3 ms·

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.

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.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  The moon is a pretty big target. A missile needs to hit a sat that is the is 1m² very hard to detact and moving fast with its own propulsion and avoidance system. > But I think the capacity of the soyuz and falcon is about the same. Per launch a Falcon 9 lifts about double and in the last couple years Falcon 9 has launched 2-4x as often. > It’s probably not fair to use Starship for that comparison (as much as I want to) because it has yet to successfully launch. As of right now Russia likely also doesn't have the missiles you suggest. I would argue that Starship is closer then an advanced anti-sat weapon that can split up in orbit and hit many targets.

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.

panick21_ 4y ago
The moon is a pretty big target. A missile needs to hit a sat that is the is 1m² very hard to detact and moving fast with its own propulsion and avoidance system. > But I think the capacity of the soyuz and falcon is about the same. Per launch a Falcon 9 lifts about double and in the last couple years Falcon 9 has launched 2-4x as often. > It’s probably not fair to use Starship for that comparison (as much as I want to) because it has yet to successfully launch. As of right now Russia likely also doesn't have the missiles you suggest. I would argue that Starship is closer then an advanced anti-sat weapon that can split up in orbit and hit many targets.