4 ms·

Total layperson here, but here are some things I have been wondering that the article didn't really address. What happens if something like Starlink is intenti

Total layperson here, but here are some things I have been wondering that the article didn't really address. What happens if something like Starlink is intentionally targeted during an active conflict, maybe with something like a fragmentation warhead? The short deorbit time seems like a feature, if it can deny access to space for the duration of the conflict while minimizing long-term effects. Or is there enough... space... up there that it's a non-issue? Also wondering about the impact on communications with higher orbits, eg GPS, assuming these satellites even remain intact. If LEO is contaminated, maybe with something like reflective foil strips / confetti, would signals still be able to get through? Or is that again a matter of sheer scale where it is unlikely to cover a large enough area to be a real concern?

Retric 2y ago
The vast majority of Starlink satellites experience fairly significant atmospheric drag with their current surface area to volume ratio. Blow them up and you get more drag so they deorbit much faster. Blocking access to space that’s about specific orbits not something like an ICBM or deep space probe which only needs a tiny window to be useful. Imagine the risk of collision is 10% per day, that’s going to quickly kill any satellite, but if you only need 10 minute window you’re down to 0.07%. Communication would be basically impossible to block. 1g of matter per square mile isn’t going to achieve much of anything, but multiplying even that trivial amount by 200 million square miles of surface area = 200,000 tons or about 500 ISS’s.
modeless 2y ago
Physically destroying one Starlink satellite is pointless as it wouldn't meaningfully disrupt service. Destroying enough Starlink satellites to disrupt service is infeasible. You would need to launch many hundreds if not thousands of interceptors. It would cost a fortune, probably a lot more than launching the constellation in the first place. It wouldn't deny access to space as you can simply launch through a debris cloud, spending only a few minutes in the danger zone which would give you a negligible collision risk compared to satellites that linger for years. You also couldn't intentionally create a debris cloud dense enough to disrupt communication or cause a chain reaction of collisions at Starlink's altitude. Space is too big.
- ianburrell 2y ago
  There are rumors that the US and China have laser weapons for destroying satellites. Lasers are good for anti-satellites because they can sit on the ground with plentiful power. Then accurately target lots of satellites. Laser weapons possible whole constellation in short period of time depending on how fast they can fire. Lasers shouldn't produce lots of debris. If anything, they would be good at destroying debris.

Retric 2y ago

The vast majority of Starlink satellites experience fairly significant atmospheric drag with their current surface area to volume ratio. Blow them up and you get more drag so they deorbit much faster. Blocking access to space that’s about specific orbits not something like an ICBM or deep space probe which only needs a tiny window to be useful. Imagine the risk of collision is 10% per day, that’s going to quickly kill any satellite, but if you only need 10 minute window you’re down to 0.07%. Communication would be basically impossible to block. 1g of matter per square mile isn’t going to achieve much of anything, but multiplying even that trivial amount by 200 million square miles of surface area = 200,000 tons or about 500 ISS’s.

modeless 2y ago

Physically destroying one Starlink satellite is pointless as it wouldn't meaningfully disrupt service. Destroying enough Starlink satellites to disrupt service is infeasible. You would need to launch many hundreds if not thousands of interceptors. It would cost a fortune, probably a lot more than launching the constellation in the first place. It wouldn't deny access to space as you can simply launch through a debris cloud, spending only a few minutes in the danger zone which would give you a negligible collision risk compared to satellites that linger for years. You also couldn't intentionally create a debris cloud dense enough to disrupt communication or cause a chain reaction of collisions at Starlink's altitude. Space is too big.

ianburrell 2y ago
There are rumors that the US and China have laser weapons for destroying satellites. Lasers are good for anti-satellites because they can sit on the ground with plentiful power. Then accurately target lots of satellites. Laser weapons possible whole constellation in short period of time depending on how fast they can fire. Lasers shouldn't produce lots of debris. If anything, they would be good at destroying debris.