• Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

      • Player2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

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

        • off_brand_@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          ??

          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.

      • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

          • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            It’s another form of MAD.

            Russia has nothing in that LEO orbit (that I’m aware of… I could be horrendously wrong). I don’t think there’s anything “mutually assured” here.

    • matcha_addict@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      11 months ago

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

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

      • Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        11 months ago

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

        • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

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

          • B0rax@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            11 months ago

            I don’t think it is… one of the satellites cost USD 250k in 2019. it is likely cheaper now.

            There have been Anti Satellite Weapon tests (for example from China) to see if it is feasible. The cost for such an attack would be much much higher than 250k (we are talking multiple millions)

            • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Hmm you made me think and if they use their reusable rockets tech and maybe some other similar things, it may be cheaper in the end because they save a lot of money in places where others don’t

      • UrPartnerInCrime@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

  • catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • MrVilliam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

  • Chefdano3@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

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

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

  • nexusband@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    On one hand, I really, really want those idiots in the Kremel to cause a Kessler Syndrome…(In theory it could also prevent ballistic missiles)

    On the other hand, that would be quite bad for the rest of us.

    • Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Starlink birds fly too low for that, they will deorbit in 4-8 years if they go dead.

      • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’d be worried about debris flung into steeply elliptical orbits, though. It wouldn’t take much to do some real damage to sats in higher orbits and once the cascade starts there’s not much we can do but wait decades for the worst of it to fall into the atmosphere.

        • FaceDeer@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          11 months ago

          Those steeply elliptical orbits would probably deorbit even quicker since a random impulse that boosts the apogee is likely to lower the perigee even more.

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Kessler syndrome is only a threat to satellites that are orbiting within the debris, it’s not really a danger if you’re only passing through (as a ballistic missile would).