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

126 pointsposted 15 hours ago
by nynx
(twitter.com)

119 Comments

caseyy

14 hours 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

14 hours 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

14 hours 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

14 hours 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

4 hours ago

>> UCS has been warning about this under the last administration, https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/space-based-missile-defense...

The early Starlink constellation clearly mirrored the design (up to inclination and number of satellites) of the National Academy of Science report on a modern SDI / Star Wars Program https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/13189/making-sense... ... it was obvious to me then. But soon after the Republican administration started calling for further funding of such a program https://www.science.org/content/article/decades-after-reagan... ... and now it's in Project 2025 and Trump campaign speeches.

jeroenhd

14 hours 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.

mattashii

14 hours 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.

Heliosmaster

14 hours ago

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

Rebelgecko

12 hours 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

7 hours ago

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

throw9474

12 hours ago

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

bagels

11 hours 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.

croes

14 hours 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

12 hours 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.

ianburrell

14 hours 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.

kortilla

11 hours ago

Russia has risked Kessler syndrome for less with ASAT missiles

yarg

14 hours 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

13 hours 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

12 hours ago

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

throw9474

12 hours ago

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

gosub100

11 hours ago

International sanctions.

ShakataGaNai

14 hours 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

10 hours 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

gosub100

11 hours 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

13 hours ago

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

numpad0

11 hours 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?

ActorNightly

7 hours 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

11 hours ago

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

wkat4242

13 hours 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.

croes

14 hours ago

Satellites can be hacked, jammed or destroyed

LEO satellites need constant replacement.

acover

12 hours ago

Drones staying connected in enemy territory.

akira2501

12 hours 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

10 hours 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

41 minutes 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.

delfinom

9 hours 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.

asynchronous

14 hours 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

13 hours 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

11 hours ago

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

throw73391073

11 hours 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

11 hours ago

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

throw73391073

11 hours 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

10 hours ago

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

panick21_

14 hours 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

3 hours 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.

ggreer

14 hours 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-...

dotnet00

13 hours 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

11 hours 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

11 hours ago

Too bad that didn't work for RDOF.

Salgat

5 hours 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

5 hours 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

4 hours 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.

gosub100

11 hours ago

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

yieldcrv

10 hours 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

__MatrixMan__

14 hours 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

13 hours ago

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

wmf

13 hours ago

Roaming is generally automatic with no "consent" involved.

lxgr

6 hours 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).

stavros

14 hours 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

13 hours 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

13 hours 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?

lxgr

6 hours 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

an hour ago

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

ianburrell

13 hours 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

11 hours ago

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

comboy

13 hours ago

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

dzhiurgis

12 hours ago

Really just makes one think what sort of capability military has.

RoddaWallPro

10 hours 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

10 hours ago

Yes. It's been demonstrated a few times.

dotnet00

13 hours 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

8 hours 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

10 hours ago

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

Jtsummers

14 hours ago

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

lopkeny12ko

14 hours ago

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

Jtsummers

14 hours 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

10 hours 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 hours 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.

akira2501

12 hours ago

> or a coincidentally very narrowly-focused group of people

Yea, coincident with money.

93po

11 hours 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

FactKnower69

10 hours ago

no one could ever naturally be put off by this apartheid loving memespouting redditor man-child, it must be a conspiracy...!

very concerning. looking into this

Jtsummers

9 hours 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

14 hours 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

10 hours 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.

madeofpalk

14 hours 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.

ActorNightly

9 hours 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.

idiotsecant

14 hours ago

He is a narcissistic nepobaby, heavy on the baby. If he didn't win the genetic lottery he would be a tyrannical deli manager for some poor teenagers somewhere. His companies exist and thrive in spite of him, with dedicated teams for wrangling his stupider impulses. He desperately wants to be seen as some kind of 12 year olds conception of the good guy, and when he doesn't get it he reacts like the 12 year old would.

The guy is a real jerk.

panick21_

13 hours 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

8 hours 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 hours 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

4 hours ago

You read memes about Musk.

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

dzhiurgis

12 hours 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.

bloopernova

13 hours 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

11 hours 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.

kortilla

10 hours 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

2 hours 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

7 hours ago

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

mensetmanusman

7 hours ago

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

ralfd

11 hours 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.

erichocean

14 hours ago

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

concordDance

10 hours 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.

seniorivn

14 hours 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

tahoeskibum

11 hours ago

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

tremarley

10 hours 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

jeffbee

11 hours 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?

inemesitaffia

11 hours ago

Google replaced loon with starlink and point to point laser tech

kortilla

10 hours ago

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

inemesitaffia

4 hours 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

jeffbee

11 hours ago

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

toast0

4 hours 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

11 hours ago

That would require the government to be innovative.