Fascinating that they chose to use modulated board-to-board Ethernet instead of just running RGMII from MAC to MAC.
msgodel 14 hours ago [-]
Ethernet seems far easier to prototype with. There's almost no off the shelf stuff for talking to RGMII whereas Ethernet you can just plug into your laptop for testing. If it's two different teams building things it seems like it would be a lot easier to just agree on Ethernet as the interface and then delay integration testing or release earlier.
numpad0 7 hours ago [-]
RGMII is not some obscure competitor to Ethernet, but rather, Ethernet was designed to be a modular two-part design with "MAC" and "PHY" chips connected via "MII" interface. RGMII is simply the latest version of it.
Many Ethernet-supported SoCs still use various MII style interfaces because it makes more sense to outsource the physical layer to some external chip especially if not everyone is going to use Ethernet.
It's perhaps like the difference between using Thunderbolt vs raw PCIe. You technically shouldn't need Thunderbolt if you're just permanently connecting two things inside a same machine.
Is it smarter to do it proper and make it silicon efficient than just shipping the darn thing ASAP? idk. We'll see.
stephen_g 6 hours ago [-]
RGMII requires way more work to run board-to-board (heaps of signals, quite precise length matching, impedance control, etc. on the boards, better board-to-board connectors etc.) and at the end of all that will likely be less robust than just running Ethernet. I'd much rather use SGMII just because it's far fewer signals to match (even if it runs way faster) instead of RGMII.
The chips they're using might already have Ethernet PHYs built in anyway which might also be part of the reason they're using Ethernet.
15155 13 hours ago [-]
A $3 breakout PCB with an RGMII PHY and MagJack on it would solve this problem without resorting to analog communication.
msgodel 13 hours ago [-]
Assembly isn't free, either an engineer or the PCB fabricator has to put that together. Also the design isn't free and it's certainly not necessarily going to match the behavior of the device on the other side.
But your laptop's Ethernet adapter comes free with your laptop (both in terms of money and waiting to get it since it's already on your desk) and possibly even more importantly you know the laptop manufacturer and users have QAed it for you so it's absolutely going to behave the way you expect which is important when the device you're designing isn't behaving.
15155 12 hours ago [-]
> Assembly isn't free, either an engineer or the PCB fabricator has to put that together
> your laptop's Ethernet adapter
The device as-designed likely wouldn't work with your laptop's ethernet adapter - hence why the author of TFA placed an isolation transformer and jack ...on a breakout board.
msgodel 11 hours ago [-]
Heh I didn't notice it didn't have the isolation transformer. That is odd.
12 hours ago [-]
dlcarrier 4 hours ago [-]
That connector is way cheaper than something that could carry an RGMII signal without major reflections. It's probably cheaper in the end to have the extra silicon than a better connector, and I don't think you need the magnetics if you don't need isolation.
MOARDONGZPLZ 15 hours ago [-]
A lot of this is pretty POC-y. Agree digital to analog to analog to digital is kinda inefficient, and in the abstract MAC to PHY (which is probably what you mean when you say MAC to MAC) with RGMII is probably better. My off the cuff guess is that it is likely the written-up interface is easier to access or requires less diving into internals. Not sure where the RGMII lines are, and depending on the design of the Starlink mini itself (I am ignorant of this) the lines might have been buried deeper and less accessible, who knows.
05 6 hours ago [-]
Sure, then you get to write an MDIO emulator so that it actually detects link and since it's a proprietary system you can't exactly comment out the SMI code.. fun!
jpm_sd 10 hours ago [-]
RGMII isn't really designed to go board-to-board, fairly high data rates, and ideally all of the signals should be delay matched. That gets a bit trickier when there are two boards involved. Also I would expect EMI/EMC issues.
I know people do that sort of thing for evaluation kits, but it doesn't seem like a good idea for production.
CamperBob2 14 hours ago [-]
I'm not sure I understand the entire point of the exercise. There's already an RJ45 jack on the Mini, so no need to hack the unit to get access to an Ethernet PHY. And the WiFi router can be turned off via the setup page.
Did they remove support for the Ethernet jack on the Minis available in Ukraine? It looks like it's still present on the WiFi board, next to the power jack.
dogben 13 hours ago [-]
They may want to make absolutly sure no wifi signal emit from the device. Turning it off in the setup page is definitely not enough.
