5 ms·
> This unexpected “Starfish belt,” which lingered for at least 10 years, destroyed Telstar 1, the first satellite to broadcast a live television signal, and Ari
by gen3 5y ago
> This unexpected “Starfish belt,” which lingered for at least 10 years, destroyed Telstar 1, the first satellite to broadcast a live television signal, and Ariel-1, Britain’s first satellite.
TIL. I wonder what type of effect a “space nuke” would have on modern constellations. I would assume they have better radiation hardening now, but I’m not sure to what threshold that matters.
What are the odds a country gets pissed off by spacex and tries the shudder the constellation.
- HWR_14 5y agoThe odds that a country (with the right tech) gets pissed off at SpaceX is approximately zero because Elon seems to be fine playing along with the Russian/Chinese governments to prevent it. The odds that Starlink and other satellite constellations are destroyed in the beginning of a global war seems to be about 100%, even if there are no nukes used terrestrially.
- gibbonsrcool 5y agoWouldn't attacks on Starlink be so asymmetrical that we'd want the enemy to try and shoot them down? They'd go bankrupt trying. We launch 60 satellites per Falcon, and who knows how many per Starship. Meanwhile the bad guys have to use a whole launch to take out one/few Starlink satellites.
- DuskStar 5y agoUnless a few multi-megaton nukes can take out ALL of the LEO satellites at once.
- toast0 5y agoI kind of don't think Starlink would be a big target at least until they have satellite to satellite comunication; if they get multiple hops in space communications working and especially it can be used from end-user to end-user without spaceX ground stations, then satellites become a target. Otherwise if you want to disrupt communications, the SpaceX ground stations are in known (or knowable) locations and easy to target. But, if you did attack the satellites, I suspect you'd do something MIRVish, so assume 10ish strikes per launch, and there's some number of strikes less than the fleet that ruins the orbits for everyone for a few years.
- jazzyjackson 5y agoAll that’s needed is a debris field to render the orbit unusable for decades.
- sunstone 5y agoSurface based missiles would suffice.
- new_realist 5y agoNot at all. The easiest way to take down Starlink is with ground-based lasers. Superpowers already possess this capability.
- iamnotwhoiam 5y agoYou’ve commented this twice. I’ve never read about any technology approaching this. Lasers are in tests to defeat small, slow, low altitude drones. If anyone could shoot down an entire satellite constellation with lasers then that would mean all air defense is solved. Planes and missiles are much slower, closer, and larger than Starlink satellites.
- HWR_14 5y agoIn fairness, Starlink satellites are vulnerable to space based lasers, in ways that planes and missiles are not. Also, unlike planes/missiles the last doesn't have to destroy the satellite. Frying the receiver or damaging the solar cells would be sufficient.
- Kv0Fk756x 5y agoHere's the DIA publication[0] that briefly goes over space and ground based laser threats on pages 9 and 10. Here's the non-proliferation association also warning about ground based ASAT from RU and CN[1]. If they're doing it it's safe to assume US is also doing it. I think you're probably thinking of the lasers on ships and planes, which would have limited power. Stationary ground based systems don't have the same constraints and are more of a threat for asat. [0] https://www.dia.mil/Portals/27/Documents/News/Military%20Power%20Publications/Space_Threat_V14_020119_sm.pdf https://www.dia.mil/Portals/27/Documents/News/Military%20Pow... [1] https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/law_national_security/july-2020-space-report.pdf https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/l...
- iamnotwhoiam 5y agoI'm sure there's a lot of things the military has done once or twice at immense cost in controlled settings. They (or you?) said a superpower can currently take down Starlink with lasers. That's just not true, and the fact that technology demonstrations have happened doesn't make it true.
- radycov 5y agoThis comment struck me as hilariously American. "We". "The bad guys".
- BobbyJo 5y agoHow do you guys overseas refer to hypothetical wartime adversaries? "The good guys"? Yes, I'm being a little facetious :P
- HWR_14 5y agoIf it's one-missile per satellite, that could be true. Even at that rate, without the need to orbit, I believe a plane mounted missile could reach up to a Starlink satellite. However, there are a lot more effective ways. A cloud of debris it could take out whole orbits. An EMP could take out giant swaths of satellites within a certain radius. A software based attack could knock out the whole constellation.
- vbezhenar 5y agoThere're fables about USSR satellite which is basically bucket with nails and explosive charge. In case of war it'll be blown up and nails will destroy everything in the orbit.
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y agoShould be in retrograde orbit to work better in that orbital plane.
- La1n 5y agoThis bucket of nails isn't related to a USSR satellite, but was theorised by Arthur C. Clarke. >2 For the origins of Clarke’s “bucket of nails” argument; Clarke gave the speech “Where is Mankind Headed?” on May 25 1983 for the Reader’s Digest Worldwide Editorial Conference. In the conference’s summary “Memories of Monaco,” Clarke’s speech was described as follows: “After dinner, Arthur Clarke, the noted British science-fiction writer, spoke on ‘The Militarization of Space.’ To put nuclear war into perspective, he quoted a chilling statement from Carl Sagan: ‘A full-scale thermonuclear exchange would be the equivalent of World War II, once a second, for the length of a lazy summer afternoon.’ Clarke went on to demonstrate that there’s no security in technology, concluding that the only defense is to prevent weapons from being used. Thus, the problem is political, not military. At one point, he described how a sophisticated, multi-billion-dollar laser weapon system could be destroyed by a bucket of nails,” see “Memories of Monaco from Reader’s Digest Worldwide Editorial Conference,” May 21-28, 1983, Folder 4, Box 144, Arthur C. Clarke Collection (Acc. 2015-0010), Air and Space Archives, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, 14-15. From: https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/398410/The%20Godfather%20of%20Satellites%20-%20HPS%20Master%27s%20Thesis%20David%20Skogerboe%206623115.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/398410/Th... [PDF]
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y agoNK could maybe. Maybe has a carrier vehicle. Wouldn't need to withstand reentry. Up&Boom!
- nradov 5y agoThat would only happen in the context of a large scale war between major world powers. If the US ever gets into a shooting war with China then our communications and reconnaissance satellites will be among the first targets.
- mrtnmcc 5y agoIf individual missiles are used to take Starlink satellites down, it would be quite an expensive affair. Probably should save those missiles in a war for something else.
- new_realist 5y agoThe easiest way to take down Starlink is with ground-based lasers. Superpowers already possess this capability.
- mrtnmcc 5y agoI know ground lasers can be used to blind satellites, but I've never heard of a successful test or even a back of the envelope calculation that shows one could be destroyed. Do you have a reference?
- Synaesthesia 5y agoThat's why the whole weaponisation of space is stupid. Because it's easy to take out satellites by setting off a nuclear bomb at high altitude, it creates a band of charged particles, trapped by the earth's magnetic field, which pretty much destroys electronics.