even if you blind and gag these, they will _still_ find a way to communicate, and to organize.

Put another way, these peoples lives are "not good," not because the Internet is hard to use, it's because of other factors. Which means improving their internet access will only _minimally_ improve their position.

asynchronous

9 months ago

I agree with the sentiment but LEO constellations like Starlink can and have been disrupted, via sub-orbital jamming. Not to mention that in actual large conflict surface to LEO missiles will simply destroy large amounts of satellite constellations.

dotnet00

9 months ago

Starlink is supposedly harder to jam than typical satellite comms due to its use of phased array communication. IIRC you need to either be flying overhead or putting out a ton more power in a ground based jammer to be effective.

And as the other user mentioned, no country at the moment has the kind of stockpile of ASAT weapons needed to wipe the constellation (plus, due to orbital dynamics, there's a limit to how quickly they can take out satellites).

Between trying to wipe the constellation and jamming it, it'd be far more cost effective to jam even accounting for the higher power requirements/lower jamming range.

There would also be other interesting options like capturing and using enough terminals to force the entire cell to be disabled. That has been one of the challenges SpaceX has had to deal with near the frontlines in Ukraine.

throwaway48476

9 months ago

You can build a Faraday cage with a hole in the roof and starlink will be mostly unjammable.

throw73391073

9 months ago

Starlink satellites are vulnerable to repeated uplink transmitting their preamble code (which is public and the same across any user terminal). The satellites are so tuned to that code you can jam them through their receive sidelobes.. taking out all beams on the satellite.

throwaway48476

9 months ago

Won't you need n jammers = n satellites in view for this? I haven't seen anyone commit to investing in this.

throw73391073

9 months ago

A single omnidirectional transmitter on the ground can transmit this one preamble code in all directions and it jams all satellites in view. All Starlink satellites use the same uplink code and they can't change it because it's how new terminals enter the network.

bagels

9 months ago

You could use a phased array to target each of them rapidly

panick21_

9 months ago

No government currently exists that has nearly enough rockets to impact Starlink. There is a big difference between doing individual tests and taking down a constellation of 1000s.

verzali

9 months ago

You don't need to hit every satellite. You only need to create a lot of debris, and that'll do it for you. Alternatively the radiation from a nuclear blast could take out a big chunk of the network, which is presumably why Russia is working on orbiting nuclear weapons.

panick21_

9 months ago

Actually its not that easy even if you did create some debris. Orbit is much bigger then people think. And these sats are much smaller then people think. Without propulsion lots of that stuff quickly drops below the level of the sats. Sats can also raise their orbit in response and fly corrections.

Even modest investment in better tracking could massively improve crash avoidance. It would take far more then a handful of sats to truly impact the functioning of the network. And even more to complete take it out.

Russia is working on everything if you believe their marketing. I seriously question if any work on 'orbital nuclear weapons' is anything other then marketing. And its questionable how effective that would actually be.

This isn't as easy as people think. A country like Russia might have some readiness of nuclear weapons. And maybe a small readiness of anti-sat weapons, but not anywhere close to enough to attack a network like Starlink. Preparing for something like that simply wasn't a thing anybody considered necessary until 2020 and Russia certainly hasn't invested huge amounts of money in that since then and given their recent success with rocket development, I not sure how effective it would have been even if they had.

ggreer

9 months ago

I was curious why direct-to-cell hasn't been enabled everywhere, and it looks like it's because AT&T claims it would cause them an 18% decrease in network throughput/capacity. AT&T petitioned the FCC to block direct-to-cell rollout because of this.[1] SpaceX responded that AT&T's estimates of interference are incorrect, and that AT&T fails to account for many factors. Also, SpaceX argues that the public good of having cell phone access in remote areas outweighs the slight reduction of network capacity in areas with existing coverage.[2]

My guess is that the truth is somewhere in the middle. All else equal, adding more cell towers to an area will increase interference and decrease performance for existing networks, but I doubt it will be as bad as AT&T claims. Also T-Mobile made a deal with SpaceX to be the sole network with direct-to-cell for the first year after rollout. It seems more likely than not that AT&T is trying to hurt their competition using the FCC. If a different cell network had gotten an exclusive contract, I'm sure it would be T-Mobile petitioning the FCC to block direct-to-cell rollout.

No branch of the US government keeps statistics on how many people get lost in the wilderness and die each year, but it's definitely in the hundreds and possibly over 1,000.[3] Considering how often a working cell phone could save them, I think it's worth enabling direct-to-cell everywhere.

1. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1081242986780/1

2. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1021391547062/1

3. https://nypost.com/2020/07/04/why-hundreds-of-people-vanish-...

yieldcrv

9 months ago

ahahaha no no its more complicated than that

SpaceX lobbied for radio regulatory changes to hamper competitors, the competitors (AST Spacemobile) overcame that and has their own satellite system that comply with the agreed upon regulations, Verizon and AT&T are customers in the US, then SpaceX wanted its now non-regulatory compliant satellite cluster to do the same thing but the FCC just points to SpaceX’s own contribution to the standards as reason not to change it - which seem like good reasons, power level, interference, the usual

This emergency authorization is a raison d’etre to justify what SpaceX is now trying to do

I’m glad the infrastructure is there for the affected area, the politics behind it are amusing and should be scrutinized

mlindner

9 months ago

There's a lot of posts like this who are fans of AST Spacemobile because they own stock. SpaceX did not lobby for any radio regulatory changes to hamper competitors. Additionally Verizon and AT&T are themselves AST Spacemobile investors.

If you're going to write this type of post you should clarify whether you have stock ownership in the company as many people have HUGE conflicts of interest on this given ASTS's rapid rise and meme stock status.

For other readers I suggest looking at their subreddit to see the type of delusional post that is common. https://old.reddit.com/r/ASTSpaceMobile/

dotnet00

9 months ago

It also hasn't been enabled everywhere yet because the associated constellation is not complete yet. Current service is probably going to be intermittent. Basically, it's just better than nothing when in an emergency like this.

throwaway48476

9 months ago

It's an excuse to establish 'facts on the ground' that the technology is useful which makes it harder to rollback via bureaucracy if it cuts into telco profits.

wmf

9 months ago

Too bad that didn't work for RDOF.

gosub100

9 months ago

This would be trivial to test via deployment to merchant mariners in vast swathes of empty, international waters.

Salgat

9 months ago

Starlink is partnering with T-Mobile for this, so they're definitely going to be careful to only send signals to areas that are actually lacking in towers anyways. And this is great incentive for carriers to cooperate to make roaming cheap and preferable over satellite.

shaklee3

9 months ago

That's not how satellites work. The beam is far larger than a cell tower, so they're absolutely going to be transmitting where there are towers.

Salgat

9 months ago

The cell antennas are omnidirectional but the satellites are phased array. They aren't going to be that narrow, but they can avoid, for example, a city that already has extensive coverage. Remember, these are meant for out in remote areas or in areas of cell outtages, not for downtown in a major city.

shaklee3

9 months ago

They are, but that doesn't mean people have to use them that way. They will get use all over and not just in rural areas

Salgat

9 months ago

What I'm saying is that if it really does interfere with LTE in a significant manner, then T-Mobile, a carrier partnering with Starlink, has a large incentive to work with them to reduce that interference.

shaklee3

9 months ago

Right, but carriers without deals (att) won't

Salgat

9 months ago

Most carriers, especially in more populated areas, share the same towers.

shaklee3

9 months ago

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Each carrier would have to make a deal with SpaceX. Doesn't matter if they share the same tower. If SpaceX is interfering with their frequency band, they are going to file a complaint with the FCC

__MatrixMan__

9 months ago

I wonder what the user experience was like. Did they have to select "Starlink" instead of "T-Mobile"?

If not, was there some kind TMobile-signed-starlink's-key situation?

It's an interesting interplay between preferring user consent versus wanting things to just start working when they need to.

diebeforei485

9 months ago

This is for where there is no T-mobile coverage, so there is no need to choose satellite over a terrestrial station.

user

9 months ago

[deleted]

wmf

9 months ago

Roaming is generally automatic with no "consent" involved.

lxgr

9 months ago

Your phone provider definitely has to have a roaming agreement. Without that, your phone won’t attach to any 3G network and beyond (3G introduced mutual authentication).

GSM remains vulnerable to all kinds of bad things since it only authenticates the phone/SIM to the network but not otherwise).

jeffbee

9 months ago

Starlink is nice but does the US not possess an air platform that can loiter while providing mobile phone service? Seems like a useful thing to have for civil defense. Wasn't Project Loon supposedly capable of covering a state-sized area with 4G coverage?

kylehotchkiss

9 months ago

We know with certainty that major disasters happen like clockwork every year, but that would decrease the amount we can pay our carriers CEOs and it's not like there's any profit potential from this, carriers don't have SLAs where people impacted by outages are owed anything.

