5 ms·

Agree with all of that, except the world war part. Satellites will definitely be fair game in world war 3... probably one of the first targets. Ham radio will

Agree with all of that, except the world war part. Satellites will definitely be fair game in world war 3... probably one of the first targets. Ham radio will live on!

caseyy 2y ago
I don't know – would we risk Kessler Syndrome for a war? Win a piece of land and doom humanity for a hundred years of regress in space? Maybe, probably can't be ruled out. As for jamming, is it feasible or practical to jam very large parts of the world? I can't imagine it would be. It seems to me like jamming would probably be used for specific military purposes and people would be left alone to communicate with each other otherwise. It's not that I'm saying this could not be done. It could. But this is not the most likely scenario in my head. The immense benefit to all humanity is a very likely scenario, in contrast. LoRa is another equally exciting technology that has a lot of potential in all the spaces I mentioned. I just can't currently imagine a reason it would go mass-market.
- 0xffff2 2y ago
  Of course we would. And anyway the Starlink constellation is low enough that even destroying the whole constellation would have a minimal impact after a decade.
  - semprewar 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - forgot-im-old 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - fukashimoto 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - rokomush 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - forgot-im-old 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - wazer5 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - zamadatix 2y ago
      That's not really what the report is relying on. It's saying having a system of detections and interception satellites which can catch ~100 missiles forces the stakes to be more "all out or nothing" from large scale threats and "fully preventative" for small scale threats (e.g. North Korea). It also considers the satellite layer 1 of 3 layers that help achieve that small escalation prevention goal. Nowhere does the report claim a Starlink type satellite layer would be or would need to be untouchable in a full scale WW3 scenario.
      - throw9474 2y ago
        wouldn't Russia/China/India just put nukes in orbit to be a step ahead?
        zamadatix 2y ago
        I don't have a crystal ball but maybe. It wouldn't be instant, it would be an escalation itself. Maybe they could launch dozens without anyone catching on over time though. At the same time, if North Korea started launching a bunch into orbit the world would probably react on both fronts (launched satellites and launch facilities) before they actually got to the nuclear war part. Or maybe not. Anyways, what I'm getting at is I'm not saying one way or another said satellite layer would actually prevent certain WW3 scenarios for sure or not. I'm saying the report is in agreement with the above conversation in that it was never claimed the satellite layer itself would be unaffected by a full scale WW3 taking place. I.e. its mention is out of place.
  - throw9474 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - jazzyjackson 2y ago
      It's just a war game by a think-tank, not US policy or anything. Starlink would be the backbone of any autonomous swarm invasion, of course it would be the first thing to be targeted in a near peer war.
      - throw234904 2y ago
        [flagged]
  - ninjaghowl 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - wazer5 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - throw234904 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - throw234904 2y ago
      [flagged]
- jeroenhd 2y ago
  With how close to earth Starlink satellites fly, it won't take hundreds of years. Without the occasional boost back into orbit, it'll only take a couple of years for them to fall back to earth. Same with most spy satellites. We can do without space internet for a few decades if we blow up several of these constellations. As for further-away satellites (Iridium etc.), that's a bigger risk, but there aren't that many that make sense to target in a war.
  - mattashii 2y ago
    > it won't take hundreds of years Maybe not for Starlink itself, but its debris may be eccentric enough to hit satellites in higher orbits, thus causing an upward cascade of collisions resulting in debris clouds that do have a real possibility of remaining in orbit for many times the debris of Starlink.
    - wazer5 2y ago
      Precisely
    - bryanlarsen 2y ago
      Eccentric orbits mean higher apogee but also lower perigee, which for something at Starlink altitude likely means perigee is below the Karman line. Which means they'd deorbit within 90 minutes. So they'd only have one chance to hit something in higher orbit. You won't get enough collisions to start Kessler.
      - mattashii 2y ago
        Starlink operational orbits are generally >500KM high (original license "at 525, 530, and 535 km", -Wikipedia). I think it is not unreasonable to expect any debris clouds from Starlink to impact orbits from 300km to 700km for many months, if not years. Even if the debris with highest eccentricity will quickly burn up in the upper atmosphere, there will likely remain a significant portion in orbits that are eccentric enough to be problematic for higher orbits for years, (slowly?) cascading the debris orbits upward. It doesn't have to happen immediately after impact, but kessler syndrome doesn't have to imply 100% guaranteed loss in a day either.
- croes 2y ago
