5 ms·

It's not clear what exactly you mean by physical interference, but either way I think you're mistaken. Starlink is already proving the viability of launching hu

It's not clear what exactly you mean by physical interference, but either way I think you're mistaken. Starlink is already proving the viability of launching huge constellations of fairly large (a ton or so) LEO satellites. If you're talking about debris grounding these constellations, that's a problem that resolves itself given enough time, as that debris deorbits naturally. If you're talking about intentional physical interference, aka anti-satellite weapons, the solution to that is having the ability to rapidly replenish the constellation (SpaceX is good at this, and with Starship they'll be even better at it; hundreds of replacement satellites with a single launch.) In the event of a war, a constellation could be kept operational through the brute force of launching more satellites faster than they're destroyed. Of course this will make a huge mess, but that's what wars do. Anyway, they're going forward with this already. The National Defense Space Architecture calls for a very large constellation of LEO communication satellites forming a mesh network using inter-satellite laser links. Starlink is likely dual-use technology and has been intended as such from the start.

jltsiren 4y ago
If you can launch hundreds of useful satellites with a single launch, you can also launch thousands of satellite killers for the same price. A simple short-lived satellite with some sensors, minor maneuvering capabilities, and the ability to turn into a debris cloud on a close pass should be quite effective when deployed in huge numbers. The economies of scale favor destruction if you really don't care about the consequences.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  I think things like orbital decay and coverage per satellite are the more serious concerns. I mean, LEO is still harder to reach out to than almost anywhere on Earth. The main deterrent to attacking our assets in LEO or on Earth is that such an act would at least have some serious political fallout, and potentially start a war depending on how annoying it is.
- robonerd 4y ago
  Having thousands of boost-phase interceptors already in LEO actually puts a real damper on anybody trying to do something about it, the economics of the game favor whoever implements such a system first. They will be able to use large rockets to efficiently launch huge numbers of satellites, while the boost-phase interceptors in LEO (constantly replenished via that capability) prevent the enemy from doing the same. Big picture, even if Russia and/or China managed to turn LEO into an impenetrable barrier of debris before the war was lost for them anyway, what would they actually have accomplished? The satellites that previously acted as America's shield would now be debris that would continue to shield America, and America would still have Aegis BMD around the world. Symmetrical war with America is beyond stupid, there is no balance, no fair fight. The purpose of these systems is to ensure that it stays this way, so that nobody tries in the first place.
  - jltsiren 4y ago
    Boost-phase interceptors would be big expensive weapons systems. Because they have only a few minutes to hit before the target deploys the payload, they would have to expend lots of delta-v to guarantee intercept. Deploying such large-scale missile defense systems would be obvious to everyone. By the usual cold war calculus, such attempts would likely trigger a nuclear war. If you attempt to neutralize enemy nuclear deterrent, you are announcing your first strike intentions to everyone. As for why, maybe the reason wouldn't even involve America that much. Maybe China decides to take Taiwan, and to prevent America from interfering, they choose to destroy LEO for everyone. Maybe it would be an acceptable sacrifice for them, as they are more interested in controlling their neighborhood than projecting power to faraway places.
    - robonerd 4y ago
