News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by wkat4242 on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @01:48AM (#44958983)
Could you bring something like a starlink mini for backup i wonder? Id imagine this would be very worrying being stuck there as a foreigner in such a situation.
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by mryall on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @02:47AM (#44959307)
Starlink connects you to the internet via a ground station in the country where you are registered, and the antenna will also only operate in an approved zone (depending on your country and account type). You cannot use it in China.
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by Tuna-Fish on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @05:15AM (#44960163)
> Starlink connects you to the internet via a ground station in the country where you are registered

Not true anymore.

> and the antenna will also only operate in an approved zone (depending on your country and account type). You cannot use it in China.

This is still correct.

Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by rtkwe on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @03:33PM (#44965470)
They have a minor capability to do intra-constellation routing now but if they want to operate in China the authorities are going to demand all data be downlinked through Chinese downlink stations so they can do their monitoring.
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by wkat4242 on Thursday August 21, 2025 @03:46AM (#44970192)
I wasn't aware that China does this. I know India does too though, for this reason only Inmarsat is allowed there because they cooperate with the authorities (and I believe even that is subject to local licensing).

Though India doesn't have a great firewall so it's much less of an issue for foreigners visiting there.

Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by rtkwe on Thursday August 21, 2025 @10:11AM (#44973047)
I don't know specifically that they do but it makes sense they would and Musk has a lot of points where China can squeeze him if he tries to not comply and China takes their internet monitoring seriously so I can't see them not demanding it.
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by a012 on Thursday August 21, 2025 @05:35AM (#44970777)
> Not true anymore.

It’s still true because in order to be operating in a country Starlink has to get approval from the Gov and if the Gov requires Starlink to have to connect through a ground station then they’ll either comply or not operate in that country

Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by methou on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @01:55AM (#44959035)
A friend of mine tried, no signal.
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by NitpickLawyer on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @02:00AM (#44959062)
If war breaks out, it'll likely be enabled.
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by progbits on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @02:24AM (#44959191)
No it won't but if it did would take just few hours for china to shoot a bunch of them down and with how tightly packed their orbits are the debree would take care of the rest.
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by audunw on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @02:54AM (#44959345)
I’m not so sure debris would help take down other satellites in that orbit. The orbit is very low so much of the debris that ends up with a deviation in its orbit will fall down. Even if it doesn’t there’s still air resistance up there which may cause more of the debris to deorbit before jt has time to hit other satellites.

And I doubt China would want to make LEO impossible to move through anyway. It’d affect China badly as well

Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by senectus1 on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @02:45AM (#44959301)
potentially very dangerous for everyone if they did that. could make it impossible for even them to make a launch. Kessler Syndrome is nothing to toy with.
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by baq on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @05:08AM (#44960116)
space is huge and the orbit is low. I'm not so sure debris would be as effective as on higher orbits.
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by Helmut10001 on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @02:16AM (#44959146)
Starlink are very low orbit. Easy to bring down.
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by perihelions on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @02:36AM (#44959259)
Very expensive to take down 10-100k at once. No one today has that many antisat-capable missiles stockpiled.

Relevant, Chinese domestic media reporting on China's own perspective:

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3178939/chin... ("China military must be able to destroy Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites if they threaten national security: scientists" (2022))

> "Researchers call for development of anti-satellite capabilities including ability to track, monitor and disable each craft / The Starlink platform with its thousands of satellites is believed to be indestructible"

"Easy to bring down" vs. "believed to be indestructible"—some tension there!

Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by ceejayoz on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @03:39AM (#44959617)
EMP?
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by perihelions on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @04:57AM (#44960044)
If you're talking about nuclear weapons, their major effect on satellites (Starfish Prime as the reference point) isn't EMP effects, but ionizing radiation—creating a persistent radiation belt of MeV electrons. (A physical process that took months to disable some satellites). Beyond that I don't know much.
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by lazide on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @08:55AM (#44961517)
At the point anyone is using nukes in LEO, things have gotten really out of control already.
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by Zacharias030 on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @02:26AM (#44959200)
how though?
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by 4gotunameagain on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @02:28AM (#44959212)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_mi...

