• Ilovethebomb
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    Starlink launches forty-ish Starlink sats every other week, Russia could deplete it’s entire arsenal of missiles and, if they’re lucky, cause a hole in their coverage.

    • warm@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Starlink needs deleting too, so that would be perfect.

      • Ilovethebomb
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        8 months ago

        As someone who spends a lot of time in the outdoors, I have to disagree with you. I’m very excited about how this will simplify logistics, and make getting weather etc much easier.

        • warm@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          54
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          The skies are already polluted with Starlink satellites and there’s even more coming. I agree that is does solve some situations, but it’s being done for profit, not for undeveloped areas. Sticking more shit in our skies for money is really sad, I am surprised there’s not more international regulations for this kind of satellite spam.

          • Ilovethebomb
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            39
            ·
            8 months ago

            but it’s being done for profit, not for undeveloped areas.

            This is such a Lemmy comment, there’s nothing evil about providing a service for a price.

            • warm@kbin.earth
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              27
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Not on its own. Polluting the skies for profit is the problem. Why the cherry picking though?

              • Ilovethebomb
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                8 months ago

                Do you also think cell towers are “polluting the landscape”?

                • warm@kbin.earth
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  Of course cell towers are an eye sore. Though they are more necessary than starlink, often hidden by landscape or on top of buildings anyway. It’s not the “gotcha” comparison you think it is.

            • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              8 months ago

              Providing a service for a price is not the problematic part.
              The problem with serial killers isn’t that they want money in exchange, either.

                • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  Oh it does, despite you not understanding it. The point is that even though someone does something for money, that does not mean what they do is not harmful.

                  And before you ask say this does not have to do anything with this topic, the reason I said that, is that I think what spacex is doing here is harmful.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          If there were more third-world people here they’d probably agree with you as well. Last I checked there’s like one or two cables going into the entire continent of Africa.

          It’s actually a really good idea, with the main exception being the impact on astronomy. That Musk happens to be the guy behind this first network is just an unfortunate coincidence.

          • PastaCeci@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            As a person who lives in the third world I absolutely do not want the internet to only be controlled by American corporations from space and would much rather fund proper fiber optics and connections.

            • Zink@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              Starlink is probably a stopgap measure for areas that still have to build up the physical infrastructure for the real solution.

              It’s more of a solution for having internet available just about anywhere. Probably good for various emergency/rescue scenarios.

              • PastaCeci@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                I still don’t want the Americans to be controlling literally anything I use or interact with. They will harvest that data to execute military operations against leftists where I live. No fucking thanks, keep your Starlink.

            • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              Ah. Yeah, I guess that’s true. It is an American thing. Would you feel better if it was European or Chinese?

              Wire infrastructure is great, but it’s just damn expensive, and manufacturing+laying it can be very specialised labour. Even here in Canada not everyone has it in rural areas. Meanwhile, small satellite swarms pass over everywhere by force of geometry, and are actually still pretty fast internet.

              • PastaCeci@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                Not really, but of that list only China hasn’t directly colonized the country I live or send storm troopers into the forest to murder people in the past decade. I would like the taxes we pay here to go towards developing ourselves, we can pay to educate networking engineers and subsidize the work ourselves and hook into the internet as a peer instead of as a subscriber. Third world countries aren’t poor because we have no money, we’re poor because we’re trapped in bad loan agreements, have lopsided international investment and bad interior planning which prefers plantation cash crops over food security.

                • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Yeah, development is a “sticky wicket”. I didn’t mean to speak on your behalf when you’re there to speak for yourself, so sorry about that.

            • Ilovethebomb
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              That’s a great idea, let’s run fibre to ships, campervans, and places so remote it’s not even practical to run mains power!

      • Player2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Enjoy spreading misinformation online? There are valid criticisms against LEO constellations but Kessler syndrome is not one of them

        • off_brand_@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          ??

          Did you read the comment? It’s not about LEO satellites. It’s about a military arsenal destroying a fleet of LEO satellites. The satellites won’t do a Kessler, but a fleets worth of shrapnel would be a problem.

      • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        Which is exactly why Russia only needs a handful of rockets at most. You only need to make debris. The rest will sort itself out.

          • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            It’s another form of MAD.

            Russia has nothing in that LEO orbit (that I’m aware of… I could be horrendously wrong). I don’t think there’s anything “mutually assured” here.

    • matcha_addict@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m pretty sure that starlink satellites are orders of magnitudes more expensive to manufacture and deploy than the weapons that can target them.

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        8 months ago

        Really? You can put up 50 starlinks at a time for tens of millions of dollars, whereas asats need a more expensive an maneuverable kill vehicle and a launch for each one with lots more complicated targeting and maneuvering. It’s pretty hard to track and follow something down moving so fast through space and hit it. Plus Russia just doesn’t have the launch capacity to put up that much mass to orbit.

        • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          Not to mention that SpaceX has designed things so that they can piggyback starlink deployments on the back of other commercial launches. So, for example, AT&T pays them $25 million to launch a new telecom satellite, and they toss in another dozen or so starlink satellites along with it.

          AT&T pays for the majority of the launch costs and starlink benefits from it.

      • Ilovethebomb
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        8 months ago

        How do you know that? You’re launching an entire rocket to kill one satellite, that can’t be cheap.

        • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yes, it is probably expensive, but a satellite is probably even more expensive, and not just by a little.

          • B0rax@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            8 months ago

            I don’t think it is… one of the satellites cost USD 250k in 2019. it is likely cheaper now.

            There have been Anti Satellite Weapon tests (for example from China) to see if it is feasible. The cost for such an attack would be much much higher than 250k (we are talking multiple millions)

            • Ilovethebomb
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              They do have more equipment on them now, so it’s possible they’ve gone up in cost.

            • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Hmm you made me think and if they use their reusable rockets tech and maybe some other similar things, it may be cheaper in the end because they save a lot of money in places where others don’t

      • UrPartnerInCrime@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        Maybe, but one of the best traits about Musk is he’s willing to throw money at this regardless of profit. So he’s gunna keep throwing up more of these satellites, while Russia’s rocket supply is only going to get harder to resupply for the foreseeable future.

  • catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    8 months ago

    Spy satellites have always been valid targets. I don’t think they’re any more likely to shoot these ones down than any of the others.

    • MrVilliam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      For real. This seems like something that threatens musk and space x more than anybody else. The CIA effectively has unlimited money to replace whatever Russia takes down, but musk needing to pay to replace satellites to maintain starlink will hurt his bottom line. I don’t think tin foil hat wearers would be all that unreasonable to make the assumption that this is a veiled threat to keep musk in line. I frequently hear the argument that “billionaires can’t be bought” but I believe the exact opposite. They care more about money than morals and ethics, and can therefore be coerced by it either through hurting their bottom line or rewarding them with more of it. A dragon’s hoard can never be too big for the dragon to accept more, and nothing hurts the drain more than reducing its hoard.

  • Chefdano3@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    Can’t wait to hear about space X satellites falling out of a window.

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    There are more sats than asat missiles. The math doesn’t work out. Unless they use nukes or shotgun blasts or something to make the entirety of leo unusable.

  • nexusband@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    On one hand, I really, really want those idiots in the Kremel to cause a Kessler Syndrome…(In theory it could also prevent ballistic missiles)

    On the other hand, that would be quite bad for the rest of us.

    • Ilovethebomb
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Starlink birds fly too low for that, they will deorbit in 4-8 years if they go dead.

      • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’d be worried about debris flung into steeply elliptical orbits, though. It wouldn’t take much to do some real damage to sats in higher orbits and once the cascade starts there’s not much we can do but wait decades for the worst of it to fall into the atmosphere.

        • FaceDeer@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          8 months ago

          Those steeply elliptical orbits would probably deorbit even quicker since a random impulse that boosts the apogee is likely to lower the perigee even more.

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Kessler syndrome is only a threat to satellites that are orbiting within the debris, it’s not really a danger if you’re only passing through (as a ballistic missile would).