Elon Musk-controlled satellite internet provider Starlink has told Brazil’s telecom regulator Anatel it will not comply with a court order to block social media platform X in the country until its local accounts are unfrozen.

Anatel confirmed the information to Reuters on Monday after its head Carlos Baigorri told Globo TV it had received a note from Starlink, which has more than 200,000 customers in Brazil, and passed it onto Brazil’s top court.

Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes last week ordered all telecom providers in the country to shut down X, which is also owned by billionaire Musk, for lacking a legal representative in Brazil.

The move also led to the freezing of Starlink’s bank accounts in Brazil. Starlink is a unit of Musk-led rocket company SpaceX. The billionaire responded to the account block by calling Moraes a “dictator.”

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Fighter jets and missiles. And before you go, oh no fighter jets don’t go that high! Their missiles can go that high with a flying start. Everything after that is just targeting. This is 40 year old technology and it’s available for sale.

    And again. There are not 6000 satellites servicing Brazil, nor would they need to hit nearly that many before Starlink caved.

    There is a serious lack of appreciation for the power and wealth countries command in this comment section. Brazil has an order of magnitude more wealth to use than Starlink.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Fighter jets and missiles. And before you go, oh no fighter jets don’t go that high! Their missiles can go that high with a flying start

      Please elaborate. There are a lot of fighter jets and a lot of missile systems. Please show me one capable of even guiding itself outside the atmosphere. Please show me one capable of causing significant impact to Starlink operations over Brazil.

      The missiles typically carried on fighters generally have some kind of rocket motor that burns out in seconds, and utilize aerodynamic fins to maneuver itself to the target. While such missiles are theoretically capable of achieving the altitudes you’re talking about, they become unguided once they lose sufficient atmosphere to maneuver.

      Very few missiles actually have an anti-satellite capability. Nothing in Brazil’s arsenal has ever been demonstrated to have such an capacity.

      I’ll give you a hint: the total anti-satellite capability of the entire planet could shoot down maybe 50, and would take weeks to replenish. Starlink would replace its losses in one launch.

      There are not 6000 satellites servicing Brazil,

      These aren’t geosynchronous satellites. They don’t sit still in the sky. They don’t each serve a specific region on earth. They each complete an orbit every 90 minutes. Each and every satellite in the constellation passes over some part of Brazil multiple times a day, providing service to that area as it does. Yes, there are, indeed, 6000+ satellites servicing Brazil. Pick the right one, and you might be able to interrupt service in some part of Brazil for a few minutes a day, until the constellation adjusts itself to compensate.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        If there are 6,000 then Starlink is again flaunting the rule of law. Brazil gave them a permit for a max of around 4,000.

        And you’re not getting the disparity in resources here. If Starlink can launch every day then Brazil can launch a similar size vehicle 10 times a day. Furthermore AS missiles are available on the market. It doesn’t matter if they don’t have one right now.

        In all likelihood they’ll go a different route but I don’t get why you think Starlink can manufacture and replace delicate instruments in orbit faster than a medium sized country can launch explosives to yeet them. Starlink’s revenue is around 2 to 6 billion a year. Brazil has 2 trillion in GDP to work with. Those number are different, because the way a country finances something and the way a corporation finances something are completely different. This isn’t a fair fight.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Brazil didn’t give them a permit for anything. The relevant permits are from the FCC, FAA, NASA. They have a permit for 12,000, and they have plans for a 3-layer constellation of 30,000.

          don’t get why you think Starlink can manufacture and replace delicate instruments in orbit faster than a medium sized country can launch explosives to yeet them.

          Starlink deploys something like 60 satellites per launch, then scatters them. Brazil would have to launch a separate missile at each of those 60. Of course, this assumes they actually have a missile that can do job. Which they don’t. Not even the US has the capability to destroy satellites at this scale.

          It is not possible to accomplish what you are talking about. And even if it were technologically possible, it is entirely infeasible. It would be easier for Brazil to develop a manned Mars mission than to destroy Starlink satellites faster than they can be replaced.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            Right… We’re done here if you think the US solely controls the low orbit area above other countries and you don’t understand capabilities versus stockpile. This has gotten entirely ridiculous.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Your sovereignty arguments should hold true no matter what sovereign nation we are talking about. Replace “Brazil” with “North Korea”, and they devolve into absurdity: North Korea has no authority to dictate terms to Starlink, and no capacity to stop them. Their sovereignty does not convey them the power or authority to control low earth orbit.

              Brazil firing on a Chinese satellite would be an act of war against China. Brazil firing on a Starlink satellite would be an act of war against the US, even if that satellite were in Brazil’s sovereign borders at the time. Whether the US would respond to such aggression is an open question, but I doubt they would be interested in finding out.

              Brazil has no direct, forceful route to compel Starlink to comply with the order. Their only real option is diplomacy.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                That’s not how that works, you can’t just jam a commercial ship into a country and blow raspberries at them while you break all of their laws. That’s the entire point of sovereignty. And sovereignty isn’t dependent on might. So while N Korea objecting to stuff is funny, it’s still their right.