The wifi chip may emit signal during boot. The device may get accidentally reset in the field. SpaceX may push an update that messes with the settings.
CamperBob2 13 hours ago [-]
I mean, more power to them, certainly, but WiFi emissions seem like the least of your concerns when you're operating an antenna for satellite comms. There will be no shortage of side lobes at Ku band for anyone who cares to listen.
Cutting down on mass would make sense, though.
MOARDONGZPLZ 12 hours ago [-]
It will still draw power with wifi turned off, though much less. The most effective way of reducing the P in swap is to remove the unit entirely
closewith 14 hours ago [-]
You might imagine some use cases where mass is a critical concern.
10 hours ago [-]
Aspos 17 hours ago [-]
I know exactly what power-constrained application you have in mind, Oleg, and I like it.
Given that the blogger is based in Kiev, Ukraine? Good chance this goes on some sort of long range, Predator-style drone.
neilv 8 hours ago [-]
I hope that the engineers and scientists contributing to asymmetric warfare technology there aren't designated high-value targets by the adversary.
Wouldn't publicity paint a target on one's back?
stephen_g 7 hours ago [-]
Seems likely, just a risk one has to take if you want to actively contribute to a war effort...
neilv 6 hours ago [-]
Is one increasing the risk by blogging and YouTubing about it?
burnt-resistor 15 hours ago [-]
I wonder how SL plans vary in Ukraine / for use in Russia. Assuming US-like pricing and limitations, for low speed drones, this would work. The gotcha is that for jet or fast prop drones in the 250-478 kts range requires a very expensive aviation plan assuming it's similar to US plans.
dylan604 14 hours ago [-]
Could that not also be part of the support being provided to Ukraine in that those prices are not the same as some commercial account? At the end of the day, the billing department could just not issue the bill, or any other method of meaning Ukraine isn't paying for it.
Aspos 14 hours ago [-]
AFAIK US DoD pays for some of the Starlink accounts in Ukraine. The rest are paid for by volunteers at normal prices.
I am not sure - afaik there is a speed limit (assumption of satellite visibility and specific latency?) over which starlink won’t work, right?
It can however be useful for getting the internet without announcing yourself to a swarm of drones?
gruez 14 hours ago [-]
>I am not sure - afaik there is a speed limit (assumption of satellite visibility and specific latency?) over which starlink won’t work, right?
The author's youtube channel also contains a video of him doing a speedtest on a starlink mini while driving on a highway.
michaelt 11 hours ago [-]
Starlink satellites orbit at 17,000 miles per hour, so I doubt receivers lose signal just from going at a few hundred miles per hour.
Unless there's a software limit built in that turns them off, or the drone's doing some crazy high-G-force acrobatics.
If you have actual feedback on the points go ahead. If you even opened the link, It contains sources. What I wrote, I wrote from memory as I've read plenty of articles and first-party takes while fighting stupid misinformation on this specific issue so much, and just added the fact check as I think that is doing a lot more than 90% of commenters.
Replying (trolling?) in the lines of just "lol AI stupid" isn't helpful or aiming towards anyone being better informed.
gruez 14 hours ago [-]
Note I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it's not considered anywhere reliable enough for a "fact check". At best it's "some sources that chatgpt turned up that I have to manually check myself". I'll admit that human written "fact checks" aren't exactly foolproof either (eg. the infamous "Clinton acid washed her servers" fact check), but at least I can be reasonably sure that it doesn't contain entirely made up sources.
multjoy 13 hours ago [-]
You didn't write it, tell me why I should read it?
MOARDONGZPLZ 12 hours ago [-]
ChatGPT is not a source. You’re just overwhelming the conversation with slop and then throwing up your hands and saying, “You figure out if it’s true!”
Not cool and not a way to treat your peers.
gmerc 13 hours ago [-]
"Sources". It's low quality slop that requires validation.
ImPostingOnHN 8 hours ago [-]
If you've personally verified the claims and sources there, then feel free to make the claims yourself, citing the sources.
ChatGPT may be a good tool for you to find information to discuss here, but it is not a good tool to replace discussion here.
mft_ 16 hours ago [-]
Wouldn’t this give Starlink the ability to track and/or turn off operations in real time?
michaelt 15 hours ago [-]
Yes, you may recall some controversy a few years back when Musk made some threats along those lines.
