this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023

216 points (97.0% liked)

Technology

59575 readers

3802 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

216

SpaceX's Private Control Of Satellite Internet Concerns Military Leaders (www.space.com)

submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

SpaceX's Private Control Of Satellite Internet Concerns Military Leaders::Military leaders around the world have expressed concerns over the dominance of SpaceX founder Elon Musk when it comes to satellite-based internet services.

all 29 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] einfach_orangensaft@feddit.de 37 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

SpaceX and Starlink got most of the funding strait from the DoD. The Spaceforce Branch of the US Military has 100% full controll over the whole constelation if they need to.

Using Musk as a Front to launch a shit ton of Satelites is just a good front so people arent enraged the US Military but so many new sats up.

They Squat on the best orbits so the chinese cant take those. They can be uses for Signal inteligence. They even can be uses as distributed SAR lens for observations. Possible even for the interception of balistic Missiles once there are enouth of them up there.

The military implication are enormus. It is the High ground you wana have. Making the world thing thay this wasnt an American Defense projekt was the best psyop ever pulled.

[–] what_is_a_name@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

The problem for me is that Musk is an unreliable partner to any government. He is for sale to the highest bidder that strokes his ego.

But I guess that is a risk the feds will have to deal with in due time.

Honestly I waiting for the moment when one of Musk’s stunts gets Space X banned from government contracts until the boot the Muppet.

Edit: grammar

[–] Chunk@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

The US gov can take control of the constellation through the Defense Production Act and they can even jail or remove musk if he doesn't comply. In the event of an actual war, assuming the constellation doesn't get shot down, it wouldn't be a problem.

[–] Zalack@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah. Part of me has to wonder what -- if any -- backchanneled agreements there are between Glynn Shotwell and the DoD for if/when Musk does something truly compromising.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] Grant_M@lemmy.ca 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It should. Musk leans heavily fascist and loves putler.

[–] maporita@unilem.org 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Honestly even of he was a great guy it's still a bad idea to have an incredibly important military asset in the hands of a private corporation.

[–] elscallr@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's SpaceX's assets, they launched them. The Air Force has the ability to put up their own and they haven't.

[–] Saprophyte@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/13/politics/elon-musk-spacex-starlink-ukraine/index.html

[–] Grant_M@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Absolutely.

[–] atyaz@reddthat.com 20 points 1 year ago

Sure but I don't know if a bunch of militaries having that control is any better

[–] Rusticus@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Especially concerning to the military leaders of authoritarian regimes!

[–] tonytins@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago

Better late than never.

[+] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works -16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes they should be hacked and forced to reenter at point Nemo. space trash.

[–] WiseMoth@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You think we should just destroy millions of dollars worth of cutting edge internet architecture which aids rural communities have usable internet globally because you don’t like the guy who paid for it? Seriously?

[+] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works -8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No because its a gigantic security risk to have that amount of space trash flying around. I don't give a single fuck about musk, blue origin builds something like that as well, its also absolutely shit.

Also, who the fuck is "rural communities" and has the money to afford this service? Cause guess what, satellite internet is expensive as hell.

Here is a video explaining the problem https://youtu.be/eeQnv_IWttw

[–] Bo7a@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Also, who the fuck is “rural communities” and has the money to afford this service?

Me. I am a sysadmin/architect and I live an hour from any broadband. And 20 minutes from any cellular signal.

Without starlink I'd be stuck in a city. I hate musk with a burning passion. But I hate living within spitting distance of other people even more.

Also - I'd hardly call 200(CAD) up-front and 130/mth expensive as hell. Some people are paying that for two cellphones that their kids carry.

[–] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Some people are paying that for two cellphones that their kids carry.

This does not make it less expensive.

Me. I am a sysadmin/architect and I live an hour from any broadband. And 20 minutes from any cellular signal.

Without starlink I'd be stuck in a city. I hate musk with a burning passion. But I hate living within spitting distance of other people even more.

If anything that's arguments in favor of expanding the cable network, its cheaper, more reliable, and most importantly a order of magnitude better for the climate.

