Ukraine War: Elon Musk's SpaceX Firm Bars Kyiv from Using Starlink Tech for Drone Control

[sanman]

SpaceX cuts the cord to the Uke drone fleet:

Ukraine war: Elon Musk's SpaceX firm bars Kyiv from using Starlink tech for drone control

The firm says it has limited Kyiv's ability to use its Starlink satellite internet for military ends.

www.bbc.com

Ukraine War: Elon Musk's SpaceX Firm Bars Kyiv from Using Starlink Tech for Drone Control

By James FitzGerald
BBC News

SpaceX has limited Ukraine's ability to use its satellite internet service for military purposes - after reports that Kyiv has used it to control drones.
Early in the war, Ukraine was given thousands of SpaceX Starlink dishes - which connect to satellites and help people stay connected to the internet.
But it is also said to have used the tech to target Russian positions - breaking policies set out by SpaceX.

Looks like the dimestore army really has no army of their own unless they can help themselves to everyone else's resources.

 

[sanman]

Hey, Comrade Zelensky!



and Z as well

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I am sure that we are going to see Elon be indicted on some bogus charge soon. Our elite will not forgive Americans for not being patriotic Ukranians

 

[dmpi]

Elon's network wasn't designed to be a weapon of mass destruction.

 

[sanman]

Elon's network wasn't designed to be a weapon of mass destruction.

 

[PoS]

Being the internet, there are ways to get around such restrictions. The Ukrainians have shown that theyre pretty clever about this kind of stuff so the problem is probably a temporary one for them.

 

[sanman]

Being the internet, there are ways to get around such restrictions. The Ukrainians have shown that theyre pretty clever about this kind of stuff so the problem is probably a temporary one for them.

Haha - you seriously think you can hack Starlink?

In that case, anyone can be playing their own Drone Attack game - including terrorist organizations like AlQaeda, ISIS, or Azov.

If Ukraine can do it, then Russia could do it far more easily.

 

[Mycroft]

SpaceX cuts the cord to the Uke drone fleet:

Ukraine war: Elon Musk's SpaceX firm bars Kyiv from using Starlink tech for drone control

The firm says it has limited Kyiv's ability to use its Starlink satellite internet for military ends.

www.bbc.com

Looks like the dimestore army really has no army of their own unless they can help themselves to everyone else's resources.

I don't blame them.

Is anyone?...Ukraine?...the US?...going to reimburse SpaceX when Russia starts destroying satellites?

I doubt it.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

I'm actually OK with this. It should be the choice of any private enterprise whether they wish to be involved in a war, and on what side. The only limitation on that is that a US corporation should not be allowed to support a foreign military against the United States.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

I don't blame them.

Is anyone?...Ukraine?...the US?...going to reimburse SpaceX when Russia starts destroying satellites?

I doubt it.

You know these are really tiny satellites, right? Unless Russia has energy weapons in orbit, they can't practically destroy them. It would cost many times what the satellites themselves cost, and because there are so many of them, it would exceed any anti-satellite arms Russia has (other than energy weapons as mentioned.)

I repeat, I support SpaceX's right to deny use of the satellites. I just think "because it might cost money" is a dumb reason.

 

[coyote505]

I'm actually OK with this. It should be the choice of any private enterprise whether they wish to be involved in a war, and on what side. The only limitation on that is that a US corporation should not be allowed to support a foreign military against the United States.

Of course, the American public has a voice in this. They can choose to boycott Tesla.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Elon's network wasn't designed to be a weapon of mass destruction.

Unless it is used by Americans - right?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I'm actually OK with this. It should be the choice of any private enterprise whether they wish to be involved in a war, and on what side. The only limitation on that is that a US corporation should not be allowed to support a foreign military against the United States.

You mean like those German subsidiaries (which had been "sold" to "neutrals" and which were "sold back" to American parent corporations after WWII) supported the Nazis?

 

[medi]

Something here doesn't smell right. I thought back in 2022 and a bit into the conflict there was a statement/decision made by Mr. Musk to let the armed forces there use that system and he even gave them some information as to how to protect something related to the system. I'm not going to go digging for the articles I read to prove this right now in this post because I am rather sure my memory isn't that bad. So he gave them use of that system in a very public way back then.

NOW, in a very public way, he is stating no more deal. I wonder what caused this change? Strikes me as a bit strange. What entity got on his case about this? Some group of business folks? A Russian entity? The U.S. government? Obviously, I am stating I smell outside pressure on this change of policy. Or there is something else we haven't been informed of. Does the U.S. have a system they may be covertly allowing the armed forces there to be using? A better system.

Something strikes me as odd here. Well, other than my own stupid brain thinking of odd stuff.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Something here doesn't smell right. I thought back in 2022 and a bit into the conflict there was a statement/decision made by Mr. Musk to let the armed forces there use that system and he even gave them some information as to how to protect something related to the system. I'm not going to go digging for the articles I read to prove this right now in this post because I am rather sure my memory isn't that bad. So he gave them use of that system in a very public way back then.

NOW, in a very public way, he is stating no more deal. I wonder what caused this change? Strikes me as a bit strange. What entity got on his case about this? Some group of business folks? A Russian entity? The U.S. government? Obviously, I am stating I smell outside pressure on this change of policy. Or there is something else we haven't been informed of. Does the U.S. have a system they may be covertly allowing the armed forces there to be using? A better system.

Something strikes me as odd here. Well, other than my own stupid brain thinking of odd stuff.

How long do you think that it would take Mr. Musk to reverse his decision if the Ukraine paid him $1,000,000,000?

