Comment by DanielHB
1 month ago
I dunno, won't a satellite be _more_ vulnerable in space? There is not anti-missile tech in space.
I suppose it is about being out of reach of cheap drones?
1 month ago
I dunno, won't a satellite be _more_ vulnerable in space? There is not anti-missile tech in space.
I suppose it is about being out of reach of cheap drones?
icbms and hypersonics exist, theres no defense against the top end anywhere atm.
if you're in a war where people are shooting your satellites out of the sky you're past the point where defenses matter. theres no grey war in space like russia hiring people to blow up stuff in europe and very few states could take out multiple satellites in space.
beyond that if we ever did get to that point, you could develop anti missile tech in space, you effectively have the high ground sitting at the top of the gravity well.
Oh no! Our PeaceSat went haywire and bumped into your WarSat! Sorry dude, let's swap insurance.
Had a good laugh thanks. Indeed area of denial, increased maneuvering etc. can all be used as attacks. Space is big, but stuff moves fast.
I'm reasonably sure there are more states that could destroy a satellite than hit infrastructure on US soil. And if you try to use an ICBM to hit the US then you risk getting nuked.
> people are shooting your satellites out of the sky
If space powers have any sense at all they'll develop a fleet of satellites that deploy small limpet craft that attach to the enemies' satellites and drag them toward earth.
Literal shooting sounds like mutually assured satellite destruction.
This. Orbital debris are an area denial attack, and since there's only one shared planetary orbit (in aggregate), debris-creating weapons are more like biological weapons, poison gas, and tactical nuclear weapons. Even if you win, you've impeded yourself.
The internationally hoped for outcome should be that China continues scaling their orbital use, to the point where it becomes mutually advantageous to sign a treaty with the US banning orbital debris-creating weapons (and ideally imposing mutually-supported consequences on non-signatories who breach the agreement).
Then everyone would be left with more sane options of disabling-only (microwave, laser, targeted EMP, etc).
It's really about bandwidth and availability - US satcom systems were really struggling, and the only truly global (Iridium) was quite low bandwidth. Starlink is essentially "Iridium with newer tech and mass production" and IIRC DoD through various fronts put quite a lot of early financing to make it a thing, even if later the networks were supposedly disaggregated (would make sense to start building separate one once PoC was proven)
DoD financing for Starlink was a long term game to create pLEO sensing capabilities: initially GMTI, then AMTI.
Both of which give the US military more persistent (revisit delay near zero because number of assets) and survivable (number of assets + LEO debris characteristics + cattle vs pets) ISTAR.
And an advantage in persistent ISTAR is a key enabler of the way the US military is aiming to fight a peer state adversary.
I'd be fascinated to dig into the contracts, but at 10,000' it's DoD offloading the bulk of the development cost onto NASA and the public (which in both cases, still gets good value for money).
That's a lot of acronyms. You might be saying something interesting, but no one outside of that particular area of expertise will understand it.
2 replies →
Yeah similar to the AWS data cneter getting trashed in UAE by cheap drones and short range missiles. I think only 3 states have the capabilities necessary to knock out satellites , and one or two others with latent potential. For the rest of the planet its basically untouchable unless theres more wisespread proliferation in missile tech.
The thing with starlink is that there are a lot of them. It is not a single satellite to take out it is a bunch.