Every major power has polluted near Earth space as a show of power.

Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by cyberax on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @02:48AM (#44959316)
One missile for one satellite? This gets expensive really fast.
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by therein on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @02:52AM (#44959339)
They follow well defined orbits and propellant limited. You could easily cover their trajectory with some shrapnel and attack it one lane at a time.
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by perihelions on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @03:03AM (#44959401)
Not feasible. That would entail putting shrapnel into orbit (unlike extant anti-sat weapons which are short-range suborbital), which would mean a full orbital launch for every satellite target orbit. There's hundreds[0] of Starlink orbital groups already, so that'd require hundreds of independent orbital launches in a short timescale—far beyond China's launch capabilities today.

[0] https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/planes.html

(On general principles, you could argue you'd need 1:1 launch vehicle parity (number, not payload) to defeat a satellite constellation this way. For each satellite launch, you'd need one corresponding anti-satellite launch into that same, newly-defined orbit).

Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by rtkwe on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @03:39PM (#44965541)
If you make a dense-ish cloud that cuts across the Starlink orbits you'd eventually intersect them all if you could make the artificial debris field last It wouldn't require that many different counter orbiting fields to cover most of the orbits.
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by wkat4242 on Thursday August 21, 2025 @08:32PM (#44979842)
Yes but there's so many starlinks that you're going to get lots and lots of collateral damage to sats from allies and enemies alike. It's going to be a huge footgun.
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by rtkwe on Friday August 22, 2025 @10:24AM (#44985084)
Not much else uses those orbits right now. Other comms satellites and surveillance birds are all higher up. The debris would in theory also clear pretty quickly and should be fairly contained so the cascade of additional damage might be relatively small too. Hard to know that without a huge simulation budget to see how high the shattered satellite bits might get tossed.
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by LargoLasskhyfv on Friday August 22, 2025 @12:24AM (#44980985)
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by kortilla on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @03:32AM (#44959578)
Tiny propellant burns turn into thousands of kilometer changes quickly.
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by cyberax on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @03:34PM (#44965484)
For your shrapnel to hit the satellite, it needs to be at the same height and inclination. Otherwise, your shrapnel will likely miss the targets.

Starlink satellites are pretty low and experience a lot of drag, with square-cube law working against you. Your shrapnel's orbit will likely decay pretty rapidly.

Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by andrewinardeer on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @02:15AM (#44959141)
Entirely speculation.
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by NitpickLawyer on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @02:17AM (#44959153)
Of course it is entirely speculation. But there are previous datapoints you can look at (i.e. iran).
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by andrewinardeer on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @03:02PM (#44965109)
Elon doesn't sell cars or Powerwalls in Iran.
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by esseph on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @06:32AM (#44960595)
Very easy to jam.

Also, fairly easy to find from the air.

Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by maxglute on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @06:35AM (#44960605)
Depends on if Elon wants to be sanctioned by PRC or not.
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by stevage on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @02:13AM (#44959132)
Depends a lot whether Starlink decides to let you.
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by spwa4 on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @03:33AM (#44959580)
No it does not. Against a huge state adversary like China it does not matter. They have satellites looking down so they can quickly locate any starlink users. And then ...

The only thing that could bypass is GPS + laser links (meaning physically aiming a laser both on the ground AND on a satellite). You cannot detect that without being in the direct path of the laser (though of course you can still see the equipment aiming the laser, so it doesn't just need to work it needs to be properly disguised). That requires coherent beams (not easy, but well studied), aimed to within 2 wavelengths of distance at 160km (so your direction needs to be accurate to 2 billionths of a degree, obviously you'll need stabilization), at a moving target, using camouflaged equipment.

