US shasneeds were controlled with starlink , they based the entire weapon system around it and spacex was charging them as their military grade ground units (around 3k usd) BUT, no that spacex needs to inflate gains ahead of their market release they hiked the category of the sneeds link to commercial aviation status that costs 25 k usd per unit (now the sneed internet service is almost 50% the cost of each unit)the "cheap" suicide drone of 30 k usd now will cost 50 k usd, burguers can thanks obama
>>65184519starlinks were meant to be used a recurrent source of revenue so the hardwares are subsidized. if they're simply strapping the starlinks on one way suicide drones, spacex is eating all the cost for each hardware
>>65184519>t. Seething spic or nigger OP
>>65184545thats true for the commercial stations, military stations have different pricing so i dont think they are given the station for "free", any way it looks ridiculous theres no way the station cost 25 k usd. >>65184559>2 aids ridden faggots just staring at each other
>>65184568all military hardware costs tens of thousands by virtue of military demanding more from the company.thats why boeing/lockheed/etc can charge $100K for a bolt nut or a $50K for a toilet bowl from homedepot.
>>65184568>theres no way the station cost 25 k usd.all the stuff the station depends on doesn't come for free
>>65184519just make your own spacex sat internet, then you can charge whatever you want.
>>65184568>theres no way the station cost 25 k usdI absolutely believe this is possible.t tech worker in industry with numerous compliance overheads.
>>65184568it's made in USA it should cost a lot more, 200k min
>>65184519The price is for the subscription, you hold a constant amount of subscriptions and grant those to the terminals when you use them.It's 25k per month per subscription, so if you shoot more drones a month the marginal cost of a subscription per drone will go down.
pejorative threads about musk are like flypaper for retards
>>65184519And so the real story comes out, its not SpaceX charging pentagon/military different prices, its the company utilizing commercial starlink services for military operations. SpaceX had literally created a military services called Starshield project to separate commercial from military services.
>>65184545
man that's crazy where's the source
>>65185446Huh, I didn't even realize OP didn't post the sauce because I had already seen the article earlier https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/pentagon-spars-with-spacex-over-starlink-price-hike-during-iran-war-2026-05-26/
OP is a seething thirdie flailing and making numbers up, as usual
>>65184568>any way it looks ridiculous theres no way the station cost 25 k usd.Its literally AESA array.
So what happens when Iran buys Russian nuke powered Peresvet lazor and starts shooting down 500 starlink satellites s per day?
>>65185459>proposed>as much asvery interesting language
>>65184818maybe the us military should do that instead of paying a private company to do it, idk if thats even legal or possible with how much deficit us gov has
https://x.com/sawyermerritt/status/2059367871684157733That totally organic seethe makes sense now.
>>65185459Its a fake outrage with false information. SpaceX isnt selling the drone starlink service directly to Pentagon. A third party is using SpaceX's commercial services intended for commercial purposes and selling it to military. Reuter is controlled by a communist billionaire in Europe that is spreading fake anti-American propaganda with half baked lies
>>65185519Either US declares war to defend our national interest or drafts a law that will allow US companies to strike back at countries that are attacking the company's infrastructure.So total war or independent contractor war
>>65185908>Reuter is controlled by a communist billionaire in Europe [citation needed]The communist part in particular, if you would.
>>65185922>or drafts a law that will allow US companies to strike back at countries that are attacking the company's infrastructureLMAO, I'd love to see any retarded corporation try to pick an actual private war with a nationstate.
>>65185946We can bring back the golden age of the British empire's East Indies company and its ability to wage war
>>65184519suicide drones don't need fucking expensive gps terminals or internet terminalamerimutts cant help themselves but grift themselves at every level of the military procurement ladder, no wonder you fags can't ""afford"" free healthcare like all the white countries of the world
>>65186006America can afford to have smart systems where we get real time information from the battle field, steer the course of our drones at any time, with live feedback.I understand third world countries cannot afford internet, but American military can and American people can. Both in our conscience to have smart system and because we can
>>65186012>we can affordYou stupid nigger, the point of low cost suicide drones is to be LOW COST. If you are too retarded at least stop coping.Why even bother reverse engineering a flying lawn mower(is that even needed? sound like another fucking grift but who know) if you are going to make them for twice the cost and introduce extra bottlenecks in the production chain if the whole point of them is being able to pump an infinite numbers of them.Stop coping and make a fucking stealth ultra-drone then, you absolutely braindead faggot.inb4 muh Bradley procurementsame shit, turning a fucking flying bomb into some multi-role flying machine that scam tax dollars
>>65186006The majority of them don't have starlink you retarded monkey
>>65185530>>65185908The language on the price hike is clearer. And this hike WAS by SpaceX FOR the military Starshield service. >>65186006They do if you want to hit a moving target 150km beyond the line with a system pretty much entirely immune to current EW.
