I guess even if that's possible, it would be feasible for Starlink to triangulate from their satellites to estimate terminal locations and spot which ones are lying?
I guess even if that's possible, it would be feasible for Starlink to triangulate from their satellites to estimate terminal locations and spot which ones are lying?
Additionally, they have phased antenna arrays able to narrow-beam your data pretty much to you (this is very useful as you can, among other things, recycle the exact same frequency for another user a short distance away).
Spoof GPS all you want, but Starlink knows you're not actually somewhere else, simply because of which satellites are able to talk to you right now.
all numbers are invented ;)
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/vladimir-putin/russia-spoofing-...
Agree about the other stuff though, and the points made in other comments that Starlink is sort of a GPS itself.
I don't think starlink needs GPS as much as the starlink service is a form of GPS. The base station sees several satellites and the satellites know where they are and so the base station can triangulate where you are, and the whole system requires this precision location mechanism to work, so the 2 way communication is a form of Global Positioning without relying on external GPS data.
Perhaps the base station is also able to use GPS but the starlink communication is also able to do exactly what GPS does so "fake GPS" would do nothing to conceal the base station's location and probably make initialization hard or impossible.
You need a precise clock for any form of GNSS[0] to function. AFAIR StarLink satellites doesn't have precise clock on the board. And anyway, modern GNSS chips are.. $1? Cheaper? No way you wouldn't use GNSS already deployed and working (and you are not paying for it) in a commercial product.
[0] GPS is GNSS, it's just in America GPS became the synonym for GNSS
How precise? I assume that inaccuracy in the clock produces imprecision in location - how much time inaccuracy produces how much location inaccuracy?
> And anyway, modern GNSS chips are.. $1? Cheaper? No way you wouldn't use GNSS already deployed and working (and you are not paying for it) in a commercial product.
Rather than using the Starlink satellites as an alternative to GPS - get a location fix using both Starlink and GPS, and compare them. Even given the former is going to be significantly less accurate - suppose GPS is accurate to within 5 metres and Starlink is accurate to within 5000 metres - well, if the two differ by 50,000 metres, you know something is going wrong, and the terminal might decide to disable itself in such a situation.
GNSS satellites orbits are between 20000km and 30000km. 20kkm is 0.06671s of c, 30kkm is 0.10007s, 5km is 0.000016678. So a very precise, that's why they have an atomic clock on board instead of cheap quartz one.
> if the two differ by 50,000 metres, you know something is going wrong
Like what your imprecise methods give you a very rough estimate where is the terminal and your legitimate customers in the nearby areas (not even doing anything for or against) are saying thanks for their shut off terminals.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Comparis...
I'm not suggesting that whatever GPSish thing you'd be able to get out of a pure starlink protocol communication would give you super resolution, but it'd certainly be enough to identify "Crimea" vs "Indian Ocean".
And as far as base station -> constellation -- putting a GPS receiver in it is of course smart to speed that up, but I'm not sure even that's necessary or just helpful.
The public normally use the unencrypted one with lower accuracy. Can fake GPS, but I don’t think it would last for long.
The advantage Starlink has is that there are a lot more satellites that are also in a much lower orbit. There has been some talk about using their satellites for positioning. I think they look at that as a bit of a low value market so far.