Seriously how the fuck do you jam it? It seems like nobody has found a good counter to it.>inb4 ASATNo
solved in 1987
>>65190018Easily. Satellites are about 100 miles up at a minimum and signals degrade with inverse square.
>>65190039>oh man inverse square>sure is a shame the engineers that designed a high speed, low latency, global internet sattelite network didn't think of that
It used to be easy when it relied on GPS for handshakes so jamming GPS would have done the job. Now they use PNT especially the Starshield variant so that approach is useless. I looked at the Chinese plan that plans to use 1000 synchronized high altitude balloons or drone jammers to blackout Taiwan but that seems too complex and appears to target only the downlink. Why not just use hundreds of smaller jammers to target each passing satellite's uplink? That sounds easier
>>65190060>sure is a shame the engineers that designed a high speed, low latency, global internet sattelite network didn't think of thatExcept Starlink wasn't designed as a military communications network. It didn't have to be jamming proof.Unless you can show Starlink Was designed jammer resistant?
>>65190039This retard doesn't know what synthetic nulling is! This retard thinks that AESA antennas gather signals from all directions equally! Laugh at this retard!!!
>>65190066It already meets all the requirements. Directional beamforming, nulling, frequency hopping, gnss proof handshake and laser interlinks. That's why it's so hard to jam.
>>65190066All AESA antennas are inherently jam-resistant you colossal faggot >>65190074
>>65190062The problem with uplink jammers is they need to be within the transponders spotbeam footprint or they otherwise incur a significant dbm disadvantage. Starlink's combination of Ku and Ka band operating frequencies and phased array antennas make these spotbeams very small geographically.
>>65190066You've doubled down once, -100 social credit. Care to try again?
this is now an AESA threadFundamentals of AESA operation and beamforming:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSDLfcNhThwhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc4y4B27PDMStarlink V3 and the potential utility of what are nominally comms antennas as radar (spoiler, it's very good for comms and not very good as radar)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6veU66z2TQhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbp3kdJZ1_AHow jamming works (specifically crosspol jamming, a basic understanding of radar from the previous videos is required to understand what he's talking about. Pay attention to what Nulls and polarization of an EM wave are)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o7XRYCFYyMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLpvEoMNEls
>>65190088I'm not that familiar with AESA anti-jamming, but is there a limit to how many jammers they can handle?
>>65190102Why not just use multiple nodes of directional inchorent jammers to target a single satellite?
>>65190136>I'm not that familiar with AESAyes, it's clear you are not familiar with anything to do with what is being discussed
>>65190136I recommend watching the first two videos I linked here >>65190123, they aren't very long and should be digestible to a layman. In short, an AESA antenna's radiation pattern features one big "bulb" of signal, called the main lobe, and then a series of exponentially weaker "bulbs" on the sides, called side lobes. These lobes are separated by points (or lines in 3D space) where signal strength falls off to zero. These are called nulls.AESA antennas receive signals using the same method as they radiate them in, so the main lobe can be pointed at different things when the antenna is listening (this is called Beamforming). This means that very little interference from other signal sources reaches it, while whatever the main lobe is pointing at transmits a lot of signal to it. Furthermore, if said AESA antenna is being jammed, it can twist and turn its radiation pattern around until one of those nulls I mentioned is pointing directly at the jammer, effectively completely ignoring it. You can point your nulls at as many jammers as you want, since an AESA like what a Starlink terminal uses will have dozens or hundreds of nulls. This is called adaptive nulling or synthetic nulling
>>65190152Sorry we all don't share your autistic special interest of AESA. Some of us like to consensually feel the inside of a vagina once and a while.
>>65190147a dish is only connected to a satellite for 20-30 secondssatellites travel around 26000kmh and most latitudes at this point have 2-3 sats to choose from/bounce between depending on conditionshttps://satellitemap.space/
>>65190153cont.the size of the main lobe (measured in degrees) varies with the number of antennas making up an AESA, but modern high end radars can beamform some ridiculously thin main lobes, literally pencil-thin. I can't remember the specific numbers, but for example a Starlink satellite antenna can illuminate a very small area on the planet from all the way up in orbit. Something like a single city block probably, the second batch of videos I linked goes more in-depth into it. It's an incredible technology
>>65190088It's in space. You throw a few kilowatts at the antenna, it's going to overheat no matter how jam-resistant it is.
