Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Iran is likely jamming Starlink

timesofisrael.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 306 posts

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#121

Post by ovi256 »

Majromax wrote: post #68
perihelions wrote: post #58

Seems like a big flaw that low-orbit constellations have a dependency on GPS, which are high-altitude satellites. They're 40x further away and so have 1,600x greater path loss. Why can't they use their own satellites for this? > "But Starlink receivers use GPS to locate and connect to satellites. “Since its 12-day war with Israel last June," The Times says, “Iran has been disrupting GPS signals.”"

It sounds like Starlink uses GPS to localize the receiver, rather than for any active step in the communication link. Since most receivers are static, I wonder if an effective workaround to this is for the receiver to just remember its last GPS fix for longer, or worst-case allow a manual location specification in lieu of a GPS fix.

A user provided location cannot be trusted for geofencing purposes. A GNSS (GPS or other) is needed sooner or later. This is a legal requirement for sanction and regulation enforcement (US, if not others).

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#122

Post by Noaidi »

Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #83
stereo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gps is free to use. Running your own gnss service requires an atomic clock and possibly separate transmission hardware, which is possible, but adds cost, volume, and weight. According to [1], “[o]ne of the current generation of GPS satellites (Block III) weighs over 2,200 kg (4,850 lb), the weight of an average pickup truck. The body of these satellites are 1.8 m x 2.5 m x 3.4 m (5.9’ x 8.2’ x 11.2’) in size”. In com…

> Gps is free to use. Running your own gnss service requires an atomic clock and possibly separate transmission hardware, which is possible, but adds cost, volume, and weight. Thanks you provide some great insights on why starlink didnt use gps but still if starlink wants to focus itself as the uncensorable internet in places like protests etc. I feel like they can probably do this after this recent incident I just c…

[flagged]

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#123

Post by cindyllm »

Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #99
tucnak wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is said they pulled the plug for all peering on Thursday, although I would assume some kind of government-run ISP may be operational still (I haven't checked Cloudlfare radar)

Pardon me but can you please provide me more context regarding it. I am genuinely confused about the ground state of reality in Iran right now regarding Internet access at all can you please take a look at cloudflare radar and see what the current ipv4 connectivity means? Even Ipv4 was blocked for sometime but then it got back to normal in the graph shown in cloudflare radar Can you please tell me what you mean by pl…

[dead]

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#124

Post by SXX »

RandomLensman wrote: post #95
gordonhart wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s no evidence that China (or anybody else) has the capacity to meaningfully harm the 9000+ satellite Starlink constellation.

Debris creating debris creating debris ... ?

Only if they want to kill 99% of all sattelites since this is a game that can be played together.

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#125

Post by SXX »

Etheryte wrote: post #60
consumer451 wrote: post #54

I am curious if there are any implications for the Russian invasion of Ukraine from this tactic working.

What do you mean, Russia has been doing the same thing for most of the war? The success relies on you controlling the territory, or at least territory close enough, so the results vary.

In a war zone any large high power jammer will be like supernova in the darkness visible for detectors from tens of kilometers away. So its gonna be immediately destroyed.

Iran protesters cant find or destroy jammers though.

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#126

Post by ACCount37 »

ck2 wrote: post #108

I am curious how phones now can reach LEO for enough bandwidth for voice calls but you need a full dish, however small, for starlink? Could you get at least 1mbps from a phone to LEO now for email and non-realtime data?

Link budget cuts both ways. If your user terminal sucks, you can compensate somewhat - by building a larger, beefier satellite that has better antenna directionality and pumps out more transmission juice, and throwing the data rate under the bus. This is how it's done now.

Having a terminal that doesn't suck puts less strain on the satellite side and, thus, scales better. But for emergencies and serving middle of nowhere, "direct to cell" makes sense.

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#127

Post by exe34 »

lostlogin wrote: post #116
hcurtiss wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? Has Musk shut off Starlink? The reporting out of Ukraine was almost entirely wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russian-Ukrain...

From your link, with good sources: In 2022, Elon Musk denied a Ukrainian request to extend Starlink's coverage up to Russian-occupied Crimea during a counterattack on a Crimean port, from which Russia had been launching attacks against Ukrainian civilians; doing so would have violated US sanctions on Russia.[18] This event was widely reported in 2023, erroneously characterizing it as Musk "turning off" Starlink cover…

> doing so would have violated US sanctions on Russia.

that made me laugh!

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#128

Post by dsign »

My thoughts to the Iranian people, may they get what they need and deserve at a cost that is not too high.

As in all conflicts, there's always a "fog of blame" where there isn't absolute certainty about who is right and who is to blame. Though it's not that hard. Because their survival depends on it, dictators are very good at blaming others--anybody, really--for their own shortcomings, and they usually wield the kind of hard power that makes them extremely costly to topple in terms of suffering and human lives.

Life is too short to have to deal with despots. We need a better, perhaps less-crowded or less xenophobic world where every person can protect their right to exist by simply packing and leaving as a last resort.

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#129

Post by DetectDefect »

westurner wrote: post #85
almogo wrote: post #66

Does anyone know how Iranians are _actually_ communicating right now? I remember seeing here on HN (admittedly a long time ago) some Bluetooth-mesh technologies that promised decentralized solutions to these very type of problems

https://github.com/x011/smtp-tunnel-proxy : > A high-speed covert tunnel that disguises TCP traffic as SMTP email communication to bypass Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) firewalls

No mention of any security review, or even testing. Reason enough to stay away from such tools.

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#130

Post by nradov »

Noaidi wrote: post #117
perihelions wrote: post #58

Seems like a big flaw that low-orbit constellations have a dependency on GPS, which are high-altitude satellites. They're 40x further away and so have 1,600x greater path loss. Why can't they use their own satellites for this? > "But Starlink receivers use GPS to locate and connect to satellites. “Since its 12-day war with Israel last June," The Times says, “Iran has been disrupting GPS signals.”"

This whole stalink for military use (Starshield) was a scam Elon sold the military from the beginning. Just like his dumb ass tunnels and his self driving cars. He is putting the military at risk.

Is there any actual evidence that Starshield doesn't work substantially as promised?
Post reply on HN