• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    19
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There’s a good chance Putin is richer than Musk…just saying. And since there is that chance, what are the chances Putin has money in Musk’s various businesses?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -191 year ago

      Starlink fails if Russia or any other country decides to shoot down its satellites. That’s enough reason for musk to be a patsy of any government that threatens to do it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        91 year ago

        If one state starts shooting down satellites, they’re going to get their own ones targeted and it only ends when neither has any satellites left. That’s not a box anyone is willing to open.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        41 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.

            • @jarfil
              link
              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.

                • @jarfil
                  link
                  21 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
                link
                11 year ago

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

                • @jarfil
                  link
                  11 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -41 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…

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            81 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.