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...

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

undefined

Good luck looking for answers..

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.

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.