This is not truly beyond current technology, but you can be pretty confident even the military doesn't have this yet.

Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by threeducks on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @05:31AM (#44960247)
What makes it so that this kind of precision is required? I have little knowledge of the physics behind it, but a few decades ago, a local university had an open day where they bounced lasers off of a retro reflector on the moon to measure the distance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment...

The moon is 700 times farther away than the starlink satellites (or twice that, if you consider the bounce), so I find it hard to imagine that it would be impossible to communicate with much closer satellites over laser when both sides can have an active transmitter.

Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by spwa4 on Friday August 22, 2025 @08:46AM (#44983935)
You want to hide, with sufficient guarantees, from someone looking down from above.
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by mnw21cam on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @05:32AM (#44960258)
The aim doesn't need to be that accurate. Laser beams diverge due to diffraction. You can't break the laws of physics - a non-divergent laser beam would need to be infinitely wide. A 1cm wide laser beam of 700nm light will have a divergence width of approximately asin(0.0000007/0.01) which is 0.004 degrees, which is 14 arcseconds, which is very easily aimable using off-the-shelf components. People get a tracking accuracy around 1 arcsecond using standard hobbyist telescope mounts.

However, this solution is going to stop working when a cloud drifts past.

Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by spwa4 on Thursday August 21, 2025 @04:49AM (#44970530)
> However, this solution is going to stop working when a cloud drifts past.

Not really, because you'd be using a frequency that passes through clouds. A snow storm or hail is impenetrable, and there are weather events that cause a 1-2 second blackout, as well as cause refraction (which is mostly a challenge in reaiming the beam fast enough to compensate), but anything in the air is fine. Clouds, mist, ... But is aiming at a 1 arcsecond target moving across the sky at at least 1 degree per second from a normal (ie. moving) building really doable with "standard hobbyist telescope mounts" ?

I know 5 years ago we were still doing this with lasers on rockets toward planes, because planes can just keep their angle to a rocket essentially constant. I know there's experiments doing direct laser to satellite, no idea how well that works.

Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by mnw21cam on Thursday August 21, 2025 @07:23AM (#44971399)
You are correct in that most "hobbyist telescope mounts" are good for tracking stars at ~1 arcsecond, only where those stars don't move across the sky very quickly (up to 15 arcseconds/second). However, it is quite within the realm of "hobbyist" telescope mounts, albeit towards the upper end, to track orbital objects. I have seen an example of a telescope mount tracking the international space station to get good images, and the tracking was pretty solid. It is assisted by a secondary telescope on the mount that helps the mount maintain good tracking, not just pre-knowledge of where the object will be.

The clouds are however much more of a problem than you're suggesting. One promising infrared band is around 10 microns, but a thick cloud will still scatter that. You'd need a 20cm wide laser beam at that wavelength for it to diverge to a beam width of around 10 arcseconds. Which is basically a reasonably-sized telescope, working in reverse.

Alternatively, you could go for millimeter waves, which would pass through the clouds reasonably well, but then you're well outside the realms of "laser" and into the standard directional dish antenna. And it'd have to be a very large dish to give you a narrow beam. For instance, a rather unsubtle 2 metre wide dish with a 1mm wavelength will give a beam that diverges by 100 arcseconds. And there will probably be omnidirectional leakage which the dastardly authorities are likely to be able to detect. At least visible and infra-red leakage can be easily blocked and concealed, but radio is much harder.

Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by preisschild on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @02:57AM (#44959365)
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by patrakov on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @06:31AM (#44960592)
You can still bring a foreign SIM card. 100% effective (via data roaming) at bypassing the firewall, but expensive.
Re:Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on Aug... by lazide on Wednesday August 20, 2025 @08:55AM (#44961511)
Oddly, many travel SIMs have started to route traffic through China. I used one in India that clearly routed through Hong Kong, and caused a lot of problems.