More practically for civil defense, national guard will have their own radios, and the amateur radio guys all said they've been prepping for this role? Have they succeeded in that goal?

inemesitaffia

9 months ago

Google replaced loon with starlink and point to point laser tech

kortilla

9 months ago

What weird phrasing. Loon just shutdown on its own and did not participate in any of the sat laser development for Starlink.

inemesitaffia

9 months ago

Google invested in SpaceX and exited loon at around the same time.

Also at least one of Greg Wylers people at Google working on OneWeb left for Starlink

inemesitaffia

9 months ago

The laser tech is a different thing within GoogleX

jeffbee

9 months ago

I'm asking why the US doesn't own a blimp with a base station taped to the bottom.

toast0

9 months ago

Well, the US doesn't run any phone companies... a bettee question is why don't the telephone companies own or borrow a dirigible to provide emergency services. Hazards of dirigibles in huricane season might be part of it, of course.

shrubble

9 months ago

That would require the government to be innovative.

stavros

9 months ago

Does anyone know how this works? Do the satellites speak LTE/5G? Can cell phones really communicate with satellites directly without larger antennas?

ianburrell

9 months ago

It works with any phone with LTE.

It requires larger antennas. Starlink had to launch the V2 satellites which are larger and have new, big antenna for Direct-to-cell. They were meant for Starship, but that was delayed so they developed V2 Mini for Falcon 9. The version with antenna started launching beginning of year. My understanding is that are close to numbers for providing global coverage.

stavros

9 months ago

That's amazing, I'm having trouble believing that a mobile phone's antenna can talk to space, 500km away. Do you know what sort of bandwidth these will have?

ianburrell

9 months ago

The bandwidth will be small. I saw 2-5 Mbps for the whole cell covering a city. Devices will be limited to messages, small amounts of data, and voice.

stavros

9 months ago

That's still the difference between lost in the mountains and "my coordinates are X, Y".

comboy

9 months ago

But it's still a mobile phone transmission power (1W?) and then r^2. Distinguishing that from noise seems mind-boggling.

RoddaWallPro

9 months ago

But just to clarify, because I'm also having a hard time imagining this, an LTE antenna in a cell phone can beam data to a satellite and have it picked up? Even at whatever low kbps? That is insane to me!

wmf

9 months ago

Yes. It's been demonstrated a few times.

lxgr

9 months ago

There are IoT devices that can talk to geostationary satellites, and these are roughly 100 times further up (36000 km vs. 300-1000 for LEO)!

I have one that’s significantly smaller and lighter than a smartphone, antenna and all.

These satellites partially make up for the distance by deploying huge antennas, sometimes augmented by large reflector meshes that can only unfold in space.

stavros

9 months ago

Yeah, that's pretty crazy, I guess that's what GPS receivers do, in the end (though at pretty low bandwidths).

dotnet00

9 months ago

As far as I'm aware, the V2 minis are different from the DTC sats. V2 mini just has expanded network bandwidth. DTC are a specific variant of the V2 mini with the hardware needed for DTC. Not all V2 launches, even now, are DTC variants.

asadotzler

9 months ago

Correct. A small fraction are DTC capable, often times only a couple per launch but increasing of late. Still a small minority of each launch stack.

wkat4242

9 months ago

Yeah and only a few of each launch are direct to cell capable. Probably until starship works.

Jtsummers

9 months ago

They're using T-Mobile's 1900MHz 5G band for this.

lopkeny12ko

9 months ago

Off topic: what is up with the persistent anti-Musk crusading in this thread (and on HN in general)?

Jtsummers

9 months ago

If you look at the kidme5, samegene321, and george23 accounts in this discussion you'll note that they predominantly comment about Musk in Musk-related threads (usually SpaceX, it seems), often sporadically with large delays between when they make comments (weeks and months). They also post the same things as each other (though this is non-obvious, kidme3 deleted the content of one of their dead comments, but it's verbatim what samegene321 posted). It's either an individual or a coincidentally very narrowly-focused group of people who not only think the same, but write the same.

perihelions

9 months ago

There's a much stronger correlation: these accounts (plus a couple others—who are also active in this thread) all comment about one highly specific, niche topic which absolutely no one else on HN does. It's the claim that the Bush-era NASA Administrator, Mike Griffin, is a unrecognized key figure behind SpaceX' founding.

