5 ms·

I'd broadly agree that EU is pretty behind the curve. But I think China is probably only ~5 years max behind the curve in terms of Starlink. But in terms of de

I'd broadly agree that EU is pretty behind the curve. But I think China is probably only ~5 years max behind the curve in terms of Starlink. But in terms of defense needs, I don't think you actually need the thousands and thousands for reasonable returns. DoD/NRO has bought maybe ~500 Starshields (https://www.fool.com/investing/2024/03/26/spacex-starshield-contract-bigger-than-70-million/ https://www.fool.com/investing/2024/03/26/spacex-starshield-...) from SpaceX. I think China is well within reach of being able to put up those numbers within a few years, even if they don't get re-use figured out (which I think they will within a 2-3 years - basically what SpaceX did from the first landing attempts to success).

bryanlarsen 7mo ago
China did 92 launches in 2025. If they only need to put up 500, and if they can put up 22 per launch like SpaceX can, they have the capability now, let alone 5 years from now.
- polalavik 7mo ago
  i don't get why more folks aren't just going for the much cheaper option like this https://www.solaris-suborbital.space/ https://www.solaris-suborbital.space/
  - jacobgkau 7mo ago
    There might be less societal objection to "satellites in space orbiting the planet" than to "planes flying continuously over the same area," even if both can be used for similar purposes. I'd assume it'd also be easier to disrupt suborbital systems like that than satellites, but I could be wrong.
  - adolph 7mo ago
    That looks like a very cool option and effort. Like the Chinese balloons that overflew the US in the last (few?) years, it would likely be challenging to shoot down. Otoh, it might cause some diplomatic disagreements about overflight. There are a number of competing theories in international law, with varying criteria, to delineate the upper limit delineating airspace versus outer space. This debate is unsettled. [0] There may also be some technical challenges having to do with beamforming rf to the vehicle. Starshield like Starlink has the predictability of orbital vehicles for tracking. It would be interesting to understand how a ground station focuses on the solar glider. 0. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1204 https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/97801992316...
    - triage8004 7mo ago
      Found those balloons very strange, hope they were up to something nice
      - The_President 7mo ago
        Probably silently dispersing an exothermic surprise.
  - ExpertAdvisor01 7mo ago
    Because they will be destroyed immediately
    - nine_k 7mo ago
      To shoot something down at 70,000 ft (21 km) all you need is a conventional military jet fighter, and a long-range rocket, or even a MiG-31 with a conventional cannon. At best you can make these birds cheaper than the rocket + flight time. Something that flies at the upper edge of the stratosphere, at 40-50 km (160,000 ft) would be hard to reach with currently available means. You can of course fire a THAAD at it, but you can fire a THAAD at a Starlink satellite as well.
      - pacificmint 7mo ago
        > you can fire a THAAD at a Starlink satellite as well. You can fire a THAAD at one Starlink satellite, but probably not at 8000 of them. For comparison we’re currently producing THAAD interceptors at a rate of 96 a year (though Lockheed is aiming to increase it to 400).
        nine_k 7mo ago
        Exactly; it's a limited and very expensive capability. Nobody would want to spend it on a $100k stratospheric flying vehicle, if the latter existed. It does not exist though, if you do not count weather balloons.
      - ExpertAdvisor01 7mo ago
        The f-22 balloon kill was at the same height as the altitude quoted on their website . Like you said either any fighter jet + missile or an high altitude jet + auto cannon will shoot it down reliably. This is probably a good solution for redundancy if you already have air superiority.
    - The_President 7mo ago
      They won’t be shot down over land without debris falling to the ground.
kolinko 7mo ago
Spy satellites you can have way fewer, but for an internet connection you really need Starlink's scale. Otherwise you need full 360 deg view of a horizon (good luck with that on the battlefield), and a much higher power use. Having said that, I double checked the numbers - it would take ~60 launches at the minimum to replicate Starlink 1.0. This is how many launches China does per year right now. So it is doable indeed for them, just absurdly expensive - $10-$30B, but they can afford that. EU on the other hand - no way. We're doing 5 launches a year with Arianne, due to incompetent management over the last decade. Unless China or US allow us to use their infrastructure, we have no way of doing all this.
- icegreentea2 7mo ago
  Ya, I guess one other thing to China's advantage is that they don't need true global reach. They can prioritize coverage over their relevant latitudes (roughly the same as contiguous USA). From what I understand from Starlink distributions, roughly ~60% of the overall Starlink constellation is required for that latitude range.
maxglute 7mo ago
>put up those numbers within a few years, And potentially exceed Starlink cumulative payload a few years after that. US via SpaceX generates most launches/payload due to reusability PRC built 2x more disposable launch vehicles. PRC figures out disposables and they can operate reusable fleet 2-3x the size of US and simply throw more payload per year and catchup/exceed cumulative SpaceX volume in a few years. A few years after, permanent kgs in space advantage due higher replacement as old hardware deorbits.