>>65184568Go start a business and only charge costs. See how that works out for you.
>>65186175Reporting is fake. Its a SpaceX - Company that makes LUCAS drone issue. Pentagon is billed for what LUCAS drone maker bills. SpaceX bills LUCAS what the service is being offered.
>>65186201The goal is simply to stir up fake issues between SpaceX, drone makers, and US gov. They've always done this with SpaceX because the politics of the US gov and the company do not align with the politics of Reuters, the European propaganda outlet.
>>65185966And then it gets stuck in a protracted conflict and promptly goes bankrupt because wars are not profitable things for the organisations fighting them.
>>65184519The Iranians don't have Starlink. How are they controlling the shasneeds?
>>65186209So? why are you against it? Are you a large spacex stockholder?
>>65184519I don't understand why the US government is so retarded (or why the press is lying?). They have the dedicated starshield network that the US government controls and they can bill themselves whatever they want for it's use. Why use starlink when it's clear that:>subscription for aircraft is more expensive>it's against TOS to use it on weapon systemsAnd that's not even mentioning that starlink/starshield WiFi bridges are optional features that the LUCAS doesn't even need to have Shaheed/Geran tier features.Also given the volume of fire needed with these things you could easily have 1 drone per volley of 5 be starlink equipped and broadcast between the drones using other technologies. Even low power meshnets or just WiFi router hardware would be sufficient to have the drones talk to each other with reasonable security.
>>65185922>Either US declares war to defend our national interest or drafts a law that will allow US companies to strike back at countries that are attacking the company's infrastructure.>So total war or independent contractor warsounds like begging for>"oreshnik my life into pieces, this is my last resort"on insane corpos and their (then) incriminated staff
>>65188382It seems like you're saying US government should not be protecting American interests
>>65188433Russia isnt doing that so the deterrence must be working
>>65188487So you're saying America should not be protecting our interest if it Russia or Iran does attack American companies?Are you a communist or Euro nigger?
>>65188528neither Russia nor Iran have irrationally attacked the US as a 'state-level' actorthats the sole behavior of the US.so why would planning for some stupid contingency like Russia irrationally attacking US spaced based strategic assets be a high priority?you operate on deeply jewish victim logic where its (((the other guy))) who is the rabid pitbull and not the "YOU" it actually is
>>65188539Because Russian, Iran, China have said they would attack US civilian infrastructure? Are you a low IQ nigger or a commie
>>65188587>Because Russian, Iran, China have said they would attack US civilian infrastructure? Are you a low IQ nigger or a commieshow precise proofnone of those countries have ever officially said that everand the US president talks about bridge and power plant day...may we see proof of your claim?
>>65186006May we see the other "white" countries' communication-satellite constellations?
>>65186201lucas was using the civilian version while it was suppose to use starshield per itar thats why
>>65188888NTA, but the low data rate stuff could probably be run through older sat phoone setups like Iridium
>>65189469Cost 100X more for 1/100th the capacity and latencyWhat the fuck are you talking about
>>65189495The sats are up there, so you might as well use them.And low data rate is just that, you don't need 4K120FPS video of the target.
>>65189504>You don't need itWe're not Europe or Russia. We have the capability for 4K120FPS, we might as well use it. And its cheaper than all other forms of communications
>>65184519>Starlink is charging the government the equivalent of a 4 year subscription cost>no that's not enough money>new cost is now the 4 year price of a business subscriptionGet the fuck out of here. Fuck Starlink.
This whole shit is retarded. Starshield is different from Starlink. For one, Starshield is owned & operated by the DoD, SpaceX just provides the hardware & launches it. It also has different encryption standards, hardened systems vs. threats, recon & sensor payloads, and carries various other gov. payloads when needed. It's not the same fucking constellation.This company was using Starlink on LUCAS. It's explicitly against the ToS of Starlink to use it on weapons systems, just like when Ukies discovered this issue as well when they started mounting them on drones (before also transitioning to the Starshield system.) It's really that simple. Either don't put it on weapons systems, or get the US Gov to help you out with Starshield.
