Ukraine 31: Icarus Edition

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Zorral said:

Tell that to the Ukranians, particularly those who have been suffering rape rape rape rape, from children to adults.

And how many of those were comitted by Musk?

I mean Musk is a cunt. But to blame him/starlink for the crimes of Russian soldiers and mercs is a bit too much.

Can we just hold him in contempt for things he did.

[Wilbur]

6 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Isn't that what I said?

Anyway, the US can't regulate space alone. Unless you claim space belongs to the US and the US alone.

That's one of those pesky areas, where they should have worked with other nations.

Yes, your statement was correct.

My point about the US regulatory agencies is that I have real-world experience to compare with the actuality of the Starlink launches - I can compare them to the launch of Iridium satellites.

My personal view is that when Motorola launched the Iridium network, the FCC, the Department of Commerce, the USAF, the ITU, NASA, NOAA, Rockwell's internal controls organization, the DoD, the FAA, and DoT all had to approve the entire system development lifecycle.  Furthermore, a lot of the launches had to similarly work their way through a similar set of processes in Russia, China, and Europe (although I don't think we actually used European launch resources prior to Iridium's sale).  Furthermore, all the Gateways had to have a similar review and reporting cycle, and at the time Motorola went through the approval process in every country where they provided service or sited a Gateway.

The Iridium Division at Motorola had to budget millions in blue dollar transfers to the Compliance team at Motorola LMPS to help them work through all the bureaucracy, set up the appropriate control environment, design the system to comply with all the regulations from all the stakeholders, and create working reporting and oversight controls to gain the approval of these governing bodies prior to, during, and after the Iridium launches in the 1990s.  My hazy memory suggests that there was an equal number of compliance and reporting personnel to the number of technical and engineering staff in GTSS supporting the project at the height of the Iridium business.

In comparison, two decades later, these regulatory bodies were so flaccid that they pencil-whipped the Starlink project paperwork without any serious oversight.  Whether it was a case of regulatory capture or atrophied government oversight, Musk had only to push through a wet paper bag in comparison to the effort to gain government approval for Iridium.

The US Government had an absolute right and a duty to ensure that Starlink had adequate supervision and controls.  They didn't do this, and as a result, "SpaceX currently conducts an avoidance maneuver every time orbital models show a probability higher than 1 in 100,000 that one of the Starlink satellites will cross another object's path. That threshold is 10 times lower than the standard upheld by NASA and other international agencies."

Despite all the work that Iridium did in preparation, after Motorola sold the business, one of the Iridium constellation got creamed by a Russian satellite that was unreported by the Roscosmos.  I remain unimpressed by SpaceX's free ride through the world of government oversight, and this news of Musk's unilateral decision doesn't improve my opinion.

Edited September 9, 2023 by Wilbur
cain't spel

[Ran]

4 hours ago, Wilbur said:

My hazy memory suggests that there was an equal number of compliance and reporting personnel to the number of technical and engineering staff in GTSS supporting the project at the height of the Iridium business.

Iridium almost immediately went bankrupt. It's not a great argument for excessive regulation.

That said, Ukraine has Iridium Next terminals, why are they acting like Starlink is so vital? I was surprised to learn that they have that option for satellite internet access. They are not solely dependent on Starlink or Starshield, but articles seem to go out of their way to not mention that.

Feels even more ike a very ginned up controversy.

 

[mormont]

[mod] Just to bring a side argument to an end:

Rape analogies are rarely if ever necessary or justified. Avoid them if it is at all possible to do so, and 99.999% of the time it will be. If you use one and someone says it was offensive, apologise rather than trying to justify a poor choice. That's just good board etiquette. Thanks. [/mod]

[Padraig]

3 hours ago, Ran said:

Feels even more ike a very ginned up controversy.

It was inevitably going to cause controversy.  The West is supposed to be fully behind Ukraine but that is obviously not completely true.  Musk has the power to do what he did but I am not surprised that people are unhappy about it.  Especially since the Ukrainian counter-offensive has struggled to get major traction.  It clearly needs every little bit of help it can get. 