>>65190169>>65190153Question from a non-knower, how do you find the signal direction in the first place, I'd assume satellite signals are rather narrow?
>>65190178you can't couple that much power to a satellite's antenna, ESPECIALLY to an AESA. It's made up of thousands to millions of tiny antennas, each of which can only absorb a tiny amount of energy at a time. Beyond that, the amount of power that an antenna receives is miniscule compared to the amount of power that it's designed to transmit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKbQcEZIKgcWe're talking something like 8 orders of magnitude less power at a distance of 1 kilometer. Go all the way up to space and you're receiving negligible power from a jammer. Jamming only raises the noise floor of a radar, it can't actually destroy a radar at any practical range. A sufficiently powerful laser could possibly do that, but at that point we're talking about ASAT weapons>>65190187replying, gimme a moment
>>65190187the orbit map is saved on the dish, and the dish has GPS so it knows with some accuracy where a sat is, but then there's some sort of complicated 'scanning' that narrows inI can only assume once the first sat is found and connected it can then use that fine tuning information to then connect to the next sat in its map
>>65190193SpaceX in particular has pioneered its own satellite tracking system called Stargaze.https://starlink.com/updates/stargaze
>>65190187>>65190193like I mentioned earlier, the size of the main lobe, pictured in red on picrel, depends on the number of individual antennas making up an AESA. Those antennas all transmit their signals at a slight phase offset (phased array) in order to do beamforming. If you make groups of your tiny antennas transmit at the same time instead of offset, they act like slightly bigger antennas. This lowers your effective number of antennas and results in a wider beam. You can then scan this wider beam across the sky until you find the signal you want and gradually narrow back down to a pencil beam for transmission
>>65190201(I don't know if this is exactly how spaceX does it, but it's the first method that came to my mind)
>>65190088>>65190081>>65190074Except you don't have to hit the satellite with jamming, you just have to hit the reciever on the ground.
>>65190214the receiver can point its main lobe nearly vertically up and its nulls or very, very tiny side lobes at your jammer. You would be getting on the order of -100 dB of isolation between your jamming signal and the real transmission
>>65190225But not all setups have that. It adds mass to the antenna and there are easier ways to avoid jamming. >>65190113You're very rude for someone who apparently doesn't understand what's going on.
>>65190230all AESA antennas inherently have that. There are no moving parts in an AESA, the beamforming is done entirely by controlling when and how strongly each tiny antenna fires. You can always point the beam away and you can always jiggle your nulls around until the jamming signal decays to zero, even if the antenna wasn't built with jamming in mind
>>65190231But that assumes the reciever is an AESA antenna.
>>65190267correct. Starlink receiver antennas use an AESA
>>65190270Yep, here's a torndown Starlink Mini with its Transmit/Receive modules visible.
Bump
>>65190231Meh, even with null pointing, in the real world you can only attenuate the jamming by about 20 to 30db. When dealing with a 500 watt mobile jammer blasting your 10 watt antenna signal you aren't really making much difference. In Iran starlink jamming is pretty common, with mobile units able to force up to 80% packet loss within a few kilometers. Real EW truck or aircraft based jammers can completely lockout the signal easily.In ukraine the most common defenses are either digging the antenas into pits or putting shielding to the sides of an elevated antenna to block out signals from every direction except directly above. This limits your view of the horizon, but some signal is better than none. The other option used is to spread out antennas over a large area to help pick up what you can, combined with the side shielding you can be pretty robust to any jamming not vehicle mounted.
>>65191412Why not just spam bunch of balloon mounted jammers?
>>65190062You can still attack the terminals in cold-start by interfering or better yet spoofing GPS. I think the two ways to attack Starlink would be either with airborne assets jamming the downlink, or with very powerful ground assets selectively jamming the satellites that are currently serving the region, trying to overload their RF front-ends. Something like anti-satellite lasers will probably be a thing in the near future to degrade the solar panels or maybe even the OISL but that's way more hostile than causing a temporary service outage.>>65190074>hurr durr antennas have gain wow
>>65190285Cool. Can you make radars out of this?
