Saying thank you with one hand
Posted: 11 May 2022, 11:11And slapping you round the face with the other.
I'm talking about a ForeignPolicy (owned by the Washington post), article about how Starlink has changed the war in Ukraine.
The article starts out all nice and complementary.
Then the insidious digs start.
Not exactly true. SpaceX sent 3,600 terminals to Ukraine, free, with 3 months unlimited data. The US government paid for 1,500 and no data. The US government did, however, supply transport. The rest of the "over 10,000" have been a mix of SpaceX and charitable donations to the war effort. Point to note, it costs SpaceX $1,500 to make these terminals even though they sell them for $500, with a data contract that makes back the rest within a year. So SpaceX put out $5,4m on the terminals alone and then several million more on the data allowance.
Stated in such a way as to make out that SpaceX have somehow benefited from some general competition and innovation. News Flash, SpaceX is generating the competition, almost ALL the innovation that has driven down the cost of space launch has come from SpaceX.
In fact if it were not for the changes SpaceX has already made, it would be impossible to have a satellite broadband like Starlink.
Grudgingly they mention.
In fact anyone who follows space launches and the space business knows it is Entirely to do with the reuse of the boosters and SpaceX's relentless drive to push down the cost of space launch and to increase the volume of traffic to space.
Then the mask comes off.
So Musk is a plutocrat and this article is nothing but damning with faint praise.
Nope, whilst SpaceX leads the way.
Meaning that SpaceX is not to be That commended, they are just following on others work. Nothing really new.... Which is entirely untrue. Starlink technology is new, dramatically better and very cutting edge.
For the original satellite services they were talking about, Incorrect, the bandwidth and capacity has been very high indeed, especially given the low number of users. What killed it was Latency so high that anything other than downloads or constant streaming (think TV), were viable. Waiting 2.5 seconds for the other person to hear and their response to get back to you does not make a satisfactory call.
Towards the end of the article it goes on about how authoritarian regimes may find information control harder (good), but goes on at length about space junk and near misses with Starlink. In fact Starlink is the largest single constellation of satellites out there, by a factor of 3, meaning it is going to be at risk of colliding with more space junk than others. Apparently this is bad and all SpaceX's fault.
At the end it goes back to the benefits of Starlink.
It was no surprise to find out that this article has two authors. Even less surprise that it is owned by the Washington post. What I would love to know is which of the author's hates Musk.
I'm talking about a ForeignPolicy (owned by the Washington post), article about how Starlink has changed the war in Ukraine.
The article starts out all nice and complementary.
“Starlink service is now active in Ukraine. More terminals en route.” With a single tweet on Feb. 26, billionaire Elon Musk—CEO and founder of SpaceX, which launched the satellite-based internet service in 2020—announced the return of broadband data connectivity to darkened swaths of the embattled country. Geopolitics is rarely so influenced by business: For war-torn Ukraine, Starlink has become an information lifeline, keeping battered hospitals connected and serving as a link to drones targeting artillery strikes against Russian forces. Ukraine’s aerial reconnaissance force has used Starlink to connect directly to drones that have knocked out numerous Russian tanks, mobile command centers, and other military vehicles. Kyiv has also given terminals to schools, fire departments, and municipal governments. According to the Ukrainian Ministry of Health, 590 hospitals and clinics had received Starlink terminals to help them remain connected during the fighting as of late March.
Ukraine’s Digital Transformation Minister Mykhailo Fedorov reported there are more than 10,000 Starlink terminals are now operating in Ukraine, according to NBC. Unlike cellphone transmission towers, the satellite dishes used by Ukrainian forces for Starlink reception are small—about 23 inches wide—and readily movable to evade detection and retaliation. A Ukrainian soldier identified as Dima—his last name was withheld—told journalist David Patrikarakos: “Starlink is what changed the war in Ukraine’s favor. Russia went out of its way to blow up all our comms. Now they can’t. Starlink works under Katyusha fire, under artillery fire. It even works in Mariupol.”
The terminals are also resilient and adaptable. As Fedorov tweeted, it “wouldn’t be possible to restore 10 [kilometers] of cable connection between villages in Chernigiv region after serious battles so quick” without Starlink. When Russia resorted to electronic countermeasures, Starlink simply pushed out software updates to prevent these, according to Dave Tremper, director of electronic warfare at the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Temper said the speed at which Starlink countered the attack was “eye-watering.” Such mission-critical work is not confined to Ukraine. In December 2021, when a series of powerful tornadoes severed internet service for a number of small communities in western Kentucky, the lost service hampered emergency response efforts. Starlink sent technicians and dishes, which provided emergency connectivity within 24 hours.
Then the insidious digs start.
Starlink is prohibitively costly
Contrary to SpaceX’s claims, the U.S. government is paying for a substantial portion of the Starlink terminals sent to Ukraine
Not exactly true. SpaceX sent 3,600 terminals to Ukraine, free, with 3 months unlimited data. The US government paid for 1,500 and no data. The US government did, however, supply transport. The rest of the "over 10,000" have been a mix of SpaceX and charitable donations to the war effort. Point to note, it costs SpaceX $1,500 to make these terminals even though they sell them for $500, with a data contract that makes back the rest within a year. So SpaceX put out $5,4m on the terminals alone and then several million more on the data allowance.
Meanwhile, the cost of launching a satellite has plummeted, thanks to increased competition and innovation
Stated in such a way as to make out that SpaceX have somehow benefited from some general competition and innovation. News Flash, SpaceX is generating the competition, almost ALL the innovation that has driven down the cost of space launch has come from SpaceX.
In fact if it were not for the changes SpaceX has already made, it would be impossible to have a satellite broadband like Starlink.
Grudgingly they mention.
This became possible in part through the company’s ability to reuse the rocket’s booster stage
In fact anyone who follows space launches and the space business knows it is Entirely to do with the reuse of the boosters and SpaceX's relentless drive to push down the cost of space launch and to increase the volume of traffic to space.
Then the mask comes off.
Besides SpaceX and rival plutocrat Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin
So Musk is a plutocrat and this article is nothing but damning with faint praise.
While Musk grabs the spotlight
Nope, whilst SpaceX leads the way.
Of course, satellite data communications are nothing new
Meaning that SpaceX is not to be That commended, they are just following on others work. Nothing really new.... Which is entirely untrue. Starlink technology is new, dramatically better and very cutting edge.
But the cost of this service has traditionally been high, and bandwidth and capacity have been comparatively low
For the original satellite services they were talking about, Incorrect, the bandwidth and capacity has been very high indeed, especially given the low number of users. What killed it was Latency so high that anything other than downloads or constant streaming (think TV), were viable. Waiting 2.5 seconds for the other person to hear and their response to get back to you does not make a satisfactory call.
Towards the end of the article it goes on about how authoritarian regimes may find information control harder (good), but goes on at length about space junk and near misses with Starlink. In fact Starlink is the largest single constellation of satellites out there, by a factor of 3, meaning it is going to be at risk of colliding with more space junk than others. Apparently this is bad and all SpaceX's fault.
At the end it goes back to the benefits of Starlink.
In Ukraine, a steady stream of horrific images and videos from the war zone ratcheted up pressure on Western governments to supply weapons and intensify sanctions. In many regions of Ukraine, Starlink service is what allows people on the ground to continue sharing information and posting to Twitter and TikTok. While Russia may be winning the information war inside its own borders, it has decidedly lost the war to control the narrative beyond them
It was no surprise to find out that this article has two authors. Even less surprise that it is owned by the Washington post. What I would love to know is which of the author's hates Musk.