Hacker News Reader

Comment by panick21_ | Hacker News Reader

Russia does not have the capability of destroying Starlink because the amount of upmass required to destroy them is larger then what the Russians can actually do.

SpaceX replacement rate would be higher then Russia destroy rate.

View on HN

Presumably micro missiles would be smaller than micro sats, so the only thing you’d need is to launch one large missile full of micro missiles that then each take out one satalite.

After that… I imagine it’d become impossible to launch anything ever again. So much debris in LEO would be depressing (though maybe the satellites could be given a deorbit burn order before being exploded, if it ever became clear they’d gotten targeted in this way)

At 40km to 100km altitude the debris will fall out of the sky in short order (under a year).

While that is potentially true such micro missiles tech currently doesn't exist and modern Russia doesn't exactly have a track record in developing such tech.

In addition, its far harder then you would think. Each such missile would still need complex computer system and propulsion hardware and so on. It would be cheaper then a Starlink sat but not by that much.

Also, even if you assume 1/10 the weight, SpaceX can easily launch 10x more then Russia can. With Starship coming online SpaceX by themselves can launch 100x what Russia can.

And of course if Russia did such a think SpaceX would have US government support.

> After that… I imagine it’d become impossible to launch anything ever again.

I do not think this is actually true. The decay is to fast on this altitude for this to actually happen.

> Each such missile would still need complex computer system and propulsion hardware and so on. It would be cheaper then a Starlink sat but not by that much.

We flew a rocket to the moon with less computing power than a modern pocket calculator. I’m inclined to say we’d manage.

I think I’m confused about your term ‘launch capacity’. If we’re talking average/sustained payload/day, then sure. But I think the capacity of the soyuz and falcon is about the same.

Edit: Never mind, Soyuz has like 2 times less capacity than a default Falcon.

It’s probably not fair to use Starship for that comparison (as much as I want to) because it has yet to successfully launch.

The moon is a pretty big target. A missile needs to hit a sat that is the is 1m² very hard to detact and moving fast with its own propulsion and avoidance system.

> But I think the capacity of the soyuz and falcon is about the same.

Per launch a Falcon 9 lifts about double and in the last couple years Falcon 9 has launched 2-4x as often.

> It’s probably not fair to use Starship for that comparison (as much as I want to) because it has yet to successfully launch.

As of right now Russia likely also doesn't have the missiles you suggest. I would argue that Starship is closer then an advanced anti-sat weapon that can split up in orbit and hit many targets.

Except Russia already proved they can shoot satellites out of space as they did almost a year ago with their Nudol ASAT weapon test:

https://archive.ph/1tdHl

Excellent. Now repeat that feat 2500 times to destroy all existing Starlink satellites, and keep doing it 1300 times each year to destroy all the new Starlink satellites that are being launched.

Assuming of course that SpaceX will not increase its launch cadence, and that this act of war will not provoke a response that stops is. The concept is laughable. It is intractable at every level of execution.

Starlink: the final bullet that killed astronomy from earth and soon probably also space travel.

Until it happens...

These possibilities are not at the behest of your logic but at the will of a small number of people far away.

Except you don't need one ASAT launch per satellite it's completely asymmetric. The debris in low Earth orbit travels 10,000-15,000 miles an hour. The high energy debris in LEO does all the work. A 1cm piece of debris would render other satellites useless.

Your idea that space will somehow not be militarized is quite laughable. There's an actual history that proves you wrong:

https://hir.harvard.edu/anti-satellite-weapons-and-the-emerg...

Not all Starlink are on the exact same orbital plane. There is some asymmetry but at the same time Starlink sats can also avoid debris from known places.

On this altitude debris would quickly drop out so you would never get Kessler synonym.

Russia would have to shoot down a huge amount of sats.

And SpaceX can easily have 100-1000x the upmass of Russia.

And this is before you can consider lots of counter-measures the US could potentially do.

They can shoot it sure, but where does the wreckage go? Into the next launh vehicle, destroying it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com