this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2024
150 points (95.7% liked)

World News

32283 readers
703 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 42 points 7 months ago (17 children)

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 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (29 children)

Starlink needs deleting too, so that would be perfect.

load more comments (29 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 23 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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 7 points 7 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.

[–] tiredturtle@lemmy.ml 15 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Musk supports Russia so what's the play here

[–] Lath@kbin.earth 8 points 7 months ago (12 children)

That CIA - SpaceX combo to make spy satellites mentioned some days back.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Chefdano3@lemm.ee 14 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] octobob@lemmy.ml 11 points 7 months ago (4 children)

I Fucking Love the same joke for 3 years straight!!!!

[–] Land_Strider@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Only 3? I thought we were closing on a decade with this joke now.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 11 points 7 months ago (7 children)

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.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

The math doesn’t work out.

You only need enough asat missiles to create enough debris. Kessler handles the rest.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Hense making the entirety of leo unusable

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Eh, not for long. LEO everything falls eventually. HEO... that can take a long hot minute.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

LEO we're still talking the better part of a decade, especially the derbies that get kicked to higher altitudes by the collisions. It's not as permanent as higher up, but it's still a strategic level capability, not tactical.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The numbers I've heard for LEO are like 4-5 years. But that point is whatever.

Kessler'ing the LEO means it's now harder to retaliate in HEO. It would be an easy win for Russia to knock out Starlink if the US government is actually relying on it in any meaningful capacity.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago

It sounds like they are using it as a backup for their geostationary sats which would be much higher resolution and data rate. But there aren't as many of them, so they're feasible to shoot down.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 7 months ago

Blast Lonnie's bullshit out of the sky and see if I care.

[–] nexusband@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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@lemmy.nz 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] knightly@pawb.social 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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 9 points 7 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 3 points 7 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).

[–] Trebuchet@lemm.ee 4 points 7 months ago
[–] MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago

So...Goldeneye part 2?

load more comments
view more: next ›