• Rapidcreek
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m pretty confident that Musk has insurance for that. They can’t shoot down enough of them to make a big difference, you may have a hole but the network will be ok.

    • pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      No business wants to rely on insurance. It will never cover all the future losses in a business like this.

      A network with regular outages is nearly worthless for most use cases…

      • Rapidcreek
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh you could put a million dollar missle on a 25 thousand dollar satellite. But, you’re going to run out of missiles.

        • jarfil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yup, they’re already having problems without even getting attacked. Shooting “down” (they wouldn’t fall down) some of the satellites, could easily create enough debris to start a cascading collision effect and turn the whole orbit into a minefield.

          It’s even worse, because they are in orbits creating a crisscross grid, meaning debris from one satellite would cross the paths of dozens of others in a short period of time.

          Also, disabling a dozen or a thousand satellites, wouldn’t create a “hole” in the network over any single place, since every single satellite goes over the whole globe, replacing any disabled one.

          Someone trying to attack Starlink, would either have to trigger a cascading effect, or get no effect at all.

          • Rapidcreek
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They’ll avoid the debris as they do now. It’s every day business

            • jarfil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The number of debris avoidance maneuvers is growing faster than the number of satellites. Even without an attack, it’s anyone’s guess when the amount of debris will overcome their ability to avoid it.

              In the case of an attack, they’d quickly run out of avoidance ability (onboard fuel) and either have to use the remaining fuel to de-orbit, or become part of the cascade of collisions.

          • Fedizen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            couldn’t you toss up a towing satellite that goes from sat to sat and hooks them together?

            • jarfil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you mean to “scoop them up” as a means of attack… there are thousands of them already, they’re all over the globe, with plans to go up to 40k. They do have engines, and while not particularly powerful (hall effect ion thrusters), they could try to counter the attack by trying to deorbit, along with the attacking satellite. My guess is it would be too slow and ineffective.

              The best physical attack would be to cause a collision cascade at their orbital height… or set off a nuke in orbit and EMP them by the hundreds, but that would also EMP a bunch of other satellites, mess up the Van Allen belts, hit anything in a wide area on the ground, and breach several international treaties.