Just query "spacex mike griffin", and it's exactly these accounts (and people who reply to them).

https://hn.algolia.com/?query=spacex%20mike%20griffin&type=c...

Jtsummers

9 months ago

Yes, more (very obviously connected, they're literally posting the same comments) accounts have turned up and gone more in that direction after I made my initial comment.

mlindner

9 months ago

There was a similar set of users I've been involved with on Reddit that got banned on Reddit for sock puppeting and similarly on Wikipedia who got banned for sock puppeting.

93po

9 months ago

I feel like I can spot musk-bashing astroturfing a mile away because they repeat the exact same criticisms that made big headlines but aren't actually true, but there's maybe like a tiny nugget of nuance to the topic, and it's repeated forever and ever like it's fact and Elon is literally hitler and tesla doesnt actually exist and space isn't real too and elon is just lying to you.

but also he's a xenophobic, transphobic asshole who supports politicians eroding really basic rights and liberties for people, so fuck em

akira2501

9 months ago

> or a coincidentally very narrowly-focused group of people

Yea, coincident with money.

FactKnower69

9 months ago

[flagged]

Jtsummers

9 months ago

At the time of my original comment there were about 10 or 12 comments total in this discussion, with the three accounts I named [EDIT: except george23, that was a typo it was georgeg23; george23 is an unrelated account to all of this] making up a good portion of the "discussion". Two of the comments (across two account) were duplicates, literally copy/paste.

As to other people talking about Musk, at least they're actually participating in this community beyond just Musk-related threads. But at this point there are at least 6 accounts in this discussion, including the three I originally named, that continue to copy/paste the same things and post the same links and make claims that their links don't back up. It's clearly a bored individual, a true believer, or a very poorly written bot by a bored individual or true believer (I mean, at least don't throw all your accounts at one discussion, it makes it so obvious when there are multiple identical comments by different accounts).

ta1243

9 months ago

If you tie yourself to a specific politician, especially in a massively polarised environment, you're going to alienate many people, and it's hardly like Musk wasn't controversial before twitter and his swing to MAGA.

neaanopri

9 months ago

I believe it's fair and based on recent changes in musk's political outlook which many disagree with. His public persona really didn't used to be like this, and he never would have been so popular in the first place if that was the case.

JaimeThompson

9 months ago

Some are bothered by his positions that explicitly want to roll back rights for people while others are bothered by his current "government aid is bad" position given how much such aid he has received.

I'm guessing if he actually lived the beliefs he said he used to have more people with support him.

ActorNightly

9 months ago

The issue is, while the haters do seem like they are the standard outrage machine, I dont think people who are not into politics realize how batshit insane the Republicans side has gotten, which Musk is solidly a part of.

We are used to living this relatively cushy life, where we think that everyone is entitled to the political opinion, and we seem to take it for granted like its never going to change. But in reality, if Trump wins, it may very well be the end of American democratic experiment, and set us on the path towards a much lower standard of life. If EU and other markets start losing faith in US economy because we have a dictator in power, you better believe you are going to feel that, cause nobody will give a shit about the tech sector.

Like, its REALLY fucking bad right now with how close the polls are, and its scary that many peoplendont realize this fact.

So I dont think that at this point and time, its wise to chalk up all the hate rhetoric as just online outrage. People should be outraged. Vote blue downballot in November, and maybe once MAGA movement dies, we can go back to some form of normalicy.

bamboozled

9 months ago

I almost wonder if the parent is asking in good faith, like, “oh thanks, I didn’t notice…” ?

mrguyorama

9 months ago

Women are dying because of anti-abortion positions being espoused by these republicans.

People aren't just outraged. Millions are terrified.

There's a 50% chance come November 9th that my girlfriend and I have to have a very serious discussion about how we will protect her rights and literal safety, that we have to make serious sacrifices to go somewhere safer, including leaving family.

I have friends that would have to go into literal hiding, living fake lives to not get systemically harmed and targeted.

Project 2025 damn near calls for my execution, and the execution of people I love, for things that no well adjusted people consider wrong.

America had a blatant and clear taste for actual full blown Nazism in the early 1900s, and people don't seem to realize that it was never rooted out, just made quiet for a few decades. We LOVE eugenics.

bloopernova

9 months ago

Musk is backing the republican party of the USA, using the reach of twitter and the power of his fortune.

