Comment by rzerowan
1 month ago
Similarly to Starlink , which was hyped as a low codt alternative for marginalised people/areas and sucked in enormous subsidies to that end. While being more or less a proof of concept for a military command and control network , thats the same way this should be looked at.Especially with data centers being vulnerable on ground, coupled with the ability to reposition the space based units to be 'closer to the action' as it were.
So bottom line a proof of concept for DARPA funds and eventual inegration into the military command and control nodes.
> and sucked in enormous subsidies to that end.
Starlink didn't get any subsidies. There were reports in summer about them potentially getting 600 Mio (btw the broadband program is 40 billion heavy) and I can't find sources that SpaceX got any program founding yet.
> Starlink didn't get any subsidies.
If you don't count the launcher it rides on, and the company that owns both.
Feel free to name the subsidies SpaceX received.
(No, "payment to launch this satellite" != "subsidy".)
12 replies →
Did Starlink really receive enormous subsidies? IIRC it was kicked out of the federal program in the US due to lobbying from others.
Starlink was granted $880m from the FCC, but later defaulted on conditions, so didn't get most of the money.
Starshield, on the other hand, has been directly funded by the US government to the tune of ~$9b in reported funding (much of it NRO or Space Force classified). It has ~250 satellites up as of now.
But presumably they have delivered (or will deliver) the services requested. It's not a subsidy if it's just a government agency buying something.
1 reply →
less lobbying, more plain old punishing of political enemies
“Our virtuous lobbying, their heinous punishing of political enemies”?
I dunno, won't a satellite be _more_ vulnerable in space? There is not anti-missile tech in space.
I suppose it is about being out of reach of cheap drones?
icbms and hypersonics exist, theres no defense against the top end anywhere atm.
if you're in a war where people are shooting your satellites out of the sky you're past the point where defenses matter. theres no grey war in space like russia hiring people to blow up stuff in europe and very few states could take out multiple satellites in space.
beyond that if we ever did get to that point, you could develop anti missile tech in space, you effectively have the high ground sitting at the top of the gravity well.
Oh no! Our PeaceSat went haywire and bumped into your WarSat! Sorry dude, let's swap insurance.
1 reply →
I'm reasonably sure there are more states that could destroy a satellite than hit infrastructure on US soil. And if you try to use an ICBM to hit the US then you risk getting nuked.
> people are shooting your satellites out of the sky
If space powers have any sense at all they'll develop a fleet of satellites that deploy small limpet craft that attach to the enemies' satellites and drag them toward earth.
Literal shooting sounds like mutually assured satellite destruction.
1 reply →
It's really about bandwidth and availability - US satcom systems were really struggling, and the only truly global (Iridium) was quite low bandwidth. Starlink is essentially "Iridium with newer tech and mass production" and IIRC DoD through various fronts put quite a lot of early financing to make it a thing, even if later the networks were supposedly disaggregated (would make sense to start building separate one once PoC was proven)
DoD financing for Starlink was a long term game to create pLEO sensing capabilities: initially GMTI, then AMTI.
Both of which give the US military more persistent (revisit delay near zero because number of assets) and survivable (number of assets + LEO debris characteristics + cattle vs pets) ISTAR.
And an advantage in persistent ISTAR is a key enabler of the way the US military is aiming to fight a peer state adversary.
I'd be fascinated to dig into the contracts, but at 10,000' it's DoD offloading the bulk of the development cost onto NASA and the public (which in both cases, still gets good value for money).
3 replies →
Yeah similar to the AWS data cneter getting trashed in UAE by cheap drones and short range missiles. I think only 3 states have the capabilities necessary to knock out satellites , and one or two others with latent potential. For the rest of the planet its basically untouchable unless theres more wisespread proliferation in missile tech.
The thing with starlink is that there are a lot of them. It is not a single satellite to take out it is a bunch.
> low codt alternative for marginalised people/areas
Yes, but while I do not see the first, I can clearly see the latter :)
what proportion of use for starlink do you think is military vs rural internet consumers?