      > Boost-phase interceptors would be big expensive weapons systems Not very big actually, not if the interceptors are placed in LEO. They're a hell of a lot smaller and cheaper than the missiles they're meant to intercept. The kill vehicles themselves are only a few kilograms, very small and light weight. For such light-weight interceptors positioned in LEO, you don't need much booster to get the job done. You can get away with a booster much smaller than an SM-3. > Because they have only a few minutes to hit before the target deploys the payload, they would have to expend lots of delta-v to guarantee intercept The more you have, the less delta-v they need. That's why Brilliant Pebbles proposed thousands if not tens of thousands of them. Launching such a huge number of interceptors would be possible with Falcon 9, but Starship would be much better at it. > Maybe China decides to take Taiwan Maybe they would, but they would have to be insane to start a symmetric war with America itself. And that's the whole point. > Deploying such large-scale missile defense systems would be obvious to everyone. If you've been paying attention, you'll have noticed that China and Russia haven't been very secret about their interest in countering Starlink. It's not because they're afraid the US might give uncensorable internet to Chinese and Russian people, as I've seen some on HN speculate. They obviously perceive the strategic threat already. Besides starting the war first, there's not a whole lot they can do about it. If they start the war first, start it now, they'll probably kill a lot more Americans than if they wait and do it later. But that doesn't matter because they'd still all die, so they aren't going to do it. Neither China nor Russia has a BMD system that could prevent America from killing them all.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  A satellite killer would need the ability to rendezvous with a target. You're not getting that level of capability for the same price as a box with a radio.
  - swayvil 4y ago
    You only need to throw a cloud of junk into its orbit. Seems like a big easy target.
    - wumpus 4y ago
      Actual systems usually hit the target with a single projectile, not a cloud of junk.
      - mlyle 4y ago
        Sure. The author is positing a dumb "shotgun" system for blanket space denial instead of a system intended to kill a single satellite. Just putting a lot of crap in LEO is good enough for denial. Dumb boxes that can maneuver and choose when to become a pile of crap are even better.
        GekkePrutser 4y ago
        But this kind of denial works the same for all parties' sats. Kind of a mutually assured destruction. I'm sure targeted options will be favoured by most parties.
        mlyle 4y ago
        > But this kind of denial works the same for all parties' sats. Kind of a mutually assured destruction. Yah. Slightly favors your own satellites in the odds, but not wonderfully so. At the same time, if you're facing an adversary which depends upon LEO much, much more... this might be an attractive strategy.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
cm2012 4y ago
I don't know, destruction is almost always easier than construction. And China demonstrated an anti-satellite laser already.
wumpus 4y ago
Starlink 1 is 150kg, Starlink 1.5 is thought to be ~ 220kg. Starlink 2 appears to be more than a metric ton, but none have been launched.
georgeg23 4y ago
The Biden administration appears to have put the full blown militarization of space on ice for now (at least delaying the Mike Pompeo calls the "Strategic Defense Initiative of our time, the SDI 2.0"[1]), but there are still a number of demonstrations[2] going forward with Starlink funded by the Space Development Agency started by Elon's pal Michael D. Griffin[3]. This has been pretty hush hush, but voters should know what they're getting in the midterms if they support this. In my opinion it will indeed lead to WWIII. I think Elon knows that but justifies it by thinking he needs the military industrial complex funding for Mars. [1] https://www.hudson.org/research/17482-nuclear-weapons-china-and-a-strategic-defense-initiative-for-this-century https://www.hudson.org/research/17482-nuclear-weapons-china-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_satellites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_satellites [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career

