Starlink bags US defense contract to keep war-torn Ukraine connected

Starlink has scored an official US government contract to supply satellite services to Ukraine, according to reports. The news follows confirmation earlier this week of an additional $300 million worth of weapons systems and other aid being sent to the country. The satellite operator, part of Elon Musk's SpaceX business, …

[Ciaran McHale]

No good deed goes unpunished

"Now it appears that the Pentagon has caved to Musk's demands." Huh? When Elon initially announced that SpaceX would supply Starlink to Ukraine, he stated that SpaceX would provide the service free-of-charge for 6 months. After that 6-month period was up, it was clear that Ukraine's need for Starlink was growing significantly and, although third parties had provided some of the funding required to continue paying for the service, SpaceX was continuing to provide a significant fraction of Starlink free-of-charge and it was not economical for SpaceX to continue doing so indefinitely. Now that the Pentagon is paying some/most/all of the cost of supplying Starlink to Ukraine, the Register journalist spins this into "the Pentagon has caved to Musk's demands."

Please leave your anti-Musk bias at the door when reporting a story, and stop criticising SpaceX/Musk for their generosity.

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: No good deed goes unpunished

Everything thing I read on this subject is messed up. IIRC Musk promised 3 months of unlimited data for some terminals. When six months passed he asked for a pay day, at the unlimited rate ($2500/month?). The response from Ukraine was that they only needed the standard $100/month plan. There are various reports that SpaceX provided between 0% and 100% of the terminals for free. Many organisations has itemised what they contributed. I have not seen such a statement from SpaceX (no reasonable person would consider "funding secured" tweets as a source of factual information).

I would not single out The Register because just about everybody gets this stuff wrong - most definitely including me.

[DS999]

Re: No good deed goes unpunished

Heck I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX was taking the "free" service as a tax writeoff at the $2500 rate, which is why they balked at being paid only the standard $100 rates. Because then the IRS could question the previous deductions at the $2500 rate and force SpaceX to change those past writeoffs to the $100 rate.

[Andy 73]

Re: No good deed goes unpunished

Well observed - a bit of proper investigative reporting would be welcome here, since there have been multiple allegations that Musk has not, as first claimed, provided a free service but essentially used Ukraine as either a way to offload old Starlink equipment at massively inflated prices or to (once again) find a way to extract government money.

Certainly, any claim that this has been an entirely altruistic exercise doesn't seem to hold much water. Ultimately this appears to be a business deal, not a charity.

[steelpillow]

Re: No good deed goes unpunished

To paraphrase a saying familiar to us all, even charities have to eat. Services like Starlink are not cheap to set up and maintain.

There has been a strong altruistic element in its support for Ukraine, whatever the Musk-haters pump out. Sure Musk is just a dumb retard with one too many Neuralink implants, but when the boy done good don't knock it.

[icesenshi]

Re: No good deed goes unpunished

Apparently theregister thinks that Elon should pay Ukraine's starlink bill indefinitely. Defense contractors like Boeing and Lockheed aren't providing weapons for free. Should we complain about that too?

[Snowy]

Re: No good deed goes unpunished

True but defence contractors like Boeing and Lockheed never said they where giving their weapon for free.

Does this now make Star link satellites military targets?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: No good deed goes unpunished

I read it again after seeing your post and I see nothing indicating "theregister thinks that Elon should pay Ukraine's starlink bill indefinitely".

[doublelayer]

Re: No good deed goes unpunished

Read literally, it's still accurate. Musk demanded money to continue the service, the demand has been met. That doesn't mean he wasn't within his rights to make that demand, which he was. It doesn't mean that the demand couldn't be predicted, which it could. All it means is that Musk asked for something and the Pentagon has given him what he asked for.

We can get into a debate about the connotations of the phrase and whether it implies that the demand is unreasonable, but as a statement of fact, it correctly explains the event that occurred.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: No good deed goes unpunished

Musk says he will cover for x period. Tells Pentagon you pay or I turn it off after set time which in essence is a demand and they pay. If my ISP told me to pay my bill or the will cut me off it's a demand and I would have to cave to that demand to not get cut off.

I'll be honest I'm not a fan of Musk because I think he's arrogant and I'm not actually sure what he's achieved other than getting funding, putting it into companies and reaping the rewards. Tesla was built because it was a selling point using the environment (this from the man who flies everywhere in a private jet) and Starlink was a logical solution to the problem of remote internet access that was never going to get fixed by government. In fact I would suggest Starlink now hampers that work as it's less cost effective. I could on go with his boring company where it's the most non-environmentally friendly type of tunnels. We've had these things called trains for over 100 years and he's building tunnels for cars. Finally we have media empire building with Twitter. Most media makes a loss and always has. The loss is for obtaining data and influencing opinion. That data is going somewhere and someone's paying handsomely for it but lets make out it's an altruistic venture that makes a loss.

Having said all that I don't see the story as anti-musk but that's my opinion.

[Henry Wertz 1]

Cost?

Not that I'm complaining, but how does it cost $80 million for the first 6 months (that Musk covered), $120 for the second 6 months, but then $400 million for the year after that? (Well, maybe the numbers of ground stations in use is steadily increasing. It still looked pretty odd at first glance.)

[Ciaran McHale]

Re: Cost?

I don't have a full answer to your question, but the little I know is that there are at least two issues at work. First, Ukraine's need for Starlink terminals grew as the war dragged on. Second, SpaceX sells the Starlink terminals at a loss (I vaguely recall that it costs a few thousand dollars to make each terminal and the terminal is sold for about $500) and then hopes to recoup that loss over the next few years via the monthly subscription (in much the same way that you can get an expensive mobile phone for a below-market price as long as you sign up for an 18-month contract). Unfortunately, a lot of the sold-at-a-loss Starlink terminals were destroyed within a few weeks/months due to, say, bombs or bullets and, naturally, Ukraine wanted SpaceX to provide (free) replacements for those destroyed terminals.

My *guess* (based on a single article I vaguely recall reading) is that there is a third issue at play. SpaceX charges a relatively small amount ($120/month if I remember correctly) for a Starlink terminal that will be used by a small group of people, e.g., a family, and a significantly larger amount of money ($2500/month or something like that) for a Starlink terminal that will be used by a larger organization. My guess is that initially there were mostly $120/month subscriptions being provided and each of these was being used by a small group of soldiers; but over time Ukraine realized they could deploy one Starlink terminal plus some sort of "internet router to mobile phone mast" device in a large military compound or in a village, so that hundreds/thousands of people could get mobile phone signals and internet access from a single Starlink terminal. That larger-scale use is what the $2500/month subscription fee is for.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Cost?

well at least you tried.

all of your guess/facts are bollocks of the highest order.

[Ciaran McHale]

Re: Cost?

You dismiss what I wrote out of hand, and provide not a single bit of evidence to back up your dismissal. Doing that reflects badly on you. No wonder you chose to post anonymously.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Cost?

I don't like wasting my time explaining facts to fanboys riding elons dick

[Ciaran McHale]

Re: Cost?

You are wasting everybody's time by rudely (and homophobically) dismissing opposing views as worthless without providing any counter arguments/evidence.