  The same type that risks a nuclear war would easily risk Kessler Syndrome. And don't forget there are people who think their god would protect them.
  - musknotes 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - semprewar 2y ago
    [flagged]
- ShakataGaNai 2y ago
  While I really really hope no one would be that stupid as to risk a Kessler syndrome... I think it's really likely in a very specific situation: A non-space-dominant power (so not Russia/China/USA) gets into a tiff with someone using satellites. This player does have access to at least the vaguest concept of a ballistic missile. They take said missile and program it to fly into space (as most beyond the tactical level do), and detonate. Nuclear or not, they don't even have to hit the satellite, they just have to throw up shrapnel. Hell, you can replace most of the explosive warhead with ball bearings. It may not immediately take down a specific satellite but it's almost assured to fuck space up. And in case it's not obvious, this seems like a very North Korean type thing to do. Their missiles aren't terribly reliable or accurate (so far), but good enough to get into space and ruin everyones day for a very long time there after. They have, what, a single satellite? [1] when everyone else has hundreds? Why not level the playing field and assure no one can use any of them - given enough time. I'd be willing to be its in someones MAD playbook as well. It only takes a few hundred nukes to effectively end all life on earth, permanently. There are still 5,000 plus in both Russia and the US's stockpile [2], not to mention China, France and the UK has a couple hundred each. What do you do with some of those few thousand extra nukes? Detonate them in air and orbit to take out your Doomsday planes [3] and any potential orbital capabilities - just in case you survive. But honestly, the Kessler Syndrome wouldn't really be a concern at that point since everything, including the roaches, would be a radioactive pile of glass. [1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/north-koreas-first-spy-satellite-is-alive-can-manoeuvre-expert-says-2024-02-28/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/north-koreas-first-... [2] https://fas.org/initiative/status-world-nuclear-forces/ https://fas.org/initiative/status-world-nuclear-forces/ [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_plane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_plane
  - gruez 2y ago
    >It only takes a few hundred nukes to effectively end all life on earth, permanently Human civilization maybe, but "all life on earth" is a stretch
    - out_of_protocol 2y ago
      There's some life kilometers deep into the Earth, don't think it's possible to destroy that without deep-frying whole planet
- ianburrell 2y ago
  LoRa will never take off since it doesn't have the bandwidth for wide usage. Short messages are the limit. It also can't replace this usage since there aren't nodes in the middle of the ocean. If anything, this will reduce the need for LoRa messaging.
- yarg 2y ago
  There a plenty of men who would be content to be kings of the ashes; Don't consider this from the perspective of a reasonable person - ask yourself: what would psychopaths do?
  - aaomidi 2y ago
    It’s less that and more just basic strategy. Your enemy has sat communications. You don’t. Well, it’s unlikely you’re going to get sat communications - so what do you do? It’s logical to take out enemy communications. The other side of the coin is, the enemy with the satellite can try to offer you the use of them as well, so you wouldn’t feel the need to destroy them - but will they?
    - michaelt 2y ago
      If I have a rocket/missile capable of reaching a communication satellite orbit... why don't I have sat communications?
      - rokomush 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - throw9474 2y ago
        It's much easier to intercept than enter orbit. ASATs are 100 kg rockets.
      - gosub100 2y ago
        International sanctions.
- aaomidi 2y ago
  If the recent Middle East events have shown anything, nothing is off the table with a ww3 scenario.
- whaaaaat 2y ago
  > would we risk Kessler Syndrome for a war? I mean, yes, absolutely! I wouldn't trust world leaders to understand Kessler syndrome, let alone care about it. If a world leader is comfortable killing hundreds of thousands of people to make their nation "safe", targeting civilian infrastructure, I have no doubt that they'd blow up some stuff in orbit. To be clear, I don't want to risk it. I'd prefer we didn't live in such a warlike world. But the current world leaders are out here bombing nuclear plants and residential districts. A few satellites will feel very, very far away to them.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- gosub100 2y ago
  By definition of going to war, they are willing to risk their very existence. Taking out satellites and making orbit entry fraught with hazards seems a very rational choice for many opponents on the world stage.
- bagels 2y ago
  Yes. The military believes that our adversaries would attack their satellites. China, USA and India have demoed the capability to shoot satellites in non wartime, adding tons of debris.
  - coder45 2y ago
    [flagged]
- kortilla 2y ago
  Russia has risked Kessler syndrome for less with ASAT missiles
entropicwaves 2y ago
[flagged]
- floydnoel 2y ago
  i read that article, it says nothing about Starlink. I think you are thinking about a different concept which was Reagan's "Star Wars" missile defense system.
  - musknotes 2y ago
    [flagged]