The GOP has destroyed the trust involved in elections, purely on the ego of trump, and thrown away the peaceful transfer of power.

GOP state members have stated that they will discard the result of the election, sending their own picked electors. That will inevitably fall under the purview of the supreme court of the USA, who have shown themselves to be partisan and who will hand the election to trump. What happens after that is anybody's guess. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/republicans-set-stage-... + https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/08/supreme...

Musk is also spreading the "this might be the last election you ever vote in" meme, which is pure projection from the extreme right wing that has taken over so much of the USA. So I have a large amount of derision for provocateurs like Musk, who can simply fly his private jet to another country if the USA becomes embroiled in civil war. https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-claims-during-trump-081...

I utterly loathe the people that would cause violence and stolen elections, and musk is one of them.

And, to the people that would back the extreme right: they will turn on you the very nanosecond it becomes convenient to them.

shrubble

9 months ago

California is basically a single party state at this point; something that Musk would be aware of; it seems that is what he is referring to.

mensetmanusman

9 months ago

Wouldn’t everyone have more trust with paper and ID?

kortilla

9 months ago

> Musk is also spreading the "this might be the last election you ever vote in" meme

It’s hilarious that you’re spreading the left version of that meme and can’t even tell.

tzs

9 months ago

That's only correct if either both sides want to do things that risk effectively ending elections or neither side wants to do such things.

mensetmanusman

9 months ago

I hadn’t made that connection before. Brilliant 4D chess?!

ralfd

9 months ago

> "this might be the last election you ever vote in" meme

To be fair the left is saying the same, because Trump will end democracy, this time for real.

I am not American, so often only the crazy/extremist views reach me over the ocean, but I did read over the past years the hope in leftist circles, that migrants will make Florida and Texas first a purple and then blue.

madeofpalk

9 months ago

Musk is, to say the least, polarising, and thus attracts a lot of people who take either highly favourable or intensely sceptical stances on everything he says. These two groups then feed off each other - those critical of Musk often feel compelled to counterbalance what they see as overly charitable interpretations of his statements or the actions of companies associated with him, and vice versa I guess.

In this particular topic, Musk has a history of being... opportunistic to disasters and tries to 'help out' to various degrees of success (see his weird mini-sub saga for the thai cave rescue, and Starlink's involvement in Ukraine/Russia war).

Personally, I think he's a terrible human being who uses his platform to spread vile hate which is incompatible with a modern world, and I tend not to separate the art from the artist (if you could call either of them that). But otherwise I'm not brigading out here.

idiotsecant

9 months ago

[flagged]

panick21_

9 months ago

is father was a somewhat wealthy engineer. That about it. His farther wasn't some billionaire. Being born in South Africa to a somewhat wealthy family isn't exactly the golden lottery ticket. Evidence by the fact that most people born somewhat wealthy in South Afirca simply try to buy a house in England and get a job at some banking company or work for some mining company.

If you to go back to Musk birth year and had to pick 'most likely to be most powerful non government person in the world' how many people would you go threw before Musk?

What actually helped him more then wealth is that his mother was Canadian and that allowed him to study in Canada and that eventually allowed him a way to get to Silicon Valley. That doesn't just happen, most people from South Africa don't end up in Silicon Valley creating startups. He struggled more in collage then many others because he wasn't at good terms with his father. His father eventually invested a few 10000s $ in his first startup, many people with small business get more from their parents to get started.

And the idea that his companies 'thrive' in spite of him is just wrong. Tesla was going to shit before he stepped in. Literally everybody that worked closely within would disagree with you, and that includes many people that have long left his employment. Companies with terrible CEO don't just trip into being worth 100 billion $ or more. If he was CEO for a year or so and the company was already successful, maybe. But SpaceX started with a few people in shed and he took over Tesla when it was basically a pile of garbage.

To claim a successful business person was lucky is possible, if it happened once. But being CEO of two multi-billion $ businesses at the same for 20+ and both being considered incredibly successful and influential, that's all luck. You got the be kidding. And these are not some random internet companies, space and car companies routinely were considered some of the hardest industries to break into. There is a whole grep of people wealthier then Musk who tried to break into Space, they all failed. There are tons of failed car companies. Even when Tesla was created, they had problems getting funding and many other companies got more, nobody remembers companies like 'Good Place' anymore.

Again, I understand that somebody doesn't like Musk, but your position is utterly ridiculous. It takes a truly dissociated mind to come believe that nonsense.