It might still work out of course but it doesn't feel like a time for optimism.  Russia continues to kill civilians and spread its toxic ethos worldwide.  It remains all very depressing.

[Heartofice]

This all seems a case of ‘bad man is bad’ , lots of people don’t like Musk and any action he takes must all be part of some nefarious collaboration with Putin ( where have we seen this before hmmm). If I go to the Guardian article on this story right now it quickly segues off to stories about Russian influence on Twitter and a number of other dots that you are meant to connect yourself about why Musk might not be allowing Starlink access.

But from what I can see his position aligns pretty closely to the general western position that any offensive actions on Russian territory could lead to an escalation of a nuclear nature. Not sure anyone is willing to play that game of bluff with Putin. But either way, Musk didn’t switch off access to Starlink, he just didn’t allow for it to be extended in range for an offensive action. 

Edited September 9, 2023 by Heartofice

[A Horse Named Stranger]

39 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

This all seems a case of ‘bad man is bad’ , lots of people don’t like Musk and any action he takes must all be part of some nefarious collaboration with Putin ( where have we seen this before hmmm). If I go to the Guardian article on this story right now it quickly segues off to stories about Russian influence on Twitter and a number of other dots that you are meant to connect yourself about why Musk might not be allowing Starlink access.

But from what I can see his position aligns pretty closely to the general western position that any offensive actions on Russian territory could lead to an escalation of a nuclear nature. Not sure anyone is willing to play that game of bluff with Putin. But either way, Musk didn’t switch off access to Starlink, he just didn’t allow for it to be extended in range for an offensive action. 

Western position is on Russian territory, yes. However Crimea is not Russia. Internationally recognized borders place Crimea into Ukraine.

[Heartofice]

9 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Western position is on Russian territory, yes. However Crimea is not Russia. Internationally recognized borders place Crimea into Ukraine.

Crimea is basically gone. Ukraine is not going to get it back and any attempt to get it back or invade is going to be seen as an escalation into Russian territory by Russia.

[Spockydog]

Reckon in about two years time I will be in a position to very publicly challenge Musk to a cage fight. Imma kick the tosser's arse. Then I'm going to buy everything he owns. 

[Ran]

I would love to see Ukraine win Crimea back, but yeah, not sure that it is feasible at this stage. There was a recent article on US and Western officials being rather skeptical about the Ukrainian strategy of strikes against Crimea, feeling it was a lot of effort for little reward and that it seemed mostly driven by emotion and wishful thinking rather than concrete strategic goals.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

That is not for Musk to decide however. As far as I am aware of he is not overlord of the world, who gets to redraw rcognised borders between states (no matter how much he might insist on it)

[Ran]

Just now, A Horse Named Stranger said:

That is not for Musk to decide however.

He can decide how the service he was giving to Ukraine can be used.

He can also have whatever personal opinion he wants to have on Crimea, even if it's a wrong one.

[Heartofice]

9 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

That is not for Musk to decide however. As far as I am aware of he is not overlord of the world, who gets to redraw rcognised borders between states (no matter how much he might insist on it)

It is the service he was giving to Ukraine for which he is now being criticised, because I guess it’s Musk.

Either way, his position isn’t all that different from any other western leader who I’d guess would cautiously advise Ukraine to not take military action into Russian territory.

Edited September 9, 2023 by Heartofice

[A Horse Named Stranger]

15 minutes ago, Ran said:

He can decide how the service he was giving to Ukraine can be used.

He can also have whatever personal opinion he wants to have on Crimea, even if it's a wrong one.

 

Obviously. He has shown that he can do that. That brings us back to the point how on earth that manbaby was allowed to end up with that sorta power. What Wilbur and I have been banging on about. And then we arrive very quickly at the point, where we get to wonder if he really should have that sorta power. If the answer is something between clearly no, and fuck no! we arrive at the (re-)nationalize it argument kal is putting forward. I am not overly thrilled with the prospect of the bloody US controlling it, but that is a preferable alternative to Elon fucking Musk.

 

Anyway, if Musk claims he wants to help Ukraine with the defense of their territory, that objectively involves all of it. And not just the bits and pieces lord Musk generously grants those peasents.