>>65189549>its cheaper than all other forms of communicationsNot according to what Starlink just decided to charge, lolA random iridium satphone is $2k off Amazon with a prepaid SIM card.And I'm sure Jeff will sell use his Amazon LEO to the DoD next year.
>>65189587Lmao, iridium satphones have nowhere near enough bandwitdh for what you need for a Shahed type drone.>Iridium Certus 700 delivers the fastest L-band IP data speeds available—up to 704 Kbps down and 352 Kbps up.And Leo is barely in its infancy. They currently have 302 satellites in orbit and are mostly using expendable launchers with horrendous launch cadences. They're in a hurry to even launch the required half of the constellation before their spectrum rights are in jeopardy.>In July 2020, the Federal Communications Commission authorized Amazon to deploy 3,236 satellites into low Earth orbit. Deployment is planned in five phases, with service expected to begin after the first 578 satellites reach orbit. Under the terms of its license, Amazon must launch and operate half of the constellation by July 30, 2026.So they have about two months to launch & start operating 1316 satellites. They may get an extension, but with their slow launch cadence, I wouldn't count on it.
>>65189594>704 Kbps down and 352 Kbps upThat may be slow, but it's enough to send up a pic and get a confirmation back>They may get an extensionThey will get an extension, 100%.
>>65189597Why the Starlink terminals in the first place then? If fire-and-forget is enough with a picture here and there would be good enough, why even get the civilian version of Starlink then? >They will get an extension, 100%.With any other administration I'd agree, but we're talking about the current retarded admin US currently has. With Musk bending the Chief Retard's ear more than Bezos, I wouldn't count on it as being a done deal. Musk has an axe to grind with Bezos specifically.
Seethoids should be earmarked for an airstrike when they start threads this shit
>>65189605The ukrainian drones? They have zero onboard compute, they require 100% pilot control and thus high bandwidth.The new US ones should have some measure of onbooard 'AI' image recognition etc., so they need a lot less pilot contrrol i.e. a lot less bandwidth.The Ukrainians also useed setups where a USV with Starlink launched and controled several UAVs.>>65189605>Musk and BezosBezos paid more, and didn't piss off king donnie publicly (yet)Also, it's a geeopolitical question of avoiding a long-term monopoly sittuation while maintaining a technological lead over China.China (and Europe) will build their own com constellations, it's just a questtionn of time. Two US systems in place it will massively increase US market share, thoough.
>>65189660My point was if LUCAS doesn't need the bandwidth, why did they go with Starlink terminals in the first place then? Surely if they can make do with cheaper terminals & less bandwidth they'd select those in the first place.And Ukrainian drones do have some image recognition nowadays as well, just see the current logistical death that's going on between Mariupol & Melitopol with Fire Point drones. Those also fly with Starshield btw.Musk & Trump have made up in recent times, Musk has been in Mar Lago pretty often, and Musk got his pick for NASA Administrator in as well, AFTER Trump dropped Isaacman's nomination once before.Plus, since when has Trump given a shit about geopolitical anything? He just wants praise & vain glorification while shitting on anyone who's not ready to grovel before him. See Israel roping him in on Iran, and absolutely squandering all the soft power the US spent decades cultivating across the pond for fuck all.
>>65185908Reuters is controlled by internationalist Zionist interests - the Reuters family is Jewish. Any hint of gommunism is "Communism for thee, buy not for me!"
>>65189688>My point was if LUCAS doesn't need the bandwidth, why did they go with Starlink terminals in the first place then?Good question, ask the company that makes the things, or the DoD that ordereed them with that capabillity specified.
>>65189688>Ukrainian drones do have some image recognition nowadays> between Mariupol & Melitopol Weren't those US-made Hornets?I think kteh FSB strikes were with new Fire Point UAVs, but yeah Fire Point definitely uses Starshield.>Musk & Trump have made upPossible, but Ammazon LEO is not in direct cmopetion with Starlink foro at least a few years.>Trump just wants praise & vain glorification Here's 100 million in your nepo fund, thank you mr president who made the US the first country with TWO LEO constellations, bla bla insert some ego boosting nonsense from Bezos here.They will get the extension, 100%.
>>65189594>>65189597It's not strictly the bandwidth, which is a large factor, but also the delay time and area saturation.I get that iridium is also LEO but its too low bandwidth to have sufficient headroom for congestion, interference, weather, etc. An 80KB link with encryption overhead and redundancy is fucking dogshit for video. Youtube's shitty ass barely acceptable 1080p60 is only 2Mbps.
