A classified network of SpaceX satellites is emitting a mysterious signal

[anonymousiam]

The S-band uplinks are not typically used during operations. They're mostly used during transfer orbit operations and initial testing, and in emergencies when something goes wrong with the normal comms (safe mode). The S-band antennas on the satellite are typically omnidirectional, so they'll hear anything strong enough to overcome the noise floor. Those comms can be encrypted or in the clear, depending upon the situation. The military satellites that I'm familiar with stop listening to the S-band uplink when their normal uplink is operational, so interference shouldn't be an issue during normal operations.

I'm not involved in this stuff anymore (now retired), but it's possible that the Starshield constellation supports transmitting on S-band (or L-Band) as a means to relay SGLS communications to satellites that are out-of-view. Having this capability would greatly benefit the workflow of transfer orbit operations and initial testing, by eliminating the constraint that the satellite must be in-view to communicate with it. It would also benefit anomaly resolution by allowing instant access to a malfunctioning spacecraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Control_Network

https://www.orbitalfocus.uk/Frequencies/FrequenciesSGLS.php

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/473264/af-sp...

[stinkbeetle]

> I'm not involved in this stuff anymore (now retired), but it's possible that the Starshield constellation supports transmitting on S-band (or L-Band) as a means to relay SGLS communications to satellites that are out-of-view. Having this capability would greatly benefit the workflow of transfer orbit operations and initial testing, by eliminating the constraint that the satellite must be in-view to communicate with it. It would also benefit anomaly resolution by allowing instant access to a malfunctioning spacecraft.

That's interesting, thank you for the great comment. Would that kind of usage then not be counter to the standards, as suggested in the article?

[bob1029]

The mass of the starlink satellites has doubled twice since V1.

It is not hard to assume that there is a significant DoD rideshare payload involved on the existing commercial satellites. Having a sensor platform on every single one would be incredible. The satellites that have been officially branded as Starshield (~183 we know of) could be part of cover or a more "kinetic" mission profile.

If I was in charge at the Pentagon, I would want every one of those 10k birds to have my sensor package on it. I also don't think I would permit a commercial spaceflight vendor to perform as many launches as SpaceX has performed without some kind of arrangement like this in place.

[QuiEgo]

> would permit a commercial spaceflight vendor to perform as many launches as SpaceX has performed without some kind of arrangement like this in place.

I’m sure SpaceX is happy to take the DoD’s money, doubt there’s any strong arming needed.

[brookst]

It's an interesting theory, but I'm not sure it works. Do you design in these sensors and build in the normal starlink factory, where most people don't have security clearances? Or do you make thousands of people get security clearances, making it pretty obvious?

And as soon as any data from a specific sensor leaks, adversaries would likely be able to pinpoint what satellite produced it.

And then the contractual terms mandating commercial spaceflight vendors do this work.

It all gets really complicated, with many thousands of people who are not part of traditional intelligence services all having to keep a massive secret.

[stinkbeetle]

If you were in charge at the Pentagon, would you have the authority to prohibit civilian access to space on that basis?

[ACCount37]

This reeks of SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar), and we know Starshield sats carry custom sensor payloads that normal Starlinks don't have.

[Zigurd]

I've been a pretty harsh critic of Starlink. I don't think it's going to compete well against terrestrial wireless links, specifically 5G FWA. But if they can actually do something interesting with distributed SAR in a large constellation, that's one of those national security breakthroughs that's worth every penny.

[ls612]

Starshield with SAR that could support a missile lock would be a completely transformative capability in any pacific war scenario.

[dzhiurgis]

The fact we speak about it already sometimes suggests it has been already deployed, sometimes for many decades.

Can it (a SAR sat doing a flyover) somehow be detected from ground?

[krona]

> SAR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic-aperture_radar?

[cameldrv]

Yeah and the E-7 was recently cancelled. This is what Hegseth said to Congress a few months ago: “The answer is yes. I would. I would file this entire discussion under difficult choices that we have to make. But you know, the E-7, in particular, is sort of late, more expensive and ‘gold plated,’ and so filling the gap, and then shifting to space-based ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] is a portion of how we think we can do it best, considering all the challenges"

I wonder if Starshield is the platform that is supposed to replace the E-3.

[martinky24]

What suggests SAR over downlink...?

[timmmmmmay]

The relevant ITU recommendation specifically allows for space-to-space radio links. You can read it here: https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/sa/R-REC-SA.1154-0-...

Why didn't the article author bother to read this?

[JumpCrisscross]

> relevant ITU recommendation specifically allows for space-to-space radio links...Why didn't the article author bother to read this?

How do you know they didn't?

Scott Tilley isn't in space. He detected these signals. The material question is if those signals are propagating upwards.