 

9 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

It is the service he was giving to Ukraine for which he is now being criticised, because I guess it’s Musk.

No, he is being criticised for cutting the service he has been giving to Ukraine in a potentially vital moment, and for acting like a fucking idiot with the power to redraw borders (decide what is Russia and what's Ukraine). He is not being criticised for providing service to Ukraine, hell, I am not even criticising him for wanting to get reimbursed.

[SpaceChampion]

That's rather the opposite of what Isaacson claimed in his book.  Regardless, if a country doesn't control a territory SpaceX has no legal basis for operating in that territory.

 

58 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Anyway, if Musk claims he wants to help Ukraine with the defense of their territory, that objectively involves all of it. And not just the bits and pieces lord Musk generously grants those peasents.

When did he claim that?  Providing Starlink to Ukraine was not about defense, it was about civilian and government internet access so they can hook up vital services, like hospital and schools cut off by the war.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Crimea is basically gone. Ukraine is not going to get it back and any attempt to get it back or invade is going to be seen as an escalation into Russian territory by Russia.

Horseshit.  Russia has made the same bullshit claim about the four Oblasts it “annexed” in Eastern Ukraine.  Why is Crimea… which is Ukraine… different?

[Padraig]

1 hour ago, SpaceChampion said:

Bizarre stuff.  It would cause a major war?  What do we think is going on at the moment?

There have been dozens of attacks in Crimea already.  Admittedly, it is very hard to imagine Ukraine regaining Crimea but they are perfectly entitled to try.  And certainly to disrupt Russian military bases that are used to strike places in Ukraine and hit ground lines of communication that are used supply Russian troops elsewhere.

Maybe there are better targets.  It is easy to criticise from other countries.  Doesn't change the fact that Ukraine are entitled to make the effort.

1 hour ago, SpaceChampion said:

Regardless, if a country doesn't control a territory SpaceX has no legal basis for operating in that territory.

Who adjudicates this law?  Is Russia going to bring SpaceX to court?

I can agree that Musk attracts criticism because of who he is.  Some of that is inevitably undeserved.  But at the same time, he controls vital infrastructure, criticism comes with the territory.  I'm sure he'll be fine.

1 hour ago, SpaceChampion said:

Providing Starlink to Ukraine was not about defense, it was about civilian and government internet access so they can hook up vital services, like hospital and schools cut off by the war.

That's weird too.  How can we be debating this after a year of it being used in a warzone?  I didn't think I was that badly informed.

[Ran]

19 minutes ago, Padraig said:

It would cause a major war?

I think by "major war", Isaacson is referring to the idea that Russia might have responded with nuclear weapons or targeted Ukrainian allies if Ukraine has destroyed a good portion of the Russian fleet in the early stages of the war. 

Was this feasible? Hard to say how Putin would have responded to such a massive reversal.

[Varysblackfyre321]

7 hours ago, Ran said:

Was this feasible?

No. 

It didn’t even look it.

10 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

is not being criticised for providing service to Ukraine, hell, I am not even criticising him for wanting to get reimbursed.

If he just said He wouldn’t provide the service until he gets paid an exuberant amount of money the Ukrainians would struggle to meet it’d be less aggravating than framing giving Ukrainians the ability to recapture large swathes of their territory as escalating the conflict to WW3 and Nuclear Armageddon because without a win in Ukraine Putin will have little option. The rhetoric he’s using, the logic he’s promoting, is the same type people use to demand a serious roll back or stalemate of lethal aid provided to Ukraine in general. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

FWIW.

When the history of the conflict will be written, I think Musk's/Starlink's contribution will still end up as one of the heros in this sstory, who have done more good than harm.

Esp. during the first year of this war. Musk/Starlink did (and still do) provide vital aid in the form of communication/internet. Nobody will be able to take that away from him. This giant fuck up by limiting Ukraine's capacity will be a huge stain on what could've been the give that man a statue in center of Kyiv story. And we wouldn't be having THIS discussion of Musk. There would be other discussions about him being a pretty awful person and his accidental purchase of twitter and subsequent attempts to make it worse. But we wouldn't have this Musk dramaqueen/manbaby discussion about Ukraine and Starlink.