There are alternatives if you only need short range, or if you can tolerate high latency. And of course there are fire-and-forget cruise missiles that don't need communications at all.
But there aren't all that many other options. Historically, satellite internet companies like Iridium, Globalstar and Teledesic have not fared well.
maxlin 14 hours ago [-]
It was only made to appear a controversy for clicks and Ukrainians (understandably) trying to bend the rules.
The thing came with a clear limit "this thing works in these cells of this big hex grid".
And they drove it off that hex grid. Plan and simple.
Its like if the US-supplied HIMARS came with some built-in limit that it cannot be used to target known Russian nuclear installments, and they'd try to do that.
It's not that those things are unquestionable, but they are limits that would need US consultation as US obviously doesn't want the thing to escalate from being a defensive war to something else.
karp773 12 hours ago [-]
Is Crimea on "this big hex grid" or not? If not, why not?
coryrc 11 hours ago [-]
Because the US military/govt has a say in what US companies sell to foreign militaries and that's what the restrictions were at the time. Remember this was early on in the full invasion.
TMWNN 9 hours ago [-]
Starlink is prohibited for use in Crimea because of US sanctions against Russia, and not because "Musk turned Starlink off during a Ukrainian attack".
lxgr 14 hours ago [-]
Iridium works extremely well for what it was designed for – truly global, low latency communications without requiring a directional antenna. Unfortunately, that also means very low data rates.
It only gained packed-switched data with the second generation satellite network, but data rates are still very low (think hundreds of kbps, and I believe even that needs high-gain antennas).
NitpickLawyer 13 hours ago [-]
~Iridium~ devices were bricked in the first days of the invasion, iirc. That's why starlink was such a big deal, and that's why the usmil wanted it "yesterday" after it proved itself in ua. They had to set up a dedicated unit to deal with starlink, as every branch was trying to get it on their own and complicated purchasing. That unit / project was also called starshield, confusing the matter with the other starshield project that uses starlink buses + ng sensor packages.
edit: it was Viasat not Iridium, I got them mixed up.
RF_Savage 13 hours ago [-]
Viasat fixed modems got bricked at start of the war in Ukraine and some collateral one's in border areas.
snickerdoodle12 11 hours ago [-]
Interesting how the US goes absolutely ballistic about some random dude violating the "Computer Security Act" on a small scale, but didn't react at all to this massive, incredibly impactful, attack.
mschuster91 7 hours ago [-]
it didn't impact Americans. it impacted us Europeans but at the time this went down we were too dependent on Russia's cheap gas (and, frankly, lacked the military power) to raise the appropriate level of stink.
Hell we let Russia freely execute dissidents (Skripal or the Berlin Tiergarten murder come to my mind) and tolerated a land-grab war by little green men in 2014. Either of these actions would have warranted serious consequences, the Crimea/Donbas grab would be a casus belli if you ask me. But again, we were too busy sucking Putin off for cheap gas.
snickerdoodle12 6 hours ago [-]
so as far as the US is concerned it's fair game to attack US companies as long as it doesn't impact US citizens?
hansvm 2 hours ago [-]
As far as the US is concerned, it's fair game to drone-strike US citizens [0,1,2] from time to time.
You are right, thanks. I mixed them up. Iridium is also providing service in ua now, and was unaffected at the start of the war.
mschuster91 7 hours ago [-]
"Some" is an understatement lol. Here in Germany 3.800 (!) wind turbines lost remote control (and thus were forced offline) until the terminals could be changed because their command uplink was via Viasat.
mattmaroon 16 hours ago [-]
Yes but they’ve mostly not been doing that (they probably are selling a lot of dishes) and what’s the alternative?
codedokode 14 hours ago [-]
Russians also use Musk's satellites and might find the information useful.
Also as I understand, satellites do not work over Russian territory so guess where this can be used.
Andrew_nenakhov 13 hours ago [-]
Actually, they do work is Russia. You need account registered in some allowed country and also use RV plan (or maybe it is called 'roam' now). I know some ppl who use it. Was thinking to get one myself, to have a reliable bypass of pathetic russian firewall.
Ray20 7 hours ago [-]
> Actually, they do work is Russia.
Aren't starlink have some kind of geolock?
