Hacker News Reader

Comment by tcdent | Hacker News Reader

You're talking about Starshield, which is operated by the US Government via services contracted, not personally regulated by Musk himself.

Starlink, the commercial product, was always off limits for military operations (the type that require connectivity at 100+ MPH).

So, no, this is not one person dictating the usage.

Starlink’s Acceptable Use Policy explicitly prohibits:

- Remotely controlling or piloting any aerial drone or unmanned vehicle (unless otherwise contractually permitted by SpaceX).

- Engaging in any military activity other than approved morale/welfare/recreation programs for service members.

View on HN

Starshield uses all of Starlink's satellites and a few special ones specific to Starshield. There's been plenty of cases in Ukraine of suicide drones being configured to starlink accounts instead of military ones. In fact, that's exactly how Russia took advantage of starlink for the first 2 years.

While there might be a legal distinction between the two systems, technically speaking, it's mostly a matter of configuration.

The home in Starlink mobile usage was closed by SpaceX in cooperation with Ukraine a long time ago.

> Starlink, the commercial product, was always off limits for military operations (the type that require connectivity at 100+ MPH).

Lots of Ukrainian use of satellite communications is where people are hiding in a makeshift bunker. Those don't usually travel at 100+ MPH.

It's only one set of satellites. Stop pretending that its different.

They actually are separate satellites and it's easily checked:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starshield#Launches

This only says that dedicated satellites exist, which is obvious and public knowledge. What it doesn't comment on is whether starlink and starshield use any common ifra, which they almost certainly do. The number of starshield satellites is simply way, way, way too low to meet the claims that people are making about the system. It's a geometry problem.

Can you say with assurance, hopefully with evidence, which entity has degraded service as described?

> Starlink’s Acceptable Use Policy explicitly prohibits

Starlink's AUP is whatever Musk decides it is when he decides. He is petty, and there are robust examples of his pettiness as it relates to X and Starlink (I'm unaware if he's weaponized Tesla vehicle access in this regard, but welcome citations, if they exist).

"For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law."

https://daringfireball.net/linked/2026/04/29/musk-more-petty...

(if you do not rely on Musk controlled systems, he cannot weaponize them against you; choose your risk exposure accordingly)

Yes- if they were using it for drone attacks and the service stopped/slowed, that was not Starlink, because it never would have happened in the first place.

Musk approached Trump to slow down Starlink in Ukraine - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50122371 - October 2026

Musk says he was behind Starlink speed limit after service in Ukraine restored - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50224793 - October 2026

Sadly HN is not immune from misinformation either.

> I'm unaware if he's weaponized Tesla vehicle access in this regard, but welcome citations, if they exist

Before the Model 3 was announced, a curious user poked around his car's network, and found multiple references to it, which he leaked to a news site.

Tesla responded by remotely forcibly downgrading his vehicle's firmware to an older version with no references to the 3 (presumably so he couldn't make any further discoveries), blacklisting his vehicle from getting any firmware upgrades, and to make sure he didn't try to thwart that, disabling the ethernet interface.

And people wonder why I don't want any kind of radio modem in my car...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com