6 ms·

Russia does not have the capability of destroying Starlink because the amount of upmass required to destroy them is larger then what the Russians can actually d

Russia does not have the capability of destroying Starlink because the amount of upmass required to destroy them is larger then what the Russians can actually do. SpaceX replacement rate would be higher then Russia destroy rate.

bogomipz 4y ago
Except Russia already proved they can shoot satellites out of space as they did almost a year ago with their Nudol ASAT weapon test: https://archive.ph/1tdHl https://archive.ph/1tdHl
- marvin 4y ago
  Excellent. Now repeat that feat 2500 times to destroy all existing Starlink satellites, and keep doing it 1300 times each year to destroy all the new Starlink satellites that are being launched. Assuming of course that SpaceX will not increase its launch cadence, and that this act of war will not provoke a response that stops is. The concept is laughable. It is intractable at every level of execution.
  - LtWorf 4y ago
    Starlink: the final bullet that killed astronomy from earth and soon probably also space travel.
  - LightG 4y ago
    Until it happens... These possibilities are not at the behest of your logic but at the will of a small number of people far away.
  - bogomipz 4y ago
    Except you don't need one ASAT launch per satellite it's completely asymmetric. The debris in low Earth orbit travels 10,000-15,000 miles an hour. The high energy debris in LEO does all the work. A 1cm piece of debris would render other satellites useless. Your idea that space will somehow not be militarized is quite laughable. There's an actual history that proves you wrong: https://hir.harvard.edu/anti-satellite-weapons-and-the-emerging-space-arms-race/ https://hir.harvard.edu/anti-satellite-weapons-and-the-emerg...
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      Not all Starlink are on the exact same orbital plane. There is some asymmetry but at the same time Starlink sats can also avoid debris from known places. On this altitude debris would quickly drop out so you would never get Kessler synonym. Russia would have to shoot down a huge amount of sats. And SpaceX can easily have 100-1000x the upmass of Russia. And this is before you can consider lots of counter-measures the US could potentially do.
- 8note 4y ago
  They can shoot it sure, but where does the wreckage go? Into the next launh vehicle, destroying it?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Aeolun 4y ago
Presumably micro missiles would be smaller than micro sats, so the only thing you’d need is to launch one large missile full of micro missiles that then each take out one satalite. After that… I imagine it’d become impossible to launch anything ever again. So much debris in LEO would be depressing (though maybe the satellites could be given a deorbit burn order before being exploded, if it ever became clear they’d gotten targeted in this way)
- sounds 4y ago
  At 40km to 100km altitude the debris will fall out of the sky in short order (under a year).
- panick21_ 4y ago
  While that is potentially true such micro missiles tech currently doesn't exist and modern Russia doesn't exactly have a track record in developing such tech. In addition, its far harder then you would think. Each such missile would still need complex computer system and propulsion hardware and so on. It would be cheaper then a Starlink sat but not by that much. Also, even if you assume 1/10 the weight, SpaceX can easily launch 10x more then Russia can. With Starship coming online SpaceX by themselves can launch 100x what Russia can. And of course if Russia did such a think SpaceX would have US government support. > After that… I imagine it’d become impossible to launch anything ever again. I do not think this is actually true. The decay is to fast on this altitude for this to actually happen.
  - Aeolun 4y ago
    > Each such missile would still need complex computer system and propulsion hardware and so on. It would be cheaper then a Starlink sat but not by that much. We flew a rocket to the moon with less computing power than a modern pocket calculator. I’m inclined to say we’d manage. I think I’m confused about your term ‘launch capacity’. If we’re talking average/sustained payload/day, then sure. But I think the capacity of the soyuz and falcon is about the same. Edit: Never mind, Soyuz has like 2 times less capacity than a default Falcon. It’s probably not fair to use Starship for that comparison (as much as I want to) because it has yet to successfully launch.

bogomipz 4y ago

Except Russia already proved they can shoot satellites out of space as they did almost a year ago with their Nudol ASAT weapon test: https://archive.ph/1tdHl https://archive.ph/1tdHl

marvin 4y ago
Excellent. Now repeat that feat 2500 times to destroy all existing Starlink satellites, and keep doing it 1300 times each year to destroy all the new Starlink satellites that are being launched. Assuming of course that SpaceX will not increase its launch cadence, and that this act of war will not provoke a response that stops is. The concept is laughable. It is intractable at every level of execution.
- LtWorf 4y ago
  Starlink: the final bullet that killed astronomy from earth and soon probably also space travel.
- LightG 4y ago
  Until it happens... These possibilities are not at the behest of your logic but at the will of a small number of people far away.
- bogomipz 4y ago
  Except you don't need one ASAT launch per satellite it's completely asymmetric. The debris in low Earth orbit travels 10,000-15,000 miles an hour. The high energy debris in LEO does all the work. A 1cm piece of debris would render other satellites useless. Your idea that space will somehow not be militarized is quite laughable. There's an actual history that proves you wrong: https://hir.harvard.edu/anti-satellite-weapons-and-the-emerging-space-arms-race/ https://hir.harvard.edu/anti-satellite-weapons-and-the-emerg...
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Not all Starlink are on the exact same orbital plane. There is some asymmetry but at the same time Starlink sats can also avoid debris from known places. On this altitude debris would quickly drop out so you would never get Kessler synonym. Russia would have to shoot down a huge amount of sats. And SpaceX can easily have 100-1000x the upmass of Russia. And this is before you can consider lots of counter-measures the US could potentially do.
8note 4y ago
They can shoot it sure, but where does the wreckage go? Into the next launh vehicle, destroying it?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Aeolun 4y ago

Presumably micro missiles would be smaller than micro sats, so the only thing you’d need is to launch one large missile full of micro missiles that then each take out one satalite. After that… I imagine it’d become impossible to launch anything ever again. So much debris in LEO would be depressing (though maybe the satellites could be given a deorbit burn order before being exploded, if it ever became clear they’d gotten targeted in this way)

sounds 4y ago
At 40km to 100km altitude the debris will fall out of the sky in short order (under a year).
panick21_ 4y ago
While that is potentially true such micro missiles tech currently doesn't exist and modern Russia doesn't exactly have a track record in developing such tech. In addition, its far harder then you would think. Each such missile would still need complex computer system and propulsion hardware and so on. It would be cheaper then a Starlink sat but not by that much. Also, even if you assume 1/10 the weight, SpaceX can easily launch 10x more then Russia can. With Starship coming online SpaceX by themselves can launch 100x what Russia can. And of course if Russia did such a think SpaceX would have US government support. > After that… I imagine it’d become impossible to launch anything ever again. I do not think this is actually true. The decay is to fast on this altitude for this to actually happen.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  > Each such missile would still need complex computer system and propulsion hardware and so on. It would be cheaper then a Starlink sat but not by that much. We flew a rocket to the moon with less computing power than a modern pocket calculator. I’m inclined to say we’d manage. I think I’m confused about your term ‘launch capacity’. If we’re talking average/sustained payload/day, then sure. But I think the capacity of the soyuz and falcon is about the same. Edit: Never mind, Soyuz has like 2 times less capacity than a default Falcon. It’s probably not fair to use Starship for that comparison (as much as I want to) because it has yet to successfully launch.