4 ms·

-Given the cost of a StarLink satellite (I've no idea, but seeing as they will be launched in the tens of thousands, they can hardly be a gigabuck a piece), the

by lb1lf 6y ago

-Given the cost of a StarLink satellite (I've no idea, but seeing as they will be launched in the tens of thousands, they can hardly be a gigabuck a piece), the solution to the first problem is simply to launch more of them. It is probably cheaper to launch a StarLink bird than it is to blow it out of orbit. Think of it as a DoS attack on the launch batteries! As for the second? I find that approach much more likely to succeed. Sigh.

pepesza 6y ago
Think of Kessler syndrome. One can imagine that blowing (small) N of them would create a cloud of shrapnel posing danger for the whole network. Birds are on really low orbits, so it would clear after some time, but network might not survive this.
- ric2b 6y ago
  Starlink satellites are in decaying orbits, eventually they fall through the atmosphere and burn away. They have some propellant to make adjustments and stay in orbit a bit longer but if you blow them up you just make the decay process quicker.
gruturo 6y ago
Shooting down another country's satellites is an incredibly bad idea. First, it's one of extremely few actions actually likely to get you nuked or "liberated" - you just threatened one of the most valuable strategic advantages (even if it's just a civilian satellite, it wasn't yours, and militaries will consider their satellites under threat). Second, in case you're not aware, the remains of the satellite now are a danger to any other object in that orbital plane, and this can trigger a cascade reaction and take lots of them down, making new launches impossible for many years. Look for Kessler Syndrome.
- adventured 6y ago
  > Shooting down another country's satellites is an incredibly bad idea. First, it's one of extremely few actions actually likely to get you nuked or "liberated" Nobody is nuking anybody else over satellites. Nukes will only be used in case of regime / home territory threat (eg if Russia were losing a conventional war, and NATO were pushing toward Moscow, Russia could throw down the nuke threat card and say stop or else), or in response to the use of a nuke. If North Korea starts shooting down US satellites at some point, it would prompt a conventional military bombing response (which would attempt to neutralize their ability to launch rockets at US satellites), and possible full-scale war. It would not prompt a nuclear retaliation. There is zero interest - anywhere - in seeing millions of people die over some satellites.

by lb1lf 6y ago

pepesza 6y ago

Think of Kessler syndrome. One can imagine that blowing (small) N of them would create a cloud of shrapnel posing danger for the whole network. Birds are on really low orbits, so it would clear after some time, but network might not survive this.

ric2b 6y ago
Starlink satellites are in decaying orbits, eventually they fall through the atmosphere and burn away. They have some propellant to make adjustments and stay in orbit a bit longer but if you blow them up you just make the decay process quicker.

gruturo 6y ago

Shooting down another country's satellites is an incredibly bad idea. First, it's one of extremely few actions actually likely to get you nuked or "liberated" - you just threatened one of the most valuable strategic advantages (even if it's just a civilian satellite, it wasn't yours, and militaries will consider their satellites under threat). Second, in case you're not aware, the remains of the satellite now are a danger to any other object in that orbital plane, and this can trigger a cascade reaction and take lots of them down, making new launches impossible for many years. Look for Kessler Syndrome.

adventured 6y ago
> Shooting down another country's satellites is an incredibly bad idea. First, it's one of extremely few actions actually likely to get you nuked or "liberated" Nobody is nuking anybody else over satellites. Nukes will only be used in case of regime / home territory threat (eg if Russia were losing a conventional war, and NATO were pushing toward Moscow, Russia could throw down the nuke threat card and say stop or else), or in response to the use of a nuke. If North Korea starts shooting down US satellites at some point, it would prompt a conventional military bombing response (which would attempt to neutralize their ability to launch rockets at US satellites), and possible full-scale war. It would not prompt a nuclear retaliation. There is zero interest - anywhere - in seeing millions of people die over some satellites.