Agree with all of that, except the world war part. Satellites will definitely be fair game in world war 3... probably one of the first targets. Ham radio will live on!

caseyy 2y ago

I don't know – would we risk Kessler Syndrome for a war? Win a piece of land and doom humanity for a hundred years of regress in space? Maybe, probably can't be ruled out. As for jamming, is it feasible or practical to jam very large parts of the world? I can't imagine it would be. It seems to me like jamming would probably be used for specific military purposes and people would be left alone to communicate with each other otherwise. It's not that I'm saying this could not be done. It could. But this is not the most likely scenario in my head. The immense benefit to all humanity is a very likely scenario, in contrast. LoRa is another equally exciting technology that has a lot of potential in all the spaces I mentioned. I just can't currently imagine a reason it would go mass-market.

0xffff2 2y ago
Of course we would. And anyway the Starlink constellation is low enough that even destroying the whole constellation would have a minimal impact after a decade.
- semprewar 2y ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- forgot-im-old 2y ago
  [flagged]
- fukashimoto 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - rokomush 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - forgot-im-old 2y ago
    [flagged]
- wazer5 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - zamadatix 2y ago
    That's not really what the report is relying on. It's saying having a system of detections and interception satellites which can catch ~100 missiles forces the stakes to be more "all out or nothing" from large scale threats and "fully preventative" for small scale threats (e.g. North Korea). It also considers the satellite layer 1 of 3 layers that help achieve that small escalation prevention goal. Nowhere does the report claim a Starlink type satellite layer would be or would need to be untouchable in a full scale WW3 scenario.
    - throw9474 2y ago
      wouldn't Russia/China/India just put nukes in orbit to be a step ahead?
      - zamadatix 2y ago
        I don't have a crystal ball but maybe. It wouldn't be instant, it would be an escalation itself. Maybe they could launch dozens without anyone catching on over time though. At the same time, if North Korea started launching a bunch into orbit the world would probably react on both fronts (launched satellites and launch facilities) before they actually got to the nuclear war part. Or maybe not. Anyways, what I'm getting at is I'm not saying one way or another said satellite layer would actually prevent certain WW3 scenarios for sure or not. I'm saying the report is in agreement with the above conversation in that it was never claimed the satellite layer itself would be unaffected by a full scale WW3 taking place. I.e. its mention is out of place.
- throw9474 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - jazzyjackson 2y ago
    It's just a war game by a think-tank, not US policy or anything. Starlink would be the backbone of any autonomous swarm invasion, of course it would be the first thing to be targeted in a near peer war.
    - throw234904 2y ago
      [flagged]
- ninjaghowl 2y ago
  [flagged]
- wazer5 2y ago
  [flagged]
- throw234904 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - throw234904 2y ago
    [flagged]
jeroenhd 2y ago
With how close to earth Starlink satellites fly, it won't take hundreds of years. Without the occasional boost back into orbit, it'll only take a couple of years for them to fall back to earth. Same with most spy satellites. We can do without space internet for a few decades if we blow up several of these constellations. As for further-away satellites (Iridium etc.), that's a bigger risk, but there aren't that many that make sense to target in a war.
- mattashii 2y ago
  > it won't take hundreds of years Maybe not for Starlink itself, but its debris may be eccentric enough to hit satellites in higher orbits, thus causing an upward cascade of collisions resulting in debris clouds that do have a real possibility of remaining in orbit for many times the debris of Starlink.
  - wazer5 2y ago
    Precisely
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    Eccentric orbits mean higher apogee but also lower perigee, which for something at Starlink altitude likely means perigee is below the Karman line. Which means they'd deorbit within 90 minutes. So they'd only have one chance to hit something in higher orbit. You won't get enough collisions to start Kessler.
    - mattashii 2y ago
      Starlink operational orbits are generally >500KM high (original license "at 525, 530, and 535 km", -Wikipedia). I think it is not unreasonable to expect any debris clouds from Starlink to impact orbits from 300km to 700km for many months, if not years. Even if the debris with highest eccentricity will quickly burn up in the upper atmosphere, there will likely remain a significant portion in orbits that are eccentric enough to be problematic for higher orbits for years, (slowly?) cascading the debris orbits upward. It doesn't have to happen immediately after impact, but kessler syndrome doesn't have to imply 100% guaranteed loss in a day either.
croes 2y ago
The same type that risks a nuclear war would easily risk Kessler Syndrome. And don't forget there are people who think their god would protect them.
- musknotes 2y ago
  [flagged]
- semprewar 2y ago
  [flagged]
ShakataGaNai 2y ago
While I really really hope no one would be that stupid as to risk a Kessler syndrome... I think it's really likely in a very specific situation: A non-space-dominant power (so not Russia/China/USA) gets into a tiff with someone using satellites. This player does have access to at least the vaguest concept of a ballistic missile. They take said missile and program it to fly into space (as most beyond the tactical level do), and detonate. Nuclear or not, they don't even have to hit the satellite, they just have to throw up shrapnel. Hell, you can replace most of the explosive warhead with ball bearings. It may not immediately take down a specific satellite but it's almost assured to fuck space up. And in case it's not obvious, this seems like a very North Korean type thing to do. Their missiles aren't terribly reliable or accurate (so far), but good enough to get into space and ruin everyones day for a very long time there after. They have, what, a single satellite? [1] when everyone else has hundreds? Why not level the playing field and assure no one can use any of them - given enough time. I'd be willing to be its in someones MAD playbook as well. It only takes a few hundred nukes to effectively end all life on earth, permanently. There are still 5,000 plus in both Russia and the US's stockpile [2], not to mention China, France and the UK has a couple hundred each. What do you do with some of those few thousand extra nukes? Detonate them in air and orbit to take out your Doomsday planes [3] and any potential orbital capabilities - just in case you survive. But honestly, the Kessler Syndrome wouldn't really be a concern at that point since everything, including the roaches, would be a radioactive pile of glass. [1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/north-koreas-first-spy-satellite-is-alive-can-manoeuvre-expert-says-2024-02-28/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/north-koreas-first-... [2] https://fas.org/initiative/status-world-nuclear-forces/ https://fas.org/initiative/status-world-nuclear-forces/ [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_plane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_plane
- gruez 2y ago
  >It only takes a few hundred nukes to effectively end all life on earth, permanently Human civilization maybe, but "all life on earth" is a stretch
  - out_of_protocol 2y ago
    There's some life kilometers deep into the Earth, don't think it's possible to destroy that without deep-frying whole planet
ianburrell 2y ago
LoRa will never take off since it doesn't have the bandwidth for wide usage. Short messages are the limit. It also can't replace this usage since there aren't nodes in the middle of the ocean. If anything, this will reduce the need for LoRa messaging.
yarg 2y ago
There a plenty of men who would be content to be kings of the ashes; Don't consider this from the perspective of a reasonable person - ask yourself: what would psychopaths do?
- aaomidi 2y ago
  It’s less that and more just basic strategy. Your enemy has sat communications. You don’t. Well, it’s unlikely you’re going to get sat communications - so what do you do? It’s logical to take out enemy communications. The other side of the coin is, the enemy with the satellite can try to offer you the use of them as well, so you wouldn’t feel the need to destroy them - but will they?
  - michaelt 2y ago
    If I have a rocket/missile capable of reaching a communication satellite orbit... why don't I have sat communications?
    - rokomush 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - throw9474 2y ago
      It's much easier to intercept than enter orbit. ASATs are 100 kg rockets.
    - gosub100 2y ago
      International sanctions.
aaomidi 2y ago
If the recent Middle East events have shown anything, nothing is off the table with a ww3 scenario.
whaaaaat 2y ago
> would we risk Kessler Syndrome for a war? I mean, yes, absolutely! I wouldn't trust world leaders to understand Kessler syndrome, let alone care about it. If a world leader is comfortable killing hundreds of thousands of people to make their nation "safe", targeting civilian infrastructure, I have no doubt that they'd blow up some stuff in orbit. To be clear, I don't want to risk it. I'd prefer we didn't live in such a warlike world. But the current world leaders are out here bombing nuclear plants and residential districts. A few satellites will feel very, very far away to them.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
gosub100 2y ago
By definition of going to war, they are willing to risk their very existence. Taking out satellites and making orbit entry fraught with hazards seems a very rational choice for many opponents on the world stage.
bagels 2y ago
Yes. The military believes that our adversaries would attack their satellites. China, USA and India have demoed the capability to shoot satellites in non wartime, adding tons of debris.
- coder45 2y ago
  [flagged]
kortilla 2y ago
Russia has risked Kessler syndrome for less with ASAT missiles

entropicwaves 2y ago

[flagged]

floydnoel 2y ago
i read that article, it says nothing about Starlink. I think you are thinking about a different concept which was Reagan's "Star Wars" missile defense system.
- musknotes 2y ago
  [flagged]