>>65192214In theory, yes. But you'd get shit range, and a resolution of 'there is an object'
>>65192175Airborne assets seem like a lark to me. >I hope you don't use cheap as shit missiles to shoot down our giant balloons!You could eyeball the fucking things.
starlink is truly a modern marvel. and the next generation sats haven't even launched yet.if ASAT is used on them I will personally grab my rifle and fight the jerks who did it.t. gen 1 round dishy user
>>65192233I meant it ain't cheap to shoot shoot out a missile at 20-25km altitude and definitely not when jammer at that scale is also cheap.
>>65192248The funny thing is that SpaceX can probably put more starlinks in orbit than Ziggers and Xiggers can build ASAT weapons combined. Like one anon said, lasers would be an issue, but you could theoretically put starlinks on polar orbits that don't overfly either of those countries
>>65192252Solids are always cheap, use ground based visual confirmation. They don't need to pull high g's since the target isn't moving much at all. No warhead needed either. Use the kinetic energy to puncture the balloon and watch them fall.
>>65192233Airborne assets are great in for example Iranian internal suppression or something like Israel vs. neighbouring dirt poor arabs because you can use a whole lot of power in narrow beams directly on the areas you want to hit.>>65192214No, starlink is FDD
>>65192269>nukes>kessler syndrome oh sure they don't exist
signal power greatly reduces with distance, just flood the directional antena with another directional antena but increase the power and how close you re too it
>>65192319But does it work against starlink powered drones
>>65190018>https://youtu.be/sM0vMP5zoUw?t=1748A good video posted about this topic, timestamped at the counter-countermeasure sectionTLDR: ground-based UV lasers or space-based IR lasers
>>65192397>how close you re too itAlways this catch. If you against an enemy that you can't get quite close to that luxury isn't an option.
Can't you detect starlink user anntena especially if it's a flying drone?
>>65190033Keh
>>65192319Sure, but we're talking about Taiwan. China would have to into SEAD for starters, and then we have to assume that Taiwan cannot into cheap SRBs.
>>65192319The why haven't russian come up with something like this? Still looks impractical to me.
>>65192369Kessler syndrome is a meme, starlinks fly at such a low altitude that their fragments would de-orbit due to air friction within a year. Nukes don't do nearly as much damage outside an atmosphere, unless you're trying to fry unshielded electronics. That might work, but still only on a tiny part of the orbit.
>>65194574>Kessler syndrome is a meme, starlinks fly at such a low altitude that their fragments would de-orbit due to air friction within a year.It doesn't matter by that most of the satellites would turn into orbital meat grinder. Just explode a medium lift rocket full of sharpnel and it's game over.>Nukes don't do nearly as much damage outside an atmosphere, unless you're trying to fry unshielded electronicsKek he thinks starlink is designed to survive emp
>>65194594I'm not saying that starlinks are shielded against EMP, but they at least have to be radiation hardened to operate in orbit for long periods of time. I really don't think a nuke or even 10 nukes would make a significant dent in their coverage, there's more than 10 000 of them in orbit right now
starfish prime killed 1/3 of all satellites in orbit.
>>65194615That's wonderful. The orbit that SpaceX wants to use for their data centers is approximately 1,000 times more energetic than the one that Starlinks fly in. I mention this because you can overcome that issue with hardening and redundancy.
>>65190033This made Gen X laugh so hard they shat themselves.
>>65190033Hah I never understood that joke as a kid but now I do.
>>65190066>Except Starlink wasn't designed as a military communications networkIt kind of was.The civilian and military versions were developed and exist in parallel.
>>65190231What if I use thousands of starlink dish and overwhelm the satellite?
>>65194887You can certainly use a thousand emitters to jam a single satellite's uplink, if you can get them inside the area illuminated by the main lobe. My question would be, why the fuck would you ever do that?
>>65190018Mazers
>>65190191I wonder, could a very large ground base AESA radar with an output of say, 1-2 gigawatt or so, fry the electronics of a satellite in low orbit passing right over it? Especially if it was radiating at frequvencies the targeted satellite's own antenna are designed to recieve?
>>65194594>It doesn't matter by that most of the satellites would turn into orbital meat grinder. Just explode a medium lift rocket full of sharpnel and it's game over.It takes way way more than that to make low orbit satellites to be grinded up by collisions before their orbits naturally decay by themselves.
