Two Dead After SpaceX Slowed Starlink for Ukraine
The temporary restriction on high-speed terminals exposed Ukraine's reliance on a single orbital provider and triggered a dispute over who controls military space access.
By Malik Salazar ·
SpaceX has operated a constellation of more than 10,000 Starlink satellites in low Earth orbit, creating a network that now underpins critical military operations in Ukraine. Last week, the company throttled the military version of the service, known as Starshield, preventing terminals moving above certain speeds from connecting.
The restriction immediately disrupted Ukrainian interceptor drones designed to counter Russian bomb-carrying aircraft. Because these interceptors require high-speed connectivity to function, they stopped working during the slowdown. Ukrainian officials reported that two people died and at least 17 were injured as a result of the gap in air defense, which allowed Russian forces to strike energy infrastructure with greater ease.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stated that the Ukrainian military received no advance notice of the change. He characterized the move as a direct message from the United States, a stance that intensified existing tensions between Zelenskyy and President Donald Trump. Public criticism followed swiftly, targeting both the White House for perceived abandonment and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk for enabling the executive branch.
Accounts of the decision process have fluctuated since the incident. Musk initially claimed that SpaceX had no control over Starshield and that the U.S. military made the call. The White House denied taking action. Subsequent reports indicated that Musk proposed the slowdown to Trump, who accepted it, before later accounts stated that Musk ordered the restrictions himself. Access to the service has since been restored in Ukraine.
Experts note that this episode reveals the extent of SpaceX's dominance in the space industry. Wendy Whitman Cobb of the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies at Maxwell Air Force Base described the company as having an effective monopoly on launch. She pointed out that rivals such as United Launch Alliance, Blue Origin, and Rocket Lab exist but do not match SpaceX in frequency, mass, scale, or cost.
Space economist Oğuz Karasu of the Oxford Space Initiative argued that the monopoly is practical rather than legal. He noted that launch accounts for about 8 percent of the space industry, yet the remaining sector cannot function without it. Andrew Reddie of the University of California, Berkeley, called the situation an antitrust issue, observing that SpaceX launches support constellations it owns, leaving little incentive to launch competing networks.
The financial dynamics of the market are also shifting. Whitman Cobb and Karasu reported hearing complaints that Falcon 9 prices, particularly for low Earth orbit, are rising. Starlink prices have also climbed since the service began its beta phase in 2020. SpaceX has launched some Amazon Kuiper satellites, now known as Leo, but the scale of its own operations remains unmatched.
The stakes of this concentration extend beyond military conflicts into daily civilian life. Whitman Cobb explained that a GPS outage could disrupt fuel pumps, ATMs, financial transactions, and ambulance dispatch. Karasu warned that giving one person so much control is not good for society's future, as the infrastructure is essential for modern operations.
Government agencies face exposure to these market forces as well. SpaceX is reportedly retiring the Falcon 9 and taking no new missions from 2028. This move leaves the Space Force struggling to find launch options for military satellites and raises questions about NASA's future access to the Crew Dragon capsule. A Falcon 9 issue in February briefly grounded the rocket and raised concerns about the Crew-12 launch, though NASA continues to back Boeing's Starliner and contract with companies like Rocket Lab and Blue Origin.
Michele Scataglini of the Oxford Space Initiative stated that the market needs more competition, otherwise it is not a market. Reddie emphasized that the central security problem is that a non-state actor is making decisions as if it were a government. Whitman Cobb said she is cautiously optimistic that the events will raise awareness of the risks of reliance on a single company, noting that it took people dying for the problem to be recognized.