But i understand you wanting internet at home. My country is just so densely populated that the furthest from anyone's house would be in a coal mine, like there is people living in a 20 km radius at furthest everywhere, so everyone has cable, even on top of mountains. Our problem is replacing old phone wires with Fiber optic cables and having better mobile coverage everywhere.

But i personally pay 100€ for a 1GB/s parallel plan with TV and Landline. And most here think that's expensive... Starlink is from what i know a lot slower than what i get and has a limit if im not out of date regarding that.

What about the other argument?

[–] Bo7a@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

If anything that’s arguments in favor of expanding the cable network, its cheaper, more reliable, and most importantly a order of magnitude better for the climate.

Cable will never come here. There are 4 people living within 10km of me. Yes, you read that right, four. We won't even get analog phone service here. Forget cable/fiber/cell.

But i understand you wanting internet at home.

This really isn't about simple wants. Without internet I don't have a job.

But i personally pay 100€ for a 1GB/s parallel plan with TV and Landline. And most here think that’s expensive…

It is all very expensive here in Canada because we have tons of habitable/arable land that is very sparsely populated.

Starlink <...snip...> has a limit if im not out of date regarding that.

This is not the case here. I have been using it for almost 2 years now and I am a bit of a high-seas type of media enjoyer.

[–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Right but filling LEO with trash, plus the pollution generated to make and send them there, plus endangering earth based astronomy on a global scale is not worth giving internet to 4 people per 100 squared kilometers.

[–] Bo7a@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I agree it is not a good thing. I just think that there is some balance. There are areas that will grow in population due to the availability of internet and jobs, which can alleviate some of the housing pressure in cities, reduce commutes, and make for more economic opportunities outside of the downtown cores that should die as more office work is made remote.

And I think a lot of the remote areas that LEO-based internet access is giving internet to are much more populated than my special case in the middle of a forest in Canada.

But even when I lived in more populated areas like small towns out West - There were hundreds of people commuting 1.5 to 2 hours each direction to get to work. Whole towns with 3 or 4k people, but only 4 or 5 businesses to get jobs at. The removal of some of that driving probably has a measurable positive effect.

Again - I want to be clear. I also think there are better ways. And will support those better ways in their early development. But right now I don't think the balance lies on the side of decommissioning or kneecapping of these services as the right choice.

[–] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hm, i still see it critically as said starlink and its competitors launch thousands of satellites into low earth orbit, if things go badly once this might make space travel impossible for decades and they fuck with earth bound telescopes majorly as well. I get you needing internet, but there should be better options.

[–] Bo7a@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Space is really really big. We have so much space junk out at further orbits that the 5 or 6k starlink satellites just doesn't concern me.

I feel some guilt in how badly this LEO type of constellation will impact astronomy and astro-photography as more companies try to get some profits out of the sky. But again, I think that internet access for those who live in remote areas is one of the tools we will use to improve as a species. - as long as the current disinformation and hateclicking is reined in within the coming 10 or 20 years.

[–] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've linked a video explaining it, please watch it, its a actual issue and "space is big" doesn't mean earth orbit being a cloud of shrapnel is ok.

[–] Bo7a@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

I get it. And I am not saying this is the optimal solution. I am saying that out of the 30000 objects big enough to track in orbit, 5000 of those being internet providing satellites seems, to me, like a worthwhile trade-off until something better comes along to not leave every rural person on earth out of the information economy that they are all subservient to, to some extent.

[–] WiseMoth@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Dude, calm down. It helps people. It’s faster than a lot of landline internet. And it’s good for more than just rural communities. Now personally, it doesn’t affect me at all. I live in a big city. But that doesn’t mean it’s not useful. There are plenty of people living rurally who can afford this too. Living away from people doesn’t make you poor lol. What kind of an idea is that? It’s not “absolutely shit” it’s an incredibly useful technology that can improve the lives of many. Now don’t get me wrong. Spake debris is an important issue that needs to be solved. But that doesn’t mean we should just scrap every space project lol. That’s like saying “argh, there are so many cars on the road. We should just get rid of them all because they could crash”. That’s not a solution. Starlink satellites are also designed to fall back to earth, and burn up on re-entry. Which obviously doesn’t just solve the problem but it’s an improvement and an important step