                Likewise private American satellites do not enjoy any protection outside of the US.

                Simply declaring any American’s property as protected by the military is both incredibly naive and self centered. Americans and their property get seized all the time by foreign countries. And the State Department helps them get a local lawyer.

                • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  That’s not how that works, you can’t just jam a commercial ship into a country and blow raspberries at them

                  If you want to use a commercial ship in your analogy, you’re going to have to place it in international waters, 200 miles off the coast. Brazil does not control a commercial ship in international waters; Brazil does not control a satellite passing overhead. Attacking either is, indeed, an act of war.

                  Sending and receiving radio communications with Brazil or North Korea is not an act of war. If Brazil has a problem with that, they can make it a diplomatic issue.

                  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    No. It’s really not. And yes, the Navy can come get your ship. The OG pirate radio station got taken into port for not paying it’s bills.

                    Your definition of an act of war would mean every American citizen, plane, and ship, carried a presumption of military action with them wherever they go. And they just don’t. It can rise to an act of war but that takes something truly stupid like torpedoing cruise liners, Or attempting to block all trade through the Suez Canal. Seeing as how there’s space and no civilians in the line of fire, Brazil might get a call from the state department but that’s all.

    • Sleepkever@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m sorry. How do you expect a jet flying to get even close enough to a satellite to accelerate a missile to it?

      Highest ever flow fixed wing “aircraft” is SpaceShipOne with rocket engines. Well above what a typical fighter jet might do: 112km height at 910m/s And a typical rocket will go what? Mach 2 or 3? So let’s say Mach 4 at 112 km, which is 1096 m/s

      A typical Starlink orbit is either around 340km height or more typical 550km at either 7726 m/s or 7613 m/s at the different heights.

      That gives a minimum distance traveled of at least 228km and a speed gap of 6630 m/s or 23868 km/h that the missile still needs to close.

      There are probably ways that Brazil could try and destroy satellites if they want to. But launching missiles from (rocket powered) jets definitely isn’t one of them.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          The ASM-135A was fired once, and destroyed one test satellite. That satellite was the first and only satellite that mankind has destroyed with a missile.

          How many of those missiles does Brazil have? How fast can they produce them?

          The first operational batch of 60 Starlink satellites were launched 5 years ago. They now have well over 6000 aloft. Starlink has a demonstrated ability to produce and launch well over 100 satellites a month. They are launched in batches of 20 to 60, using any space available in any of SpaceX’s launch platforms. After launch, they are deployed and scattered throughout the sky. Brazil would need 60 missiles to bring down just one launch worth of satellites.

          They are planning a constellation of 12,000 satellites with 5-year lifespans. That’s 200 satellites a month. Can Brazil produce ASM-135A missiles fast enough to actually put a dent in the Starlink constellation?

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            I’m sorry do you want them to fire it more often?

            And no, a 2 second Google search would show you they successfully used an SM-3 from a Navy ship as well. It would also tell you that Russia, India, and China have done it too. At least one of which is willing to sell their missiles.

            And as pointed out earlier, the answer is yes. A country can produce missiles fast enough.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Not even the US military has the capability of shooting down 200 satellites a month. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                Yup, the military with an operating budget ten times Starlink and an ability to put it’s own satellites up could do nothing…

                That makes total sense.

                You are truly ridiculous.

                • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  You don’t seem to understand that it costs more to shoot down a satellite than it costs to launch one. It costs a lot more… Like, A whole lot more.

                  Yup, the military with an operating budget ten times Starlink and an ability to put it’s own satellites up could do nothing…

                  10 times, eh? That’s the budget you’re willing to give your anti-satellite program? 10 times is not even “a lot” more, let alone “a whole lot”.

                  Each Starlink satellite costs about $300,000 to build and launch. That allows you $30 million per missile.

                  The ASM-135 program had a per-unit cost of $380 million (2024 dollars).

                  A budget 10 times as large isn’t going to cut it. You’re going to need a budget 127 times as large just to keep up.

                  Brazil spent $22 billion on its military last year. That would buy them 57 missiles. But, let’s assume they can get the cost down to just 10 times (they can’t) and say it costs $30 million to down a satellite. Their entire military budget gets them 733 missiles per year.

                  Again, Starlink can launch 60 in one launch. They have demonstrated an ability to launch over 1200 per year over a 5-year period. They are currently licensed for a constellation that will require production and launch of 2400 per year to sustain, and their next phase will require 8000 satellites per year.

                  Not even the US military has the capability of shooting down satellites at anything close to these rates.

                  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    Which makes sense until you remember how the USG budgets procurement programs. The “unit cost” includes all the R&D divided by the number of widgets bought. The actual cost to build is generally far lower. But you just keep going, don’t let reality stop you from licking those billionaire boots!

                    I forgot to also mention, countries have access to debt financing based on their GDP. Pissing off even a medium sized one is not a big brain move.