42 points

Starlink launches forty-ish Starlink sats every other week, Russia could deplete it’s entire arsenal of missiles and, if they’re lucky, cause a hole in their coverage.

permalink
report
reply
4 points
*

Starlink needs deleting too, so that would be perfect.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

As someone who spends a lot of time in the outdoors, I have to disagree with you. I’m very excited about how this will simplify logistics, and make getting weather etc much easier.

permalink
report
parent
reply
47 points
*

The skies are already polluted with Starlink satellites and there’s even more coming. I agree that is does solve some situations, but it’s being done for profit, not for undeveloped areas. Sticking more shit in our skies for money is really sad, I am surprised there’s not more international regulations for this kind of satellite spam.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I’ve never had to do anything to get the weather. It just arrives and does its thing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

If there were more third-world people here they’d probably agree with you as well. Last I checked there’s like one or two cables going into the entire continent of Africa.

It’s actually a really good idea, with the main exception being the impact on astronomy. That Musk happens to be the guy behind this first network is just an unfortunate coincidence.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points
*

And we even made a whole movie about Kessler syndrome :|

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Enjoy spreading misinformation online? There are valid criticisms against LEO constellations but Kessler syndrome is not one of them

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

??

Did you read the comment? It’s not about LEO satellites. It’s about a military arsenal destroying a fleet of LEO satellites. The satellites won’t do a Kessler, but a fleets worth of shrapnel would be a problem.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Which is exactly why Russia only needs a handful of rockets at most. You only need to make debris. The rest will sort itself out.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

But that is a strategic capability, not a tactical one. It’s another form of MAD.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points

I’m pretty sure that starlink satellites are orders of magnitudes more expensive to manufacture and deploy than the weapons that can target them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Really? You can put up 50 starlinks at a time for tens of millions of dollars, whereas asats need a more expensive an maneuverable kill vehicle and a launch for each one with lots more complicated targeting and maneuvering. It’s pretty hard to track and follow something down moving so fast through space and hit it. Plus Russia just doesn’t have the launch capacity to put up that much mass to orbit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Not to mention that SpaceX has designed things so that they can piggyback starlink deployments on the back of other commercial launches. So, for example, AT&T pays them $25 million to launch a new telecom satellite, and they toss in another dozen or so starlink satellites along with it.

AT&T pays for the majority of the launch costs and starlink benefits from it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

How do you know that? You’re launching an entire rocket to kill one satellite, that can’t be cheap.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yes, it is probably expensive, but a satellite is probably even more expensive, and not just by a little.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Maybe, but one of the best traits about Musk is he’s willing to throw money at this regardless of profit. So he’s gunna keep throwing up more of these satellites, while Russia’s rocket supply is only going to get harder to resupply for the foreseeable future.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

Spy satellites have always been valid targets. I don’t think they’re any more likely to shoot these ones down than any of the others.

permalink
report
reply
7 points

For real. This seems like something that threatens musk and space x more than anybody else. The CIA effectively has unlimited money to replace whatever Russia takes down, but musk needing to pay to replace satellites to maintain starlink will hurt his bottom line. I don’t think tin foil hat wearers would be all that unreasonable to make the assumption that this is a veiled threat to keep musk in line. I frequently hear the argument that “billionaires can’t be bought” but I believe the exact opposite. They care more about money than morals and ethics, and can therefore be coerced by it either through hurting their bottom line or rewarding them with more of it. A dragon’s hoard can never be too big for the dragon to accept more, and nothing hurts the drain more than reducing its hoard.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Musk supports Russia so what’s the play here

permalink
report
reply
8 points

That CIA - SpaceX combo to make spy satellites mentioned some days back.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Huh, found that news on Google. So Musk is quite publicly doing something in secret, with the CIA and Russia. Definitely fishy

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points
*
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Can’t wait to hear about space X satellites falling out of a window.

permalink
report
reply
11 points

I Fucking Love the same joke for 3 years straight!!!

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Only 3? I thought we were closing on a decade with this joke now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

We’d stop, if the joke wasn’t relevant anymore.

But I doubt Putin will fall out of a window himself anytime soon.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

You seem stressed, would you like a cup of tea?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Hell yeah bitches!!

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

There are more sats than asat missiles. The math doesn’t work out. Unless they use nukes or shotgun blasts or something to make the entirety of leo unusable.

permalink
report
reply
6 points
*

The math doesn’t work out.

You only need enough asat missiles to create enough debris. Kessler handles the rest.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Hense making the entirety of leo unusable

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Eh, not for long. LEO everything falls eventually. HEO… that can take a long hot minute.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

And also affects China and India, both nations that Russia relies on. Doubly on China who is developing their own LEO internet service.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Don’t give them any ideas

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

It’s okay, Starlink is in a low enough orbit that it’s basically Kessler-proof.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

They could just destroy enough in a given time and place to allow an attack or other ops to go through.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Probably can use a nuke to take out a lot.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Asat are cheaper to manufacture and deploy than it is for a satellite.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Really? Where are you getting that info? This estimates a starlink costs about 1M to build and launch. The SM-3, the US asat missile, costs at least 10M each. I think it’s more for the asat variant, but I couldn’t find numbers for that. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-estimated-cost-for-Starlink-satellites-to-provide-high-speed-internet-across-the-United-States#:~:text=According to one source%2C the,be around %2415-30 billion. https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/missile-defense-systems-2/missile-defense-systems/missile-interceptors-by-cost/

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!worldnews@lemmy.ml

Create post

News from around the world!

Rules:

  • Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc

  • No NSFW content

  • No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

Community stats

  • 5.4K

    Monthly active users

  • 9.9K

    Posts

  • 113K

    Comments