I should have said ACK storms aren't a thing if whoever specified the protocol you are on was not an idiot. If you don't have any choice about the protocol you must use, you must endure whatever horrors have been inflicted upon you.
Starlink will not have that problem, anyway. They could invent their own horror story, and then have no one to blame but themselves.
A more complicated modulation scheme could enable cheap hardware in the terminals to see only a fraction of traffic, which might be worth the RF complication. That probably depends on how much of the protocol work they are willing to do in the terminal's FPGA. Certainly the CPU cores in the terminal won't be up to sorting through the whole pile.
An FPGA configured to watch for a small number of packet headers of interest, and decrypt and deliver just those packets, ought to be able to relieve the CPU core enough.
Starlink will not have that problem, anyway. They could invent their own horror story, and then have no one to blame but themselves.
A more complicated modulation scheme could enable cheap hardware in the terminals to see only a fraction of traffic, which might be worth the RF complication. That probably depends on how much of the protocol work they are willing to do in the terminal's FPGA. Certainly the CPU cores in the terminal won't be up to sorting through the whole pile.
An FPGA configured to watch for a small number of packet headers of interest, and decrypt and deliver just those packets, ought to be able to relieve the CPU core enough.