MerManMaid

9 months ago

Just some quick fact checks:

>is father was a somewhat wealthy engineer.

At the time Errol & Maye were divorcing they had 2 homes, 5 cars, a yacht, and a plane. Most people don't own homes at the moment, let alone a private plane.

>What actually helped him more then wealth is that his mother was Canadian and that allowed him to study in Canada and that eventually allowed him a way to get to Silicon Valley.

Having generational wealth is by far the largest contributing factor. Otherwise he wouldn't of been able to move across the globe to get a better education, focus on college and network, ect. Also not sure what Canada and Silicon Valley have to do in common? It is not like every Canadian ends up working in the Valley. That said, it does seem like most wealthy people over the past 40 years has in various capacities ;)

I'm not going to argue he isn't a successful CEO, (The results speak for themself) But I don't need to refute his business acumen to think he is an awful CEO who actively abuses, manipulates, and lies to his employees whenever it suites him. You can be a very successful yet bad CEO, these aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

idiotsecant

9 months ago

Musk succeeded in Tesla in the same way he didn't at twitter - blindly picking a path and chasing it relentlessly like a carnival barker. To this day Tesla has over promised, under delivered, and has managed to turn a market leading position into a more and more wandering and disconnected third class product. Anyone involved at spaceX will tell you that musk is not involved, that's why spaceX is working. He got a bunch of smart people together, dropped a pile of money on them, and let them work.Merlin made spacex, not musk.

inemesitaffia

9 months ago

You read memes about Musk.

People's complaints about SpaceX is that he's too involved. Not that he's not involved

user

9 months ago

[deleted]

panick21_

9 months ago

In the real world, unlike your delusional fantasy world, it matters what you deliver, not what you promise.

Its pretty hilarious to blame a CEO for growing a company from basically bankrupt with no revenue to one of the top car companies in the world, and then saying see you can't dominate the global car industry when there are literally multiple of the largest cooperation's in the world with strong support nation state governments doing everything they can to change that. You are just comparing him to something absurdly perfect and then saying 'see he is an idiot'.

I have read multiple books on SpaceX and watched interviews with lots of people inside and outside of SpaceX, and you are literally just factually wrong.

This whole 'pile of money' theory nicely ignores that many much richer people then him (he wasn't a billionaire when SpaceX started) tried to do the same. Bezos invested about 100 more (literally, Musk 90 million $, Bezos over 10 billion $) then Musk in his company and we can see the results. And by LITERALLY any measure, Bezos was far, far, far more hands of then Musk. Musk didn't have as much money as many others who tried their hands at this.

It couldn't be clearer that you just have an axe to grind.

talldayo

9 months ago

> Its pretty hilarious to blame a CEO

I'm just going to stop you right there. The CEO assumes direct administrative command over their business and the choices they can make that could result in substantial risk. It's not any more outrageous to blame Elon Musk for the colossal failure of Twitter and the politicization of SpaceX than it is to credit him with the success of his decisions. You cannot say "it's pretty hilarious" because this isn't a laughing matter. The parent's comment is not facetious at all - they're making a logical analysis and you're the one warping it into rhetoric.

Since apparently their comment didn't get through to you the first time, I'll paraphrase: Musk does have a winning strategy. It's the same one Nike and McDonalds and Pixar and Disney and Apple roll out to veritable acclaim; abuse marketing until the fucking lever falls off. Opponents accuse you of antitrust violation? Workers accuse you of workplace abuse? Customers accuse you of fraudulent marketing? Market more! Customers are nobodies, they don't have the power and the voice a wealthy person does. This is the bald-faced reason why Musk wanted Twitter, he thought the marketing potential of a social platform "everyone" uses would be the ultimate platinum chip in the social poker game. Except he's quickly finding out that you can devalue an asset with proximity to brand risk.

So there. Nobody will deny his success, but you also have to be realistic about his shortcomings. This website has an unhealthy fascination with unconditional worship of documented assholes like Sam Altman and Steve Jobs. Let me clear things up for you (and hopefully others) on an epistemic basis: we aren't attacking these people to discredit their success. We're criticizing them to help form the basis for future change. People shouldn't be assholes like Jobs when they can lose credibility from their peers. They shouldn't be hat-in-hand begging for money on unproven science like Altman or Holmes. You can aspire to the heroic aspects of someone without idolizing their entire being - you can improve on imperfect leaders like Elon Musk and encourage them to not make boneheaded stupid fucking mistakes for future reference. That is how humanity gets better, not dick-sucking Elon Musk.

