[brookst]

It's an interesting theory, but I'm not sure it works. Do you design in these sensors and build in the normal starlink factory, where most people don't have security clearances? Or do you make thousands of people get security clearances, making it pretty obvious?

And as soon as any data from a specific sensor leaks, adversaries would likely be able to pinpoint what satellite produced it.

And then the contractual terms mandating commercial spaceflight vendors do this work.

It all gets really complicated, with many thousands of people who are not part of traditional intelligence services all having to keep a massive secret.

[krisoft]

> where most people don't have security clearances

Are we sure about that? Because i see plenty of clearance required job listings to their redmond facility.

> And as soon as any data from a specific sensor leaks, adversaries would likely be able to pinpoint what satellite produced it.

Yeah. Thats why usually data from any satelite would be very closely held. Even with old satelites it was a big deal when the president just posted an image publicly.

But i don’t understand your argument. Even if it leaks that wouldn’t make the sensor network worthless. Like this argument is true for any spy satelite. If the data from any sensor leaks it is bad. Not a reason to not make the satelite.

[brookst]

You’re saying that thousands of starlink satellites are actualky spy satellites, but it’s scret because spacex hires some people with security clearances, but it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t have to be secret to be useful, but it is secret despite involving 100x times more volume than any previous spy satellites, and the only evidence is… vibes?

[krisoft]

> You’re saying that thousands of starlink satellites are actualky spy satellites

No. I didn’t say that and wouldn’t say that. Read carefully because i write carefully what i mean.

You are saying that the theory as presented by bob1029 could not work. I’m saying that your argument why it couldn’t work is not persuasive.

You present two arguments in your comment. (As best as i can understand it.)

One is about the secrecy around the design and manufacturing of the satelites. You claim, without support, that most people don’t have a security clearance in the redmond starlink factory.

Satelite design and manufacturing is already very secretive. Because of ITAR and regular commercial confidentiality you won’t hear a peep about what is on the satelites. The people who design and develop the satelites would of course know the full capabilities of them, but the people manufacturing them need not know. All they need to know is that they are installing optical assemblies. Whoever asks can be told that they are for laser communication.

So the amount of people who need to know is smaller than the full work force. That workforce is already trained on secrecy, and they are practicing it. They already risk prison if they leak anything. (Without any spy satelite business, just because what they work on is ITAR controlled.) On top of that spacex is quite openly hiring for a number of positions requiring top secret clearance.

Your other argument is that if data from these hypothetical sensors would leak that would compromise the hypothetical secrecy around them. Which is true, but is a general property of all inteligence gathering. If it was not an argument against any of the other systems why would it be an argument against this one?

Secrets like this hypothetical one have a finite lifetime. You do it because you hope to gain from doing it. You keep it secret because you hope to gain more than if you didn’t keep it secret. Even if the capability becomes known to your adversaries you won’t loose all the benefits, just some.

> and the only evidence is… vibes?

Because i’m not claiming that they are spy sattelites. All i’m claiming is that your argument claiming that they are not, or couldn’t be is not persuasive. The negation of the statement “they couldn’t be spy satelites” is not “they are spy satelites”, but “they could be spy satelites”.

I hope that helps clarifying what i wrote. Happy to answer any further questions.