We know a little more about Amazon's satellites
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
I don’t know if the government implication is as big as you think, as the US government has been doing secure satellite communications for decades and has already given SpaceX the contract for Starshield. So undoubtedly Kuiper would love a piece of the action but there is already competition and Kuiper is a bit late to the game.
Many key things the government buys need to have more than one independent source. This way Kuiper may be just in time.
SpaceX has proprietary info in practically all of their comm layers, so interoperability is not easy. The government probably did not buy full rights to the protocols. So the first step to Kuiper getting a piece of the pie is convincing the government that it is worth paying to license SpaceX’s comm standards so Kuiper can use them. That is not an easy task.
There are a dozen hypothetical ways that Kuiper might get a portion of government programs, but the fact is that SpaceX has been embedding themselves into the US government’s space infrastructure for years without competition, and has used that lack of competition to build up a bunch of technical hurdles to purchasing services from other contractors. For the past several years there has been no reason for the government to spend money and effort to prevent these hurdles because there was no other contractor that might be able to offer a similar service. So SpaceX has got a pretty sweet position right now, and Kuiper is going to have to invest heavily before the government changes course.
Starshield is a separate constellation for the US government and select allies only, and is built and launched by SpaceX.
How so? I'd imagine the datacenter terminal side downlink to be much more easily tappable than fiberoptics.
There are advantages in latency and potentially availability, but even there I would imagine fiber to win in an adversarial active jamming scenario.
I suppose in any realistic scenario we should assume that the enemy may be listening to all our communication at all times. This is the assumption behind such daily things as WPA3, SSH, TLS.
Jamming is a much more serious concern.
In the field it's a completely different story, of course – you can't always pull fiber (although it does appear in unexpected scenarios, such as fiber-operated UAVs or torpedoes).
However, it's very easy to cut a fiber in a way that is hard to repair. Fishing trawlers do this all the time. In that sense, fiber can be "jammed" (sabotaged) much more easily than radio/satellite.
Destroying fiber with a backhoe or an axe doesn't stop interfering when you stop digging or chopping though.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency-hopping_spread_spe...
Signal strength (satellites are power constrained) and distances involved are tough.
GPS uses frequency spreading too, and locally jamming that (even the military version with a secret/unpredictable spreading code) is trivial, for example.
Russia has some of the best EW chops in the world (after the NSA perhaps), and they struggled to successfully jam Starlink after some defensive work was carried out by SpaceX. They use Starlink in the “sea baby” USVs that attacked Crimea just last night.
https://tech.yahoo.com/general/articles/spacex-spends-signif...
I'm not saying that that's trivial against moving targets in a large area (especially if they can use directional antennas), but it's still very possible. GNSS jamming is a big concern of the militaries of the world, and there's currently somewhat of a renaissance of high-precision inertial navigation systems as a result.
Jamming a stationary satellite terminal, if you can get reasonably close, doesn't seem harder than cutting a fiber (although as a sibling comment has mentioned, jammers have the nice property that communication is restored once they're disabled, unlike damaged cables, so maybe the two can complement each other?)
With some satellites, you just point a dish at the satellite and get the same data everyone else gets. With more advanced ones, you have to be in roughly the same place as the intended recipient because the satellite has different antennas pointed in different directions. In either case, it's presumably encrypted data so what good is intercepting it?
Metadata security and availability are different concerns.
If you have a dedicated circuit, you can send dummy data 24/7 to mitigate any traffic analysis. Even if you don't, you configure each link to send dummy data, so eavesdroppers can't do any traffic analysis without compromising the node itself.
That might change once lasers or extremely tight radio beams can be used for ground stations, but for the latter you'd still need to make sure that nobody can get reasonably close to your ground stations, which might be possible for remote military bases, but probably not for AWS data centers.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/04/a-rocket-launch-monday... ("A rocket launch Monday night may finally jump-start Amazon’s answer to Starlink")
Musks influence into space seems limited, he couldnt prevent proposed budget cuts to NASA (and NASA is SpaceX biggest customer).
Anything like that would explain the secrecy...
And I have no clue what is doable with SAR, but I'd imagine multiple satellites following each other would enable some interesting features, as it essentially gives you a giant antenna.
This all was like 20 years go. 20. 20!!
Than I see my upper consumer grade canon camera, a r6mkII with 70-200mm lens (mk1, 20 years old) that is able to make a photo of some dog in high speed motion, with a 1/800 shutter with 200mm while its dawn and you are still perfectly able to zoom into the photo and see and identify a midget [1]
The prototype was called Gorgon Stare[1] and could surveil an entire city at once.
[1] https://www.sncorp.com/capabilities/wide-area-motion-imagery...