> I have read multiple books on SpaceX and watched interviews with lots of people inside and outside of SpaceX, and you are literally just factually wrong.

Log off X, unfollow the futurist-hopium channels you've got on YouTube. Don't be an armchair critic, get involved.

panick21_

9 months ago

I was talking about Musk in Tesla. And given Tesla trajectory since 2008, its clearly not a failure even if the most recent year wasn't as good as some before.

I have no idea what 'abuse of marketing is', seems like a you thing.

Non of Musk companies have been credibly accused of anti-trust. Not sure where you are getting that.

If your theory of 'marketing above everything' was even remotely true the world would look very differently. There isn't a single credible economic, business or management book that claims that everything can be overcome by marketing. The list of companies you provide is just selection bias.

I never claimed he doesn't have short comings, I seems you are moving the goal posts. I can talk all day long about his short comings, many are not actually often talked about by people who are incredibly critical of Musk and just repeat a bunch of twitter talking points that have been repeated for the last 10 years.

There is a difference between being rationally critical and outright denying agency or basic competence. Most of the time people can't even make their mind up if he is incredibly evolved and responsible for all bad decisions (but not good ones) or if he isn't involved at all and just drops money on people. Pointing how how he or his companies are not perfect is simple, and not interesting. Actually using comparative measures between him and his companies with actual relevant comparison companies make a lot more sense. But if they did that a lot of the criticism would sound very different. The fact is, because Musk is unpopular, people use different standard on him and his company then they do for many others. Musk is seen as a person, while the comparable companies like GM or Lockheed Martin aren't, they are just faceless cooperate blobs no matter that many of their owners are billionaires as well. Its much harder for people to summon the same kind of passion about those kinds of companies. When objectively they are far, far, far, far worse in basically ever way imaginable.

Musk companies are evil and we must hate him and take ever opportunity to point that out, because his evil companies use deceptive marketing. Lockheed Martin was a significant part of lying the US into the Iraq war and they are wasting billions of tax payer $ but somehow people can't summon 1/1000 the amount of effort on that.

And about your 'get involved', I seriously don't understand what that even means in this context. Go work at a space company? Found a space startup? Get a job at SpaceX? How does 'getting involved' get you any actual information on these topics? I guess I could get a job at Airbus, SpaceX is out, but not sure I want to work there.

Or do you mean in the context of 'space isn't relevant' (again just factually wrong) and I should go out and protest climate change or something? I really don't get it.

But whatever it was, frankly, that just sounds incredibly, fucking arrogant. Like you are divine being floating over the rest of us lowly plebs who get their information from 'the internet' unlike you, who gets all the information from 'the real world'.

The fact is this, on Youtube there are interviews (congressional hearings and so on) that are first hand sources on these topic. If you choose to ignore first hand sources and witness testimony because you are out there in the 'real-world' doing gods work, saving babies from burning buildings, or whatever it is you do when you are 'involved'. And you don't want to sit at home and read books, written by people who spend 100s of hours involved in a topic, that's fine. But don't tell other people their facts are wrong or that you know better because you are 'involved'.

dzhiurgis

9 months ago

Guy had a terrible upbringing, beaten and likely molested by his father.

IMO historically he directed his trauma and negativity into work, but now that he's on ketamine he just lets it flow everywhere.

Not sure which one is worse.

user

9 months ago

[deleted]

sneak

9 months ago

[flagged]

panick21_

9 months ago

What utter nonsense, pure speculation based on nothing and nothing.

And that whole Russia conspiracy, outside it being nonsense doesn't even make sense. Russia doesn't need SpaceX to launch anything, SpaceX wouldn't launch anything for Russia if they knew anyway and if DoD knew they would certainty easily stop it whatever is 'legal'.

Instead of coming up with elaborate stories, its much simpler. He became very politically vocal and that makes you incredibly controversial. Musk was always somewhat controversial but going all in on MAGA stuff made him 10x more so.

A lot of stories around him were already spread long before, and those are just picked up by more people now. And of course its not really about 'false' narratives anymore, a lot of what makes him unpopular are simply the things he literally said outright.

erichocean

9 months ago

He bought Twitter. The hate precisely coincides with that event.

concordDance

9 months ago

Predates it by many years. It actually even predates the cave submarine, but strongly intensified then and increased roughly constantly until the present day.

ausbah

9 months ago

he had to buy twitter

madeofpalk

9 months ago

why?

razakel

9 months ago

Because he signed a contract saying he would.

madeofpalk

9 months ago

he did not have to buy twitter. he chose to buy it, signed a contract saying he wanted to buy it, and then tried to get out of the contract

seniorivn

9 months ago

he involved himself in politics, so everyone who have strong feelings against his "side" or for his opponents, project it on him in a form of hate.