> to have a reliable bypass of pathetic russian firewall
All data shows that Russia have one of the strongest and best firewall in the world, in many aspects even better than in China. And all the Russians I spoke with say that VPN is not blocked and any service for a couple of bucks does its job.
Andrew_nenakhov 1 hours ago [-]
> Aren't starlink have some kind of geolock?
Perhaps. Apparently, it isn't applied in RV mode
> All data shows that Russia have one of the strongest and best firewall in the world
If you have a pile of shit in the world right in front of your house, it is pathetic, even if it is the biggest and the stinkiest pile of shit in the world.
> And all the Russians I spoke with say that VPN is not blocked and any service for a couple of bucks does its job.
I am Russian. This is not true. All regular vpn protocols (OpenVPN, Wireguard) are outright blocked. Shadowsocks is blocked on most ISPs, including all major mobile ones. VLESS works, for now, mostly, but sometimes the IP address of the server I run become unavailable.
tguvot 1 hours ago [-]
They use it at front lines for fighting Ukraine. Not for reading cnn
Andrew_nenakhov 1 hours ago [-]
Ppl I know use it live in Yekaterinburg, rather far from the front lines.
tguvot 21 minutes ago [-]
Kazakhstan is near by, maybe service spills over .
sure that yekaterinburg and not Kaliningrad ?
littlestymaar 15 hours ago [-]
Maybe just for front-line deployment, it would suck to be targeted by a glide bomb because the Russians located some WiFi signal.
multjoy 13 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
mattmaroon 16 hours ago [-]
Well the author is Ukranian so I have a guess.
tenuousemphasis 16 hours ago [-]
Based on recent events I would guess an explosive-laden drone.
16 hours ago [-]
0xbadcafebee 5 hours ago [-]
Слава Україні
rozhok 9 hours ago [-]
Starlink is already used for «Nemesis» night bombers as well as «Magura» sea drones.
mattmaroon 16 hours ago [-]
Riding piggy back on a drone?
justsomehnguy 16 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
wat10000 16 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
mattmaroon 16 hours ago [-]
I like guns when they are used to stop a school shooter, but not when they are used by a school shooter.
justsomehnguy 11 hours ago [-]
Guns, just like a StarLink terminals are a mere tools.
Some people are totally okay when the tools are used the way they like. Unsurprisingly they are quite vocal about how these tools are bad when they are used not the way they like.
wat10000 8 hours ago [-]
Usually people are positive or neutral about tools. People are happy to have a screwdriver when they need it, and don’t generally get upset about screwdrivers as a general tool when one is used to, say, assemble a terrorist bomb.
Guns are a special case since their sole purpose is to kill, which is inherently somewhat more morally fraught than turning fasteners.
justsomehnguy 7 hours ago [-]
Yes.
Drones/quadrocopters along with the civilian trucks delivering the merchandise are the tools. And their purpose isn't for kill, yet you can see a lot of people who praise when these tools are used against the people they don't like - and you can bet a way more than $20 what they would condemn these tools if or then it would be used against them.
You can ask the commenters up there if they would be OK with if the same thing would be used against the things they do value. At best you would get only downvotes. At worst... you can see the dead ones, if you chose so.
PS check the 'about me' of the article author. Take a note of the dates. Draw your own conclusions.
wat10000 6 hours ago [-]
Sounds like you're just making things up to argue against.
I don't doubt they'd decry using these tools against themselves. But I doubt they'd decry the tools. I don't see a whole lot of people arguing against drones as a general thing, the way some people argue against guns. I see plenty of people criticizing the use of drones for evil, but it's the "use for evil" part that's important in that.
Many Ethernet-supported SoCs still use various MII style interfaces because it makes more sense to outsource the physical layer to some external chip especially if not everyone is going to use Ethernet.
It's perhaps like the difference between using Thunderbolt vs raw PCIe. You technically shouldn't need Thunderbolt if you're just permanently connecting two things inside a same machine.
Is it smarter to do it proper and make it silicon efficient than just shipping the darn thing ASAP? idk. We'll see.
The chips they're using might already have Ethernet PHYs built in anyway which might also be part of the reason they're using Ethernet.
But your laptop's Ethernet adapter comes free with your laptop (both in terms of money and waiting to get it since it's already on your desk) and possibly even more importantly you know the laptop manufacturer and users have QAed it for you so it's absolutely going to behave the way you expect which is important when the device you're designing isn't behaving.
