5 ms·

Wouldn'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 Fa

Wouldn'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 ago
Unless a few multi-megaton nukes can take out ALL of the LEO satellites at once.
toast0 5y ago
I 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 ago
All that’s needed is a debris field to render the orbit unusable for decades.
sunstone 5y ago
Surface based missiles would suffice.
new_realist 5y ago
Not at all. The easiest way to take down Starlink is with ground-based lasers. Superpowers already possess this capability.
- iamnotwhoiam 5y ago
  You’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 ago
    In 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 ago
    Here'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 ago
      I'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 ago
This comment struck me as hilariously American. "We". "The bad guys".
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  How do you guys overseas refer to hypothetical wartime adversaries? "The good guys"? Yes, I'm being a little facetious :P
HWR_14 5y ago
If 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.

DuskStar 5y ago

Unless a few multi-megaton nukes can take out ALL of the LEO satellites at once.

toast0 5y ago

I 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 ago

All that’s needed is a debris field to render the orbit unusable for decades.

sunstone 5y ago

Surface based missiles would suffice.

new_realist 5y ago

Not at all. The easiest way to take down Starlink is with ground-based lasers. Superpowers already possess this capability.

iamnotwhoiam 5y ago
You’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 ago
  In 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 ago
  Here'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 ago
    I'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 ago

This comment struck me as hilariously American. "We". "The bad guys".

BobbyJo 5y ago
How do you guys overseas refer to hypothetical wartime adversaries? "The good guys"? Yes, I'm being a little facetious :P

HWR_14 5y ago

If 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.