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)
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.
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.
> 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.