4 ms·

Well, propose an alternative then. Our existing ground internet can be taken out by something as cheap and simple as a heavy piece of metal dropped in one or mo

Well, propose an alternative then. Our existing ground internet can be taken out by something as cheap and simple as a heavy piece of metal dropped in one or more strategic, unguarded locations from a modestly-sized ship, and nearly anyone can do it. With an orbital internet, only a small number of agents, nations basically, could launch the orbital weapons to cause destruction. A mix of both is ideal, more robust. Also, nukes in orbit is movie stuff. In reality the vacuum makes them absurdly weak for the cost and political fallout of launching them. Other weapons would be used to take out satellites. Hell, a precisely aimed lug nut would do the trick.

verdverm 2y ago
> nukes in orbit is movie stuff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fishbowl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fishbowl Also, the US intel believes Russia is moving forward with plans to put nukes in space, but that's not the point. They don't need to exist in space to have a detonation in LEO, which would wipe out constellations and leave lingering interference for months, as we've seen before. > In reality the vacuum makes them absurdly weak This seems to be incorrect based on prior results. One nuke is far more efficient than a per satellite regime. Frying electronics is easier than kinetic strikes > With an orbital internet, only a small number of agents, nations basically, could launch the orbital weapons to cause destruction. https://www.dogonews.com/2024/12/9/student-built-rocket-breaks-20-year-old-amateur-space-altitude-record https://www.dogonews.com/2024/12/9/student-built-rocket-brea... Students can reach above the karman line, which means groups like the Houthis could as well. Space is increasingly becoming privatized and with it the risk of malicious payloads slipping into ride shares as rocket .companies compete for business.
- southernplaces7 2y ago
  On your first point, I stand partly corrected. Thanks for the details and especially those involving Starfish Prime. In my defense, I was referring mainly to the blast effects of nukes, which are indeed much weaker in a vacuum than they are in a terrestrial landscape since, obviously, there's no gas to transmit the destructive overpressure that causes most of the physical destruction at a distance that nukes are famous for. I also considered the possibility of satellites being hardened against EMP effects. However, I'd forgotten about the heat transmission caused by radiation or the destructive effects on electronics caused by said radiation. Still though, it would be a way of destroying satellites that would be damn expensive and damn hard to control precisely, which is why I still think a realistic scenario for some power destroying satellites would involve much simpler, smaller weapons. As for your last point, bear in mind that getting an object above the Karman line has been easy for a while now and isn't nearly the same as getting an object to have enough launch energy to stay in a stable orbit, or stay in orbit at all. Pulling that off would be much harder, and especially if you want to lob something as heavy as a nuke into space, and then have it travel enough distance in an orbital circuit to reach a specific part of the sky.
  - verdverm 2y ago
    I suspect the best defense against this scenario is both adversaries (US/CN) having LEO constellations. US,RU,CN have all demonstrated ground based anti-satellite missiles. However a nuke is far more efficient if you want to take out a constellation during a major war. It wouldn't have to reach orbital velocity either, just reach the same elevation, 3-4x kalman line. There are 1000s of ICBMs laying around that can do this

verdverm 2y ago

> nukes in orbit is movie stuff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fishbowl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fishbowl Also, the US intel believes Russia is moving forward with plans to put nukes in space, but that's not the point. They don't need to exist in space to have a detonation in LEO, which would wipe out constellations and leave lingering interference for months, as we've seen before. > In reality the vacuum makes them absurdly weak This seems to be incorrect based on prior results. One nuke is far more efficient than a per satellite regime. Frying electronics is easier than kinetic strikes > With an orbital internet, only a small number of agents, nations basically, could launch the orbital weapons to cause destruction. https://www.dogonews.com/2024/12/9/student-built-rocket-breaks-20-year-old-amateur-space-altitude-record https://www.dogonews.com/2024/12/9/student-built-rocket-brea... Students can reach above the karman line, which means groups like the Houthis could as well. Space is increasingly becoming privatized and with it the risk of malicious payloads slipping into ride shares as rocket .companies compete for business.

southernplaces7 2y ago
On your first point, I stand partly corrected. Thanks for the details and especially those involving Starfish Prime. In my defense, I was referring mainly to the blast effects of nukes, which are indeed much weaker in a vacuum than they are in a terrestrial landscape since, obviously, there's no gas to transmit the destructive overpressure that causes most of the physical destruction at a distance that nukes are famous for. I also considered the possibility of satellites being hardened against EMP effects. However, I'd forgotten about the heat transmission caused by radiation or the destructive effects on electronics caused by said radiation. Still though, it would be a way of destroying satellites that would be damn expensive and damn hard to control precisely, which is why I still think a realistic scenario for some power destroying satellites would involve much simpler, smaller weapons. As for your last point, bear in mind that getting an object above the Karman line has been easy for a while now and isn't nearly the same as getting an object to have enough launch energy to stay in a stable orbit, or stay in orbit at all. Pulling that off would be much harder, and especially if you want to lob something as heavy as a nuke into space, and then have it travel enough distance in an orbital circuit to reach a specific part of the sky.
- verdverm 2y ago
  I suspect the best defense against this scenario is both adversaries (US/CN) having LEO constellations. US,RU,CN have all demonstrated ground based anti-satellite missiles. However a nuke is far more efficient if you want to take out a constellation during a major war. It wouldn't have to reach orbital velocity either, just reach the same elevation, 3-4x kalman line. There are 1000s of ICBMs laying around that can do this