Inevitable consequence of the two party system and/or fptp election system

bamboozled

9 months ago

Because Musk as a person is a huge liar, fraud and a major disappointment with a messiah complex to boot ?

We could be looking at these developments with excitement, instead many of us think about how he is going to use this tech to fuck more things up and justify more immoral behaviour. He is a real life Bond villain.

Read this case document by Aaron Jacob Greenspan, it’s fascinating and a good read: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=332879335...

5. Defendant Musk has openly admitted that his leadership philosophy is that the ends—here, Tesla’s mission of “accelerating the world’s transition to sustainable energy”—justify the means, or fraudulent and unlawful business practices, so long as they keep a company afloat.

He also tweeted this two years ago…

For Twitter to deserve public trust, it must be politically neutral, which effectively means upsetting the far right and the far left equally Apr 28, 2022

It makes me nervous such a guy is in control of so many things…

Russia having starlink to use drones to bomb Ukrainian soldiers, for example. Buying Twitter to spread lies and conspiracies is another. Calling a hero a “pedo guy” because he didn’t agree with his approach.

The guy is an asshat, period.

inemesitaffia

9 months ago

Russia and starlink?

And writing a lawyers opinion as fact?

bamboozled

9 months ago

When Ukraine attacks Russian sites, they’re often finding starlink terminals in the debris. They know they’re using them to control drones and other equipment. They’re supposed to be sanctioned under US law.

What’s wrong with lawyers ? Is Musk some how above all lawyers ?

inemesitaffia

9 months ago

A lawyers opinion just like anyones opinion isn't fact.

Having Starlink terminals doesn't mean starlink is supplying them anymore than Apple is supplying the Taliban with iPhones.

The Pentagon and Ukraine's government don't think SpaceX is selling it to them and that's enough for me.

You can read the Newsweek article on Starlink terminals on Shahed drones

bamboozled

9 months ago

Read the document, there is plenty of evidence provided.

inemesitaffia

9 months ago

I've read the document. I've chosen to believe the Pentagon

tahoeskibum

9 months ago

I'm not surprised that China, Russia & UK have plans for their own constellations, and eventually India too.

tremarley

9 months ago

I think they would if they could.

They would need the funds and talent.

SpaceX have been able to do it on this scale due to reusable rockets

kidme5

9 months ago

[flagged]

kortilla

9 months ago

That’s not what that link says at all.

Additionally, direct-to-cell has already been enabled in a bunch of places for them to do the validation where they were demonstrating text messages etc and showing off on Twitter.

kidme5

9 months ago

[flagged]

kortilla

9 months ago

I read the full thing. It’s only two messages and it’s about brilliant pebbles.

Absolutely nothing about sidelobe interference from the direct to cell sats (which are not the same thing as starshield).

georgeg23

9 months ago

[flagged]

caseyy

9 months ago

Okay, but this political stuff is unrelated to the topic at hand.

whaaaaat

9 months ago

I can't see the flagged post, but if you think "Elon Musk owns communications infrastructure he can turn off selectively" isn't political, I think you might need to reconsider what's in bounds for political. He's already done it to interfere with a war and he's widely meddled with what "free" speech he'll permit on his X platform.

His ownership of cellular signal is deeply intertwined with politics.

Jtsummers

9 months ago

The commenter removed the content of their flagged post, that's why it shows the way it does even if you have showdead on in your profile.

If you mean you generally can't see flagged posts, go to your profile and check the "showdead" option.

concordDance

9 months ago

> He's already done it to interfere with a war

One of the many Musk myths that continue to float around. There are dozens of them at this point.

The turning off did not happen, it was a misunderstanding by a biographer that he later corrected. (Naturally the correction got a tiny fraction of the reach of the original)

ranger_danger

9 months ago

everything is political to someone, whether we like it or not

kidme5

9 months ago

[flagged]

postepowanieadm

9 months ago

That's an anonymous post. It's not even conspiracy theory.

ranger_danger

9 months ago

does it matter as long as people believe it?

user

9 months ago

[deleted]