[Weeenion]

I'm curious if you could destroy a SpaceX Satelite with a basic laser pointers. Easily enough for normal state actors and some university or engineering lab.

You need only to track it and shoot your laser up there (its only 500km) and if it can't dissipate the energy fast enough, it would overheat.

[aerostable_slug]

The Russians have laser dazzlers designed to degrade/"jam" electro-optical imaging satellites. These are currently mounted to trucks and at least one airborne testbed. They are significantly more powerful than laser pointers and they have a prayer of accurately pointing the beam to hit the targeted satellites.

That said, they are dazzlers and not destroyers — they're designed to prevent American recce satellites from cuing American strategic bombers to the location of mobile missile launchers, so just dazzling the satellite's primary sensor accomplishes their task. Of course, that won't work against space-based SAR, but they have RF jammers (and decoys) for that.

[cantor_S_drug]

A simple way would be to send up a satellite filled with "bullets" in the orbit. At the opportune moment, the satellite will fire these bullets and they will place themselves in the paths of these satellites (no need to track and target the satellites, the satellites will fly towards the bullets as their paths are fixed), boom space debris and subsequent chain reaction.

[RobotToaster]

If your laser pointer is a few megawatts sure.

[BobbyTables2]

Try destroying a can of soda with a laser pointer first…

[dotnet00]

Seems like a pretty bad idea to be pointing a laser at the sky unless you're a government and can do the stuff necessary to not inadvertently blind pilots.

[ajross]

I'm all for a good spy story, but this seems like a big shrug to me. Interference-sensitive satellite communication is done with directional dishes, who cares what some other satellite is transmitting? That's the kind of nonsense you already engineered around.

And of course all communication managed by modern ICs is done with some kind of spread spectrum protocol with the property that "interference" is a routine/expected thing that doesn't degrade service. You can't break a modern satellite with an accidental transmission, you have to deliberately "jam" it.

Is the ITU rule in question being violated? Probably. Is that actually impactful to real systems? Almost certainly not. Old rules are old. Our goal should be to work together to update them for the benefit of all (to be sure, not to violate them with impunity!), and not to scream about them as part of a proxy war about the CEO's political and conspiracy proclivities.

[iamnothere]

(1) Some older satellites are still in use and this may affect them, especially if it becomes more common.

(2) Defending these norms is important to prevent chaos on the radio bands. If we can do this, why not China? Russia? Europe? Erosion of norms has real consequences when you are dealing with a scarce resource like RF spectrum.

[kragen]

This is not correct. Low-data-rate satellite communication is generally received on the satellite with omnidirectional antennas, because if you try to do it with directional dishes, any problem with your satellite's attitude control system or position estimation leaves you with a dead satellite, because the directional dish on the satellite is pointed somewhere you don't have a transmitting antenna. Attitude control problems can be serious in any case (for a publicly known example, see Kepler), but if you can't communicate with the satellite you have no chance to fix or work around the problem, or even find out what it was so the next satellite doesn't have it.

[gchokov]

Good luck looking for answers..

[iamnothere]

Another day, another important international agreement violated. I appreciate what SpaceX has done for global communications, but do not under any circumstances flagrantly violate ITU guidelines. This undermines critical agreements that allow us to (for instance) use the ISM and amateur bands without pervasive jamming. The ITU is not a political football like the rest of the UN, it’s a highly technical, competent organization that’s well-regarded among spectrum users.

[NitpickLawyer]

> I appreciate what SpaceX has done for global communications, but do not under any circumstances flagrantly violate ITU guidelines.

These are Starshields, not Starlinks. These are not operated by SpaceX. In the same way Boeing isn't spying on comms by building / launching an NRO satellite.

[Weeenion]

7 Million people benefit from it, 8 Billion people don't.

We should have done that A LOT slower without breaking shit left and right.

Edit: Because of the one downvote: It affects astronomy and a PRIVATE company has impact on a war like in ukraine. And they are violating shit just because its Musk

[jmclnx]

To me, the main issue is not the signal itself, but the direction:

>The use of those frequencies to "downlink" data runs counter to standards set by the International Telecommunication Union, a United Nations agency

So, just another instance of the current admin violating an international treaty the US is part of.

[Jtsummers]

Plenty to criticize the admin for, but these satellites have been going up since last year. Biden was president then, not Trump. This is TLAs being TLAs. They think they are special, and they are because they get little real scrutiny, unfortunately.

[JKCalhoun]

> Starshield's unusual transmissions have the potential to interfere with other scientific and commercial satellites, warns Scott Tilley, an amateur satellite tracker in Canada who first spotted the signals.

Might that be the point? A space-based means of "hacking" satellites? Or is that kind of a dumb thing to do when you could do the same Earth-based?