4 ms·

Why would any of the US' adversaries agree to that? We have SpaceX, and they do not; lowering the altitude of megaconstellations is asymmetrically far more cost

Why would any of the US' adversaries agree to that? We have SpaceX, and they do not; lowering the altitude of megaconstellations is asymmetrically far more costly for them then it is for us. Stopping China's (highly strategic, military) satellite constellations isn't a "small amount of diplomacy". It's an impossibility. (It's even their declared planning that deliberate Kessler cascades are on the table [0]—to try to ground this discussion in diplomatic reality). [0] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3178939/china-military-needs-defence-against-potential-starlink-threat https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3178939/chin... ("China military must be able to destroy Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites if they threaten national security: scientists")

maxglute 2y ago
I think OP is suggesting US concede to sharing 500km orbits that SpaceX has disproportionately squatted rights to, since current international law is first come first serve. Where concede is to rejigger international law to increase density of 500km so others wouldn't have to go higher, i.e. PRC mega constellations going ~800 because ~500 mostly taken. Or in ops suggestion, free for all. This is more costly for US since it saves entrants from going extra 300km, but imo proximity also greatly enhances chance for friction... i.e. if everyone chilling around same plane, and it's going to get magnitude more croweded, expect a lot more overt/hidden space war assets there to trigger kessler.
- perihelions 2y ago
  No; rather, that commenter's argument was "The most tempting orbits are the ones in upper LEO that permit them to launch fewer satellites." Higher altitude => wider coverage => fewer satellites
  - maxglute 2y ago
    We're talking about megaconstellations for communications, you want lower for latency, stronger signal (denser/less distance for beamforming) for better data through put -> less satellites for more coverage, and costs is cheaper since less energy. Realistically starlink has combination of 340km-1200km satellites working together, but the critical point is SpaceX reserved a lot of the sub 500km orbit slots with ITU (UN agency who manages orbits), so PRC competitors have no space real estate to try to throw up another mega constellation that can mimic spaceX economics due to location, location, location. Hence PRC registering Thousand Sails at 800km, Guowang at 500km-1200km orbits, etc, which according to OP is exponentially bad for Kessler (I have no idea). So either ITU opens much more 400km slots, or all the megaconstellations going forward going to satuate >500km LEO. Part of the reason PRC rushed to announce their megaconstellations before they even had reusable was to reserve the next closest available orbit slots that they can.
- m4rtink 2y ago
  Others would use theblower orbits - but it is just not viable for them, as their rockets suck (eq. are not reusable) and thus they need to put their few expensive satellites with meager propulsion capabilities higher to last longer. Not to mention spot beams being wide enough with so few satellites.
  - maxglute 2y ago
    >others would use theblower orbits Orbital slots are managed by ITU United Nations International Telecommunication Union who manages availability / congestion. SpaceX reserved substantial % of sub 500 km slots. Hence PRC announching their megacontestallations to reserve 500km+ slots, specifically because there isn't enough room in sub 500km for another mega constellation so they're grabbing next best ones. PRC megaconstellation is targetting 500km+, they're not going to put up 10,000s of mega constellation without economic reusable, hence many options under development. They're choosing orbits based on assumed reusables not current launch costs / vehicles, which btw LM5 is $3000/kg, or ballpark enough to F9/kg for disposable megaconstellation launches despite cost. But bottleneck is resusable vehicles can sustain the required tempo for megaconstellation that disposable can't.
- MrBuddyCasino 2y ago
  There is no such thing as international law. There are only voluntary agreements.
  - maxglute 2y ago
    Sure, issue is, if OP math checks out, currently everyone already voluntarily agrees to international law - ITU coordinating LEO orbits that extends to 2000km, meaning hard to clean >400km orbits is going to be filled with 100,000+ megaconstation hardware in next decades, substantially increasing chance of kessler. Op propose limiting >400km orbits... which means US is going to be unhappy sharing space with PRC megaconstellations. PRC not going to accept limiting >400km orbits without openning more <400km orbits because it means ceding advantage to US who locked in high% of <400km orbits since US grabbed megaconstellation spots earlier. So either everyone shares / free for alls <400km orbits, or everyone suffers Kessler, in which case whoever has the most space hardware might end up losing the most.
mapt 2y ago
Invite them in. Launch their satellites for them, at 400km. Give them cash or territory. Give away the farm. How doesn't matter. What matters is that we start coexisting at 300-500km, and we mutually taboo launching large amounts to altitudes much higher than that. There is no stable Mutually Assured Destruction Nash equilibrium here, if either of us does this thing it causes dramatic harm to both. Not regarding that as a worthwhile goal is "mineshaft gap" thinking - a zero-sum mentality entirely ignoring our collective advantage in order to pursue competitive advantage. It is perfectly feasible to run a Chinese constellation alongside Starlink sharing the same space, orbitally. Very low orbits are self cleaning.
- nradov 2y ago
  There is no world in which giving cash or territory to the Chinese Communist Party would be acceptable to US taxpayers, regardless of the consequences.
  - mapt 2y ago
    We've been doing it since Deng for the sake of making a few CEOs and shareholders richer. China operates or is monopsony sponsor of numerous pieces of infrastructure around the world in the name of trade.
  - tehjoker 2y ago
    i think you mean war-hawk capitalists, this taxpayer thinks cooperation is fine
    - mionhe 2y ago
      Not in that context. China as a whole is seen differently than the Chinese Communist Party.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Or just destroy their rockets and launch complexes. It’s better than Kessler syndrome.
tehjoker 2y ago
basically, it sounds like the U.S. should not treat China as a competitor and we should cooperate. this insane hypercompetition for literally no reason (other than US capitalists wanting to remain dominant) is going to destroy us all.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  You think the Chinese capitalists aren't also trying to become dominant?
  - tehjoker 2y ago
    They are, but China regularly dispossesses them and sometimes executes them, so the communist party, with huge popular membership, is in control.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      I'm talking about the CCP itself, not the various business people running other companies there. The CCP are capitalists, in case you haven't noticed. (I know, Americans can't really wrap their heads around that one.)
- mapt 2y ago
  I make no claim about what we should do in other contexts, only that mutual destruction of access to orbit is so easy to achieve we're currently careening towards it full speed without what politicians perceive as 'open hostilities'. This particular domain requires an approach more like OPEC than like the Cold War, and the consequence of failure to collaborate is you never get to play around in orbit again.
lupusreal 2y ago
> Stopping China's (highly strategic, military) satellite constellations isn't a "small amount of diplomacy". It's an impossibility. Put 100k boost-phase interceptors into LEO. Permit them a fixed quota of launches per year, shoot down the rest. Pax Americana.
- poulpy123 2y ago
  you mean total nuclear war
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    Once a boost-phase interception constellation is demonstrated, nuclear war would be infeasible. They could try it with cruise missiles but that would only ensure their own destruction. They could try launching their own BMD constellation but that can be denied by the first.
- perihelions 2y ago
  Then they'd retaliate in kind, and we'd get nowhere. It's certain they have that capability, or can develop it. We stand to lose a lot more from a space war, right now, than anyone else. We (US/west) hold the lion's share of space commerce and orbital launch capacity. "Earth orbit is free and open for everyone" is more than Star Trek idealism—it's a precedent we've set that benefits us, especially.
  - lordgroff 2y ago
    We've seen Russians shoot their own satellites, officially to ensure no large object re-entry (or some such nonsense, I don't remember), but I'm 10000% that it's a demonstration to the United States. If the Russians can do it, I'm sure China either already can or is very close to there. It's time to stop pretending that US can enforce rules by fiat without ramifications that scale from getting space assets blown up to a global war. The world is already dangerously unstable and here we are discussing new ideas on how to make it more so.