bryanlarsen 7mo ago

China did 92 launches in 2025. If they only need to put up 500, and if they can put up 22 per launch like SpaceX can, they have the capability now, let alone 5 years from now.

polalavik 7mo ago
i don't get why more folks aren't just going for the much cheaper option like this https://www.solaris-suborbital.space/ https://www.solaris-suborbital.space/
- jacobgkau 7mo ago
  There might be less societal objection to "satellites in space orbiting the planet" than to "planes flying continuously over the same area," even if both can be used for similar purposes. I'd assume it'd also be easier to disrupt suborbital systems like that than satellites, but I could be wrong.
- adolph 7mo ago
  That looks like a very cool option and effort. Like the Chinese balloons that overflew the US in the last (few?) years, it would likely be challenging to shoot down. Otoh, it might cause some diplomatic disagreements about overflight. There are a number of competing theories in international law, with varying criteria, to delineate the upper limit delineating airspace versus outer space. This debate is unsettled. [0] There may also be some technical challenges having to do with beamforming rf to the vehicle. Starshield like Starlink has the predictability of orbital vehicles for tracking. It would be interesting to understand how a ground station focuses on the solar glider. 0. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1204 https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/97801992316...
  - triage8004 7mo ago
    Found those balloons very strange, hope they were up to something nice
    - The_President 7mo ago
      Probably silently dispersing an exothermic surprise.
- ExpertAdvisor01 7mo ago
  Because they will be destroyed immediately
  - nine_k 7mo ago
    To shoot something down at 70,000 ft (21 km) all you need is a conventional military jet fighter, and a long-range rocket, or even a MiG-31 with a conventional cannon. At best you can make these birds cheaper than the rocket + flight time. Something that flies at the upper edge of the stratosphere, at 40-50 km (160,000 ft) would be hard to reach with currently available means. You can of course fire a THAAD at it, but you can fire a THAAD at a Starlink satellite as well.
    - pacificmint 7mo ago
      > you can fire a THAAD at a Starlink satellite as well. You can fire a THAAD at one Starlink satellite, but probably not at 8000 of them. For comparison we’re currently producing THAAD interceptors at a rate of 96 a year (though Lockheed is aiming to increase it to 400).
      - nine_k 7mo ago
        Exactly; it's a limited and very expensive capability. Nobody would want to spend it on a $100k stratospheric flying vehicle, if the latter existed. It does not exist though, if you do not count weather balloons.
    - ExpertAdvisor01 7mo ago
      The f-22 balloon kill was at the same height as the altitude quoted on their website . Like you said either any fighter jet + missile or an high altitude jet + auto cannon will shoot it down reliably. This is probably a good solution for redundancy if you already have air superiority.
  - The_President 7mo ago
    They won’t be shot down over land without debris falling to the ground.

kolinko 7mo ago

Spy satellites you can have way fewer, but for an internet connection you really need Starlink's scale. Otherwise you need full 360 deg view of a horizon (good luck with that on the battlefield), and a much higher power use. Having said that, I double checked the numbers - it would take ~60 launches at the minimum to replicate Starlink 1.0. This is how many launches China does per year right now. So it is doable indeed for them, just absurdly expensive - $10-$30B, but they can afford that. EU on the other hand - no way. We're doing 5 launches a year with Arianne, due to incompetent management over the last decade. Unless China or US allow us to use their infrastructure, we have no way of doing all this.

icegreentea2 7mo ago
Ya, I guess one other thing to China's advantage is that they don't need true global reach. They can prioritize coverage over their relevant latitudes (roughly the same as contiguous USA). From what I understand from Starlink distributions, roughly ~60% of the overall Starlink constellation is required for that latitude range.

maxglute 7mo ago

>put up those numbers within a few years, And potentially exceed Starlink cumulative payload a few years after that. US via SpaceX generates most launches/payload due to reusability PRC built 2x more disposable launch vehicles. PRC figures out disposables and they can operate reusable fleet 2-3x the size of US and simply throw more payload per year and catchup/exceed cumulative SpaceX volume in a few years. A few years after, permanent kgs in space advantage due higher replacement as old hardware deorbits.