Elon Musk says the Request to Turn on Starlink in Crimea Came from the Ukrainian Government in the Middle of the Night "We figured out that this was kind of like a Pearl Harbor like attack...So they really asked us to proactively take part in a major act of war"

submitted by xolotltlalo from twitter.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

You're suggesting a lot of conspiracy theories.

Here's six fake conspiracy theories that you just shoved in my face.

Normally I'll entertain the saidit chuds when they invent one or two fake conspiracies in their comments. But not this many at once.

Try and invent fewer fake conspiracy theories if you want me to take you seriously

Here's just a handful I identified from a scan read

Each are fake, totally invented conspiracies which come from your brain and have zero evidence

  1. You're theorising a conspiracy in which the pentagon have some level of secret control over starlink

  2. Elon has a secret itar reason for protecting the fleet instead of his publicly announced reason (it crosses Elon's imaginary red lines of escalation)

  3. Starlink was secretly designed as a weapon platform

  4. There's something weirdly fast about a four (!) year turnaround on star shield

  5. Elon is a secret front for the government

  6. Air force generals do not allow civilian aerospace to be better than them and secretly intervene

[–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

I don't have access to next generation classified spy satellites capable of recording the life of every person on Earth, so unfortunately, I don't have evidence for what I believe the most consistent explanation for the data.

You are free to disprove anything I have stated.

If I build a "birth day candle" with the explosive yield of a small nuclear weapon, most people would say I have designed a bomb. It's the same with Starlink. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

An efficient version of Starlink would look differently (feel free to find all its competitors and see whether you can determine which one I mean, so the only logical solution is that Starlink is a weapons platform, because there is no point in large investment without a return.

Any technology better than the military has, has historically been instantly banned. This is a fact. We do not live in a free society.

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

You are free to disprove anything I have stated.

Lol

the only logical solution is that Starlink is a weapons platform

I have no idea what you're suggesting really.

Rod from god?

Are you saying there's a chance I might see a rod from god during my lifetime? Oh please jesus

[–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

A weapons platform that is only a targeting platform or a military communications platform is still a weapons platform.

I don't think it's rod from God. The possibilities for Starlink are much more sophisticated. I have mentioned some, but if you don't have the creativity to fill in the blanks, you shouldn't be in this conversation, because it feels more like a monologue anyway.

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

It feels like creative fiction writing, because it is

[–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

You didn't explain how Starlink uses many thousands of satellites when their competition (capable of higher bandwidth) can do with tens. Is your explanation that SpaceX is retarded? Not saying I disagree, but at least say something.

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I think you're asking me a question about bandwidth and satellite count? But you're phrasing it as "you didn't explain yet how..."

What data did you use to inform your opinion about bandwidth and satellite count? What observations did you make, that indicated something was amiss here.

Why the fuck are you expecting me to pull some answer out my ass? If you have seen data and made your own observations, then do your own research bro.

I'm not telling you that starlink is or isn't whatever you're imagining. DYOR and let us know how it goes

[–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I invested for a while in a satellite company and as such I did the research. I know that Starlink sucks from a civilian service economic perspective. I invited you to explain to me how it would not suck (clearly impossible, because I already know it to be false). As such, there can be only one valid conclusion, which is that Starlink has government involvement hidden from the public eye.

Starlink is a great military system; it's a shitty civilian system. How is that so hard to comprehend? I am just looking at it as if I were a foreign military analyst.

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Ok well if you have any data or observations to share then go ahead.

Let's see.

You're saying that other internet satellite companies can do with tens of satellites, the same tasks for which starlink desires thousands.

As all Kerbal engineers are aware,

  • orbital height is a factor

  • higher orbits = greater distance from earth = slower orbits relative to earth's spin = weaker signal, square rooting as the distance doubles

  • number and location of subscribers on the ground is a big difference between iridium and starlink

  • number and location of ground stations plays a big role

  • polar orbits and retrograde orbits provide functionality at greater costs

  • network topology is a big factor - how does the sat net internally route traffic

  • iridium doesn't have a fleet of web-connected vehicles in every corner of the world

  • iridium also doesn't have plans to colonise mars

  • a single iridium satellite might have completely different functionality and payloads to a starlink. When iridium were going up in the 80s and 90s, launch weight was incredibly more expensive than for spacex. So the fact that spacex use magnitudes more satellites might be for economic reasons.

There's just sooooo much that you're not accounting for.

I am just pulling things out my ass. I don't have data. I didn't make investments.

If you have an argument to develop, then do the legwork, asshole. Don't drag me into fifty back-and-forths about the funny feelings you're getting. DYOR and let us know what you find

[–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

AST SpaceMobile plans hundreds of satellites, but only 20 are needed for the commercially interesting areas (a factor 200 smaller than Star Link for global coverage). Articles about Starlink vs AST SpaceMobile are widely available. AST SpaceMobile is also a LEO competitor.