Share.

27 Kommentare

  1. It will also harm China and Europes space based platforms. Russia doing so would be as bad as using a nuke.

  2. multitalentedboy on

    At this point I’m just impressed Starlink made it onto the same enemy list as NATO

  3. Shivamrocks5039 on

    Anti satellite weapons have already been developed in west and by china, so yeah another one develop it.

    Congrats guys, we will have our dream space wars.

  4. Russia lacks much ability to develop anything new, and lacks even more ability to mass manufacture it.

    I’m sure some guys have an idea on paper, but that’s the cheap part of any project.

  5. IndividualSkill3432 on

    >ct Russia is developing a „zone-effect“ anti-satellite weapon that would release hundreds of thousands of tiny, undetectable pellets into low Earth orbit to disable Starlink satellites. The weapon could cause widespread space debris, risk collateral damage to other satellites—including Russia’s and China’s—and potentially trigger uncontrollable chaos in space

    Soyuz can launch 8 tonnes into space. Around 100 tonnes of space debris, usually micrometeorites fall to Earth per day. So its only a fraction of the daily average debris let alone a serious change in the volume of it in orbital space. Orbital space is huge, its the surface of the Earth but over a depth of thousands of kms. When people imagine this stuff in their heads, they dont have the ability to really contextualise it into the actual volume of space and what Russia is capable of.

    This seems like something from the early 60s when governments wrote cheques for really silly ideas. I am wondering what happened to their space laser projects.

    This will get people exited but personally it looks like something to keep a couple of people in a job by fooling the idiots who Putin puts in charge.

    Your mileage may vary.

  6. StrangerConscious637 on

    Both are bad. Russia is a terrorist country which is killing Europeans daily for years now and Starlink is lead by a fanatic