 

[Metric Mouse]

Something here doesn't smell right. I thought back in 2022 and a bit into the conflict there was a statement/decision made by Mr. Musk to let the armed forces there use that system and he even gave them some information as to how to protect something related to the system. I'm not going to go digging for the articles I read to prove this right now in this post because I am rather sure my memory isn't that bad. So he gave them use of that system in a very public way back then.

NOW, in a very public way, he is stating no more deal. I wonder what caused this change? Strikes me as a bit strange. What entity got on his case about this? Some group of business folks? A Russian entity? The U.S. government? Obviously, I am stating I smell outside pressure on this change of policy. Or there is something else we haven't been informed of. Does the U.S. have a system they may be covertly allowing the armed forces there to be using? A better system.

Something strikes me as odd here. Well, other than my own stupid brain thinking of odd stuff.

They can still use starlink. They just can't use it to control drones past the front lines.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

They can still use starlink. They just can't use it to control drones past the front lines.

The Ukrainian government has just released a new OFFICIAL map showing that the "front line" runs right down the middle of "Тверская улица" (Tverskaya Street [formerly улица Горького {Gorky Street}] in Moscow).

 

[sanman]

How long do you think that it would take Mr. Musk to reverse his decision if the Ukraine paid him $1,000,000,000?

You mean if Ukraine paid him $1,000,000,000 of US taxpayer money? Because we all know that Ukraine has no money of its own. It all just comes from Washington, like a money-laundering operation.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You mean if Ukraine paid him $1,000,000,000 of US taxpayer money?

I don't think that Mr. Musk would be overly concerned over where the money originated.

Because we all know that Ukraine has no money of its own. It all just comes from Washington, like a money-laundering operation.

Much like "Defence Loans" to foreign government which have to be spent ONLY on purchasing defence materials manufactured by American corporations are "like a -money-laundering operation- subsidy"?

 

[Jetboogieman]

Hey, Comrade Zelensky!



and Z as well

Will give you this.

You’re not trying to hide the fact you’re a full blown Putin supporter.

 

[medi]

Okey-dokey, I see that I must have screwed up a bit back when reading in a scanning manner the BBC articles about Starlink and that conflict and all that stuff. I am rather sure I didn't properly archive this point:

Early in the war, Ukraine was given thousands of SpaceX Starlink dishes - which connect to satellites and help people stay connected to the internet.

But I then see this line in that same article for this thread and have some confusion setting in about the full scope of not using that system for offensive operations:

Ms Shotwell confirmed that it was acceptable for the Ukrainian military for deploy Starlink technology "for comms", but said her intent was "never to have them use it for offensive purposes".

Seems a little bit cloudy over that AO.

But then I see there is that qualification related to use with drone flights that states "long-range" drone flights are the key point of this:

"However, we are not allowing Starlink to be used for long-range drone strikes. This is the damned if you don't part."

I figure that with something this important all public announcements are going to be checked carefully (screened) and that reference to long range has me wondering how far long range is? Long range from where? I'd state the clouds are getting a little heavier over the AO.

And with regard to money I noticed this line in that article:

As well as the terminals sent directly by the company itself, others have been funded by the foreign governments.

So free services are limited to certain ways of using the service, but what if a fee is paid by some "foreign government"? Does that then allow for restrictions to be lifted?

I wonder if we have anyone in our community here that has a good grasp of this situation and can fill in a few blanks? I'm afraid I haven't done the proper homework/research to fully understand all this stuff. On the other hand, does anyone here really care? Well, care enough to spend the necessary hours studying all this.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Okey-dokey, I see that I must have screwed up a bit back when reading in a scanning manner the BBC articles about Starlink and that conflict and all that stuff. I am rather sure I didn't properly archive this point:


But I then see this line in that same article for this thread and have some confusion setting in about the full scope of not using that system for offensive operations:

Seems a little bit cloudy over that AO.

But then I see there is that qualification related to use with drone flights that states "long-range" drone flights are the key point of this:

I figure that with something this important all public announcements are going to be checked carefully (screened) and that reference to long range has me wondering how far long range is? Long range from where? I'd state the clouds are getting a little heavier over the AO.

And with regard to money I noticed this line in that article:

So free services are limited to certain ways of using the service, but what if a fee is paid by some "foreign government"? Does that then allow for restrictions to be lifted?

I wonder if we have anyone in our community here that has a good grasp of this situation and can fill in a few blanks? I'm afraid I haven't done the proper homework/research to fully understand all this stuff. On the other hand, does anyone here really care? Well, care enough to spend the necessary hours studying all this.

Let's just say that Mr. Musk's "ethics" are about as flexible as those of the character "Pooh-Bah" in Gilbert and Sullivan's "The Mikado". There is nothing that cannot be achieved with the assistance of a sufficient "insult".

 

[Metric Mouse]

The Ukrainian government has just released a new OFFICIAL map showing that the "front line" runs right down the middle of "Тверская улица" (Tverskaya Street [formerly улица Горького {Gorky Street}] in Moscow).

I would imagine no one with an IQ above room temperature believes the propaganda released by Ukraine without checking with other, more reliable sources.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I would imagine no one with an IQ above room temperature believes the propaganda released by Ukraine without checking with other, more reliable sources.

And no one with an IQ above room temperature would believe that the Russia/Ukraine "front line" runs down the main street of Moscow. So your point is - what?

PS - The first part (about the location of the Russia/Ukraine "front line") MIGHT be "treated as accurate" if there were enough money involved in accepting it.

 

[Metric Mouse]

And no one with an IQ above room temperature would believe that the Russia/Ukraine "front line" runs down the main street of Moscow. So your point is - what?

PS - The first part (about the location of the Russia/Ukraine "front line") MIGHT be "treated as accurate" if there were enough money involved in accepting it.

Our points are the same: no one would believe Ukraine.

And the front lines would be what they really are, and drone attacks restricted to that.