Let's say there's a war with China, one of the first things the PLA will do is take down any US government controlled satellites. The normal big ones you can shoot down but thousands of them that can be replaced within a day, not so much. The PLA would also be giving out their launch positions for retaliatory attacks.
Let's presume the PLA has effective radio and GPS jamming tech, one solution is to use cameras on satellites for positioning and laser as well as frequency hopping satellite radio comms. Small, easily replaceable constellation satellites are ideal.
Uh oh.
And this is where accountability sinks distinguish two different kinds of people: some will (rightfully) realize that it is not their responsibility and no one is to blame, so they will do nothing. Others will see also see that it is not their responsibility and no one is to blame, but they will also see that it will become their problem regardless of responsibility or blame, and so they do something about it.
Unfortunately the latter is often not rewarded or even actively discouraged or punished in corporate settings.
If you genuinely care about the field of astronomy, rest assured that the same falling launch costs that have enabled LEO comsat constellations, will enable the launch of fleets of space-based telescopes.
The largest proposed ground observatories already use segmented mirrors. One can use the same approach in space, it's only a matter of launch cost.
Isn't one of the nice aspects of astronomy is that you can do quite a bit as an amateur with some decent equipment and a nice vantage point? What value does this fleet have to these people?
> people who espouse this sentiment would likely be whining about "useless astronomy taking money away from helping poor people".
You've constructed a strawman for the purposes of gatekeeping; meanwhile, there very much is a reason to have a rational conversation about the trade offs of these large commercial ventures that impact literally the entire planet.
It doesn't, and admittedly I don't really care that much.
I care far far more that remote communities can now have meaningful access to the internet, one of the most transformative and enabling technologies in existence, than niche hobbyists being mildly encumbered. And most people likely fall into the same camp.
As already mentioned, I find it really hard to believe that the common person whining about "the poor amateur astronomers" are being sincere. Some of them likely are, but "finding any reason possible to whine about billionaires" seems to be vogue these days.
Then can you tell me how many remote communities were not being served before that are now suddenly capable of accessing the internet now that these particular constellations exist? I mean just looking at Starlink's current availability map shows how little you might actually care about this particular outcome.
Even so was this the most affordable and sustainable option for these countries? Was there absolutely no way to achieve both goals at once?
> I don't really care that much.
Noted. We're just picking sides today, I guess. Bummer.
???
Almost all of the Americas, including the deepest Brazilian jungle.
Indonesia, Australia, Mongolia.
Decent chunks of subsahara Africa.
Ships far away on the ocean, transcontinental airplanes … how is this all not amazing?
The first world has great coverage, I'll give you that, but to say that this network is somehow an inherent advantage to indigenous and under served "remote" people is quite literally laughable.
And yes, the Amazon is being served, and they have _faster_ internet than before, which is somewhat good and not without it's problems to be sure, but they had the internet before. They have smartphones. How did you think they utilize the starlink service at all? They have a pretty narrow power budget which this really doesn't help with all while delivering them deeper into the pockets of American monopolies.
Oh, and the mining and logging companies absolutely love that they have the service necessary to support their commercial work in the Amazon. High rating from them, they would agree, it's "amazing."
The ocean, planes, and all sorts of remote vehicles had internet before as well. This is nothing particularly new other than being faster. Which moves the question to the appropriate place. Is it worth damaging the sciences for faster commercial internet? Are we actually doing anything more than sending youtube poop and pornography and gambling websites into places that never had to deal with these intrusions before? All while enabling a higher rate of destruction of the very place they live?
In this case, the obvious solution would be to provide a small number of orbital observatories to the astronomy community for free or with heavily subsidized pricing.
Of course it is. The next question is "is it a good thing to let a single owner completely control access to this resource?"
We've actually decided in the case of highways and rails, that no, it's not. There needs to be reasonable and non-discriminatory access to these resources otherwise the trade is not worthwhile. We actually have laws that are meant to enforce this.
> the obvious solution would be to provide a small number of orbital observatories to the astronomy community for free or with heavily subsidized pricing.
Define the "astronomy community." Do we do first come first served or do we have a priority list? How do we handle disputes? Is it just US citizens or do we need to offer this to the entire world? What if the vendor fails to make good on their concessions? What sort of penalties should surround this system?
There's really nothing "obvious" about this.
hacker news poster says "my cheap fiber is working just fine, why does anyone need satellite internet", completely ignoring the literally billion people who can't access the internet reliably at all due to infrastructure failures
Progress in Earth bound astronomy has the downside of less satellite internet.
We can build better, bigger and more sensible telescopes but we can hardly use those new capabilities if they are impaired by satellites.
Space telescopes are expensive and harder to maintain.