> your laptop's Ethernet adapter
The device as-designed likely wouldn't work with your laptop's ethernet adapter - hence why the author of TFA placed an isolation transformer and jack ...on a breakout board.
I know people do that sort of thing for evaluation kits, but it doesn't seem like a good idea for production.
Did they remove support for the Ethernet jack on the Minis available in Ukraine? It looks like it's still present on the WiFi board, next to the power jack.
The wifi chip may emit signal during boot. The device may get accidentally reset in the field. SpaceX may push an update that messes with the settings.
Cutting down on mass would make sense, though.
Wouldn't publicity paint a target on one's back?
The author's youtube channel also contains a video of him doing a speedtest on a starlink mini while driving on a highway.
Unless there's a software limit built in that turns them off, or the drone's doing some crazy high-G-force acrobatics.
An AI conversation is hardly a "fact check".
Replying (trolling?) in the lines of just "lol AI stupid" isn't helpful or aiming towards anyone being better informed.
Not cool and not a way to treat your peers.
ChatGPT may be a good tool for you to find information to discuss here, but it is not a good tool to replace discussion here.
There are alternatives if you only need short range, or if you can tolerate high latency. And of course there are fire-and-forget cruise missiles that don't need communications at all.
But there aren't all that many other options. Historically, satellite internet companies like Iridium, Globalstar and Teledesic have not fared well.
The thing came with a clear limit "this thing works in these cells of this big hex grid". And they drove it off that hex grid. Plan and simple.
Its like if the US-supplied HIMARS came with some built-in limit that it cannot be used to target known Russian nuclear installments, and they'd try to do that.
It's not that those things are unquestionable, but they are limits that would need US consultation as US obviously doesn't want the thing to escalate from being a defensive war to something else.
It only gained packed-switched data with the second generation satellite network, but data rates are still very low (think hundreds of kbps, and I believe even that needs high-gain antennas).
edit: it was Viasat not Iridium, I got them mixed up.
Hell we let Russia freely execute dissidents (Skripal or the Berlin Tiergarten murder come to my mind) and tolerated a land-grab war by little green men in 2014. Either of these actions would have warranted serious consequences, the Crimea/Donbas grab would be a casus belli if you ask me. But again, we were too busy sucking Putin off for cheap gas.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki#Death
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awla...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nawar_al-Awlaki
Also as I understand, satellites do not work over Russian territory so guess where this can be used.
Aren't starlink have some kind of geolock?
> to have a reliable bypass of pathetic russian firewall
All data shows that Russia have one of the strongest and best firewall in the world, in many aspects even better than in China. And all the Russians I spoke with say that VPN is not blocked and any service for a couple of bucks does its job.
Perhaps. Apparently, it isn't applied in RV mode
> All data shows that Russia have one of the strongest and best firewall in the world
If you have a pile of shit in the world right in front of your house, it is pathetic, even if it is the biggest and the stinkiest pile of shit in the world.
> And all the Russians I spoke with say that VPN is not blocked and any service for a couple of bucks does its job.
I am Russian. This is not true. All regular vpn protocols (OpenVPN, Wireguard) are outright blocked. Shadowsocks is blocked on most ISPs, including all major mobile ones. VLESS works, for now, mostly, but sometimes the IP address of the server I run become unavailable.
Some people are totally okay when the tools are used the way they like. Unsurprisingly they are quite vocal about how these tools are bad when they are used not the way they like.
Guns are a special case since their sole purpose is to kill, which is inherently somewhat more morally fraught than turning fasteners.
Drones/quadrocopters along with the civilian trucks delivering the merchandise are the tools. And their purpose isn't for kill, yet you can see a lot of people who praise when these tools are used against the people they don't like - and you can bet a way more than $20 what they would condemn these tools if or then it would be used against them.
You can ask the commenters up there if they would be OK with if the same thing would be used against the things they do value. At best you would get only downvotes. At worst... you can see the dead ones, if you chose so.
PS check the 'about me' of the article author. Take a note of the dates. Draw your own conclusions.
I don't doubt they'd decry using these tools against themselves. But I doubt they'd decry the tools. I don't see a whole lot of people arguing against drones as a general thing, the way some people argue against guns. I see plenty of people criticizing the use of drones for evil, but it's the "use for evil" part that's important in that.