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

231–240 of 306 posts

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#231

Post by wybiral »

feb012025 wrote: post #206
Rover222 wrote: post #161

Why are none of the people I saw posting non-stop about Palestine saying anything about Iranian freedom? Would honestly love to hear a genuine response from anyone who is against the movement in Iran. Or even conflicted about it.

I would say it's really about opposition to death and suffering. The activists want the excessive death and suffering to end in Palestine, and they want to avoid death and suffering in Iran. Many politicians want to use the protests as a pretext for military intervention in Iran, and my blunt opinion is that they don't actually have the interests of Iranians in mind. There are many reasons to believe it will end up w…

You don't have to support military intervention to pay attention. People supported Palestine without wanting to bomb Israel.

Also... Are the executed protesters not also death and suffering? What about victims and conflicts resulting from the groups Iran funds?

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#232

Post by panick21_ »

overfeed wrote: post #210
ece wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't Starlink use some sort wideband signal which is hard to jam? Combined with some sort of frequency hopping and a moving constellation should mean blocking a user or satellite signal should be pretty hard, like many times the cost of building and servicing a user terminal for use against protesters.

> Doesn't Starlink use some sort wideband signal which is hard to jam? It probably is hard to jam, but you don't need to jam it if you can pinpoint terminal locations and send in on-the-ground enforcers to confiscate the equipment and make arrests. TV detector vans were introduced in 1952[1], the principles for finding sources of RF emissions isn't cutting edge technology. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector…

You realize Iran is pretty big with lots of people and Iran can't run around with detector van across all those regions and people. Specially when they potentially lose control over certain areas. And those vans can be disabled pretty easily as well, specially in a proto-war zone.

That said, this would only be true if there were enough people with terminals.

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#233

Post by [deleted] »

stereo wrote: post #76
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.”"

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…

[deleted]

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#234

Post by hcurtiss »

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…

The allegation at the time was that he turned off Starlink. That was not true. He did not turn it on at Ukraine’s request because US law prohibited it.

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#235

Post by feb012025 »

wybiral wrote: post #231
feb012025 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say it's really about opposition to death and suffering. The activists want the excessive death and suffering to end in Palestine, and they want to avoid death and suffering in Iran. Many politicians want to use the protests as a pretext for military intervention in Iran, and my blunt opinion is that they don't actually have the interests of Iranians in mind. There are many reasons to believe it will end up w…

You don't have to support military intervention to pay attention. People supported Palestine without wanting to bomb Israel. Also... Are the executed protesters not also death and suffering? What about victims and conflicts resulting from the groups Iran funds?

The problem is, I really do believe any kind of mass support for the Iranian protesters will in fact be co-opted to start a war with Iran--at least at this particular moment in time.

And the executed protesters are a bad thing. But I don't think military intervention will lead to a better outcome.

Supporters of Palestine had pretty specific requests, none of which apply to Iran (conditioning weapons sales, divestment, etc...)

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#236

Post by gomijacogeo »

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.

Assuming the jamming is coming from close to the horizon, I wonder if one could improvise a choke ring around the antenna with some sheet metal or foil.

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#237

Post by wybiral »

feb012025 wrote: post #235
wybiral wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to support military intervention to pay attention. People supported Palestine without wanting to bomb Israel. Also... Are the executed protesters not also death and suffering? What about victims and conflicts resulting from the groups Iran funds?

The problem is, I really do believe any kind of mass support for the Iranian protesters will in fact be co-opted to start a war with Iran--at least at this particular moment in time. And the executed protesters are a bad thing. But I don't think military intervention will lead to a better outcome. Supporters of Palestine had pretty specific requests, none of which apply to Iran (conditioning weapons sales, divestment…

You're the one certain about military intervention. I just want them to keep pressuring a regime that's killing it's own people.

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#238

Post by lostlogin »

hcurtiss wrote: post #234
lostlogin wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The allegation at the time was that he turned off Starlink. That was not true. He did not turn it on at Ukraine’s request because US law prohibited it.

The current administration quashed the investigation into the contact he was having with Putin.

So I guess we get to stick with your story.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy0l3wl76gzo

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#239

Post by kennykartman »

ACCount37 wrote: post #36

Not too surprising, given that Starlink operates in Iran without a permit, "space pirate radio" style, and has something of a habit of making the access free when major protests happen and the government imposes a network blackout. Iranian government and Starlink have no love for each other, clearly. It's a pattern by now: whenever a government wants to do something awful, it shuts down internet access - so that no o…

Playing a bit the devil's advocate here, but

> This is why all of those "national great firewalls" shouldn't exist in the first place

This is a kind of colonialist thinking that is, IMO, a problem in the western society. There are indeed drawbacks in a lack of freedom, but assuming that a government should not be able to filter the content diffused to the population is wrong in principle. You don't get to choose what is right or wrong in every part of the world: that is a very USA-centric way to view the society and easily leads to "export freedom and democracy" acts. It's a very USA-friendly way to frame things. Not necessarily the right way to frame things.

Re: Iran is likely jamming Starlink

#240

Post by GJim »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #224
ece wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird how Apple and Google don't get it, while SpaceX does.

Imagine if Starlink came with special channel to X.com. UK would loose their minds.

You may wish to look what is happening closer to home before engaging in such low level trolling.
Post reply on HN