4 ms·

I feel the global instability could easily be very disruptive to SpaceX. Just imagine if Russia gets vindictive and starts destroying these satellites or blowin

I feel the global instability could easily be very disruptive to SpaceX. Just imagine if Russia gets vindictive and starts destroying these satellites or blowing up their satellites to create orbital debris that could knock satellites out of orbit. A really bad solar storm could be devastating. Just saying there are some decent risks, and pricing it at 1.75T IPO seems risky enough. I would not take that gamble.

intrasight 6mo ago
> very disruptive to SpaceX And to most everything else
JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> imagine if Russia gets vindictive and starts destroying these satellites Sounds like lots of demand for new launches from the military-industrial complex. > imagine if Russia gets vindictive and starts destroying these satellites Space is big. It’s almost always cheaper to individually target satellites than to try and blanket orbits. And with Starship vs ASAT, the cheap drones are the satellites. Russia would bankrupt itself trying to sink Starlink and Starshield. (They would also set a precedent that would let the U.S. deny China a LEO constellation.)
- plqbfbv 6mo ago
  > It’s almost always cheaper to individually target satellites than to try and blanket orbits. The problem is that even one satellite could start the Kessler syndrome due to how many are currently in orbit, and the numbers are expected to keep increasing rapidly - everyone wants their "sovereign" Starlink now that it has been shown to be feasible and performant.
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > problem is that even one satellite could start the Kessler syndrome No, it can’t. Not in LEO. Militaries have searched for these one-shot solutions; there is no known orbital system for which it works. (In LEO.) The only fuck-you orbits are in GEO.
    - plqbfbv 6mo ago
      [dead]
plqbfbv 6mo ago
> A really bad solar storm could be devastating. Starlink already accounts for these (e.g. https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/18/starlinks_method_of_dodging_solar/ https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/18/starlinks_method_of_d... ), and in any case they are put in orbit so that they eventually fall back to earth in case control is lost.

intrasight 6mo ago

> very disruptive to SpaceX And to most everything else

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago

> imagine if Russia gets vindictive and starts destroying these satellites Sounds like lots of demand for new launches from the military-industrial complex. > imagine if Russia gets vindictive and starts destroying these satellites Space is big. It’s almost always cheaper to individually target satellites than to try and blanket orbits. And with Starship vs ASAT, the cheap drones are the satellites. Russia would bankrupt itself trying to sink Starlink and Starshield. (They would also set a precedent that would let the U.S. deny China a LEO constellation.)

plqbfbv 6mo ago
> It’s almost always cheaper to individually target satellites than to try and blanket orbits. The problem is that even one satellite could start the Kessler syndrome due to how many are currently in orbit, and the numbers are expected to keep increasing rapidly - everyone wants their "sovereign" Starlink now that it has been shown to be feasible and performant.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > problem is that even one satellite could start the Kessler syndrome No, it can’t. Not in LEO. Militaries have searched for these one-shot solutions; there is no known orbital system for which it works. (In LEO.) The only fuck-you orbits are in GEO.
  - plqbfbv 6mo ago
    [dead]

plqbfbv 6mo ago

> A really bad solar storm could be devastating. Starlink already accounts for these (e.g. https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/18/starlinks_method_of_dodging_solar/ https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/18/starlinks_method_of_d... ), and in any case they are put in orbit so that they eventually fall back to earth in case control is lost.