jltsiren 4y ago

If you can launch hundreds of useful satellites with a single launch, you can also launch thousands of satellite killers for the same price. A simple short-lived satellite with some sensors, minor maneuvering capabilities, and the ability to turn into a debris cloud on a close pass should be quite effective when deployed in huge numbers. The economies of scale favor destruction if you really don't care about the consequences.

bee_rider 4y ago
I think things like orbital decay and coverage per satellite are the more serious concerns. I mean, LEO is still harder to reach out to than almost anywhere on Earth. The main deterrent to attacking our assets in LEO or on Earth is that such an act would at least have some serious political fallout, and potentially start a war depending on how annoying it is.
robonerd 4y ago
Having thousands of boost-phase interceptors already in LEO actually puts a real damper on anybody trying to do something about it, the economics of the game favor whoever implements such a system first. They will be able to use large rockets to efficiently launch huge numbers of satellites, while the boost-phase interceptors in LEO (constantly replenished via that capability) prevent the enemy from doing the same. Big picture, even if Russia and/or China managed to turn LEO into an impenetrable barrier of debris before the war was lost for them anyway, what would they actually have accomplished? The satellites that previously acted as America's shield would now be debris that would continue to shield America, and America would still have Aegis BMD around the world. Symmetrical war with America is beyond stupid, there is no balance, no fair fight. The purpose of these systems is to ensure that it stays this way, so that nobody tries in the first place.
- jltsiren 4y ago
  Boost-phase interceptors would be big expensive weapons systems. Because they have only a few minutes to hit before the target deploys the payload, they would have to expend lots of delta-v to guarantee intercept. Deploying such large-scale missile defense systems would be obvious to everyone. By the usual cold war calculus, such attempts would likely trigger a nuclear war. If you attempt to neutralize enemy nuclear deterrent, you are announcing your first strike intentions to everyone. As for why, maybe the reason wouldn't even involve America that much. Maybe China decides to take Taiwan, and to prevent America from interfering, they choose to destroy LEO for everyone. Maybe it would be an acceptable sacrifice for them, as they are more interested in controlling their neighborhood than projecting power to faraway places.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    > Boost-phase interceptors would be big expensive weapons systems Not very big actually, not if the interceptors are placed in LEO. They're a hell of a lot smaller and cheaper than the missiles they're meant to intercept. The kill vehicles themselves are only a few kilograms, very small and light weight. For such light-weight interceptors positioned in LEO, you don't need much booster to get the job done. You can get away with a booster much smaller than an SM-3. > Because they have only a few minutes to hit before the target deploys the payload, they would have to expend lots of delta-v to guarantee intercept The more you have, the less delta-v they need. That's why Brilliant Pebbles proposed thousands if not tens of thousands of them. Launching such a huge number of interceptors would be possible with Falcon 9, but Starship would be much better at it. > Maybe China decides to take Taiwan Maybe they would, but they would have to be insane to start a symmetric war with America itself. And that's the whole point. > Deploying such large-scale missile defense systems would be obvious to everyone. If you've been paying attention, you'll have noticed that China and Russia haven't been very secret about their interest in countering Starlink. It's not because they're afraid the US might give uncensorable internet to Chinese and Russian people, as I've seen some on HN speculate. They obviously perceive the strategic threat already. Besides starting the war first, there's not a whole lot they can do about it. If they start the war first, start it now, they'll probably kill a lot more Americans than if they wait and do it later. But that doesn't matter because they'd still all die, so they aren't going to do it. Neither China nor Russia has a BMD system that could prevent America from killing them all.
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
A satellite killer would need the ability to rendezvous with a target. You're not getting that level of capability for the same price as a box with a radio.
- swayvil 4y ago
  You only need to throw a cloud of junk into its orbit. Seems like a big easy target.
  - wumpus 4y ago
    Actual systems usually hit the target with a single projectile, not a cloud of junk.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      Sure. The author is positing a dumb "shotgun" system for blanket space denial instead of a system intended to kill a single satellite. Just putting a lot of crap in LEO is good enough for denial. Dumb boxes that can maneuver and choose when to become a pile of crap are even better.
      - GekkePrutser 4y ago
        But this kind of denial works the same for all parties' sats. Kind of a mutually assured destruction. I'm sure targeted options will be favoured by most parties.
        mlyle 4y ago
        > But this kind of denial works the same for all parties' sats. Kind of a mutually assured destruction. Yah. Slightly favors your own satellites in the odds, but not wonderfully so. At the same time, if you're facing an adversary which depends upon LEO much, much more... this might be an attractive strategy.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago

cm2012 4y ago

I don't know, destruction is almost always easier than construction. And China demonstrated an anti-satellite laser already.

wumpus 4y ago

Starlink 1 is 150kg, Starlink 1.5 is thought to be ~ 220kg. Starlink 2 appears to be more than a metric ton, but none have been launched.

georgeg23 4y ago

The Biden administration appears to have put the full blown militarization of space on ice for now (at least delaying the Mike Pompeo calls the "Strategic Defense Initiative of our time, the SDI 2.0"[1]), but there are still a number of demonstrations[2] going forward with Starlink funded by the Space Development Agency started by Elon's pal Michael D. Griffin[3]. This has been pretty hush hush, but voters should know what they're getting in the midterms if they support this. In my opinion it will indeed lead to WWIII. I think Elon knows that but justifies it by thinking he needs the military industrial complex funding for Mars. [1] https://www.hudson.org/research/17482-nuclear-weapons-china-and-a-strategic-defense-initiative-for-this-century https://www.hudson.org/research/17482-nuclear-weapons-china-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_satellites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_satellites [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career