maxglute 2y ago

I think OP is suggesting US concede to sharing 500km orbits that SpaceX has disproportionately squatted rights to, since current international law is first come first serve. Where concede is to rejigger international law to increase density of 500km so others wouldn't have to go higher, i.e. PRC mega constellations going ~800 because ~500 mostly taken. Or in ops suggestion, free for all. This is more costly for US since it saves entrants from going extra 300km, but imo proximity also greatly enhances chance for friction... i.e. if everyone chilling around same plane, and it's going to get magnitude more croweded, expect a lot more overt/hidden space war assets there to trigger kessler.

perihelions 2y ago
No; rather, that commenter's argument was "The most tempting orbits are the ones in upper LEO that permit them to launch fewer satellites." Higher altitude => wider coverage => fewer satellites
- maxglute 2y ago
  We're talking about megaconstellations for communications, you want lower for latency, stronger signal (denser/less distance for beamforming) for better data through put -> less satellites for more coverage, and costs is cheaper since less energy. Realistically starlink has combination of 340km-1200km satellites working together, but the critical point is SpaceX reserved a lot of the sub 500km orbit slots with ITU (UN agency who manages orbits), so PRC competitors have no space real estate to try to throw up another mega constellation that can mimic spaceX economics due to location, location, location. Hence PRC registering Thousand Sails at 800km, Guowang at 500km-1200km orbits, etc, which according to OP is exponentially bad for Kessler (I have no idea). So either ITU opens much more 400km slots, or all the megaconstellations going forward going to satuate >500km LEO. Part of the reason PRC rushed to announce their megaconstellations before they even had reusable was to reserve the next closest available orbit slots that they can.
m4rtink 2y ago
Others would use theblower orbits - but it is just not viable for them, as their rockets suck (eq. are not reusable) and thus they need to put their few expensive satellites with meager propulsion capabilities higher to last longer. Not to mention spot beams being wide enough with so few satellites.
- maxglute 2y ago
  >others would use theblower orbits Orbital slots are managed by ITU United Nations International Telecommunication Union who manages availability / congestion. SpaceX reserved substantial % of sub 500 km slots. Hence PRC announching their megacontestallations to reserve 500km+ slots, specifically because there isn't enough room in sub 500km for another mega constellation so they're grabbing next best ones. PRC megaconstellation is targetting 500km+, they're not going to put up 10,000s of mega constellation without economic reusable, hence many options under development. They're choosing orbits based on assumed reusables not current launch costs / vehicles, which btw LM5 is $3000/kg, or ballpark enough to F9/kg for disposable megaconstellation launches despite cost. But bottleneck is resusable vehicles can sustain the required tempo for megaconstellation that disposable can't.
MrBuddyCasino 2y ago
There is no such thing as international law. There are only voluntary agreements.
- maxglute 2y ago
  Sure, issue is, if OP math checks out, currently everyone already voluntarily agrees to international law - ITU coordinating LEO orbits that extends to 2000km, meaning hard to clean >400km orbits is going to be filled with 100,000+ megaconstation hardware in next decades, substantially increasing chance of kessler. Op propose limiting >400km orbits... which means US is going to be unhappy sharing space with PRC megaconstellations. PRC not going to accept limiting >400km orbits without openning more <400km orbits because it means ceding advantage to US who locked in high% of <400km orbits since US grabbed megaconstellation spots earlier. So either everyone shares / free for alls <400km orbits, or everyone suffers Kessler, in which case whoever has the most space hardware might end up losing the most.

mapt 2y ago

Invite them in. Launch their satellites for them, at 400km. Give them cash or territory. Give away the farm. How doesn't matter. What matters is that we start coexisting at 300-500km, and we mutually taboo launching large amounts to altitudes much higher than that. There is no stable Mutually Assured Destruction Nash equilibrium here, if either of us does this thing it causes dramatic harm to both. Not regarding that as a worthwhile goal is "mineshaft gap" thinking - a zero-sum mentality entirely ignoring our collective advantage in order to pursue competitive advantage. It is perfectly feasible to run a Chinese constellation alongside Starlink sharing the same space, orbitally. Very low orbits are self cleaning.

nradov 2y ago
There is no world in which giving cash or territory to the Chinese Communist Party would be acceptable to US taxpayers, regardless of the consequences.
- mapt 2y ago
  We've been doing it since Deng for the sake of making a few CEOs and shareholders richer. China operates or is monopsony sponsor of numerous pieces of infrastructure around the world in the name of trade.
- tehjoker 2y ago
  i think you mean war-hawk capitalists, this taxpayer thinks cooperation is fine
  - mionhe 2y ago
    Not in that context. China as a whole is seen differently than the Chinese Communist Party.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Or just destroy their rockets and launch complexes. It’s better than Kessler syndrome.

tehjoker 2y ago

basically, it sounds like the U.S. should not treat China as a competitor and we should cooperate. this insane hypercompetition for literally no reason (other than US capitalists wanting to remain dominant) is going to destroy us all.

shiroiushi 2y ago
You think the Chinese capitalists aren't also trying to become dominant?
- tehjoker 2y ago
  They are, but China regularly dispossesses them and sometimes executes them, so the communist party, with huge popular membership, is in control.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    I'm talking about the CCP itself, not the various business people running other companies there. The CCP are capitalists, in case you haven't noticed. (I know, Americans can't really wrap their heads around that one.)
mapt 2y ago
I make no claim about what we should do in other contexts, only that mutual destruction of access to orbit is so easy to achieve we're currently careening towards it full speed without what politicians perceive as 'open hostilities'. This particular domain requires an approach more like OPEC than like the Cold War, and the consequence of failure to collaborate is you never get to play around in orbit again.

lupusreal 2y ago

> Stopping China's (highly strategic, military) satellite constellations isn't a "small amount of diplomacy". It's an impossibility. Put 100k boost-phase interceptors into LEO. Permit them a fixed quota of launches per year, shoot down the rest. Pax Americana.

poulpy123 2y ago
you mean total nuclear war
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Once a boost-phase interception constellation is demonstrated, nuclear war would be infeasible. They could try it with cruise missiles but that would only ensure their own destruction. They could try launching their own BMD constellation but that can be denied by the first.
perihelions 2y ago
Then they'd retaliate in kind, and we'd get nowhere. It's certain they have that capability, or can develop it. We stand to lose a lot more from a space war, right now, than anyone else. We (US/west) hold the lion's share of space commerce and orbital launch capacity. "Earth orbit is free and open for everyone" is more than Star Trek idealism—it's a precedent we've set that benefits us, especially.
- lordgroff 2y ago
  We've seen Russians shoot their own satellites, officially to ensure no large object re-entry (or some such nonsense, I don't remember), but I'm 10000% that it's a demonstration to the United States. If the Russians can do it, I'm sure China either already can or is very close to there. It's time to stop pretending that US can enforce rules by fiat without ramifications that scale from getting space assets blown up to a global war. The world is already dangerously unstable and here we are discussing new ideas on how to make it more so.