[malchow]

Satellite signals are just weak RF signals and can be disrupted easily. There is nothing 'hardened' about them. It's funny that people think Starlink or any of its many incipient competitors are any different.

[Geee]

Starlink uses beamforming with directional antenna arrays, so it should be rather difficult to jam compared to omnidirectional antennas. It's basically a dish pointed at the satellite, so the jammer should be in between to work.

Antenna arrays aren't perfect so it still picks up some energy omnidirectionally, but it should be possible to shield it with some metal plates in a way that only sky is visible.

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

[overfeed]

> basically a dish pointed at the satellite, so the jammer should be in between to work.

Which isn't hard to do if you have the budget of a government. Directional antennae, GPS and a helicopter/Cessna flying patterns over a metro. Beams from the terminal are constantly scanning the sky chasing the constellations.

A higher hit rate option would be a fleet of low altitude drones taking high-res pictures of the ground, and running a fine-tuned classifier to identify Starlink Dishies which require a clear line of sight to the sky.

People who think Starlink is unblockable, or somehow anonymous IRL are unimaginative. Iran is well-versed enough with electronic warfare that it tricked a RQ-170 Sentinel land on it's territory - how hardened are Starlink terminals against responding to a spoofed signal and exposing their locations?

[touisteur]

I think, to beamform in the right direction you have to be able to locate yourself precisely, have an up-to-date almanach of the satellites, and a precise enough datation source. Jamming GNSS is a source of problems for 2 of those issues.

Also, the antennas on starlink dishes are still pretty small, likely to pick up some hard-to-remove sidelobes and the tech to cancel them properly might be export-controlled. You still need to be within electromagnetic visibility to jam them, though.

[Rover222]

But it's in extremely difficult to disrupt the signals across the whole country? I person go go out with a battery and setup a starlink terminal in the middle of nowhere in 2 minutes (exactly how I'm writing this post right now from Boliva)

[notahacker]

If your objective is to stop or at least slow coordination of protests and flow of information about things the regime is doing in the major cities of Tehran and Mashhad, you're a lot less worried that plenty of rural villages get completely unhindered signals, if anyone in them happens to have a Starlink terminal.

[dalben]

10W is enough to block GPS signals in a 15-30km radius. The signals are below the noise floor and easy to disrupt.

[suburban_strike]

Optical links to ground stations are the future, if they can mitigate atmospheric interference. Laser is harder to jam.

Old article about Starlink (see bottom of page). Competitors have similar solutions in development.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90681156/elon-musk-starlink-sate...

[tim333]

Russia seems to have been ineffective at stopping the Ukranians using it.

[bigbadfeline]

> Russia seems to have been ineffective at stopping the Ukranians using it.

Russia isn't in control of Ukrainian territory, where the starlink terminals are, which would be the prime targets of any disruption operation. The situations in Iran and Ukraine are materially different.

[stevenwoo]

There are multiple photos of Russian drones using Starlink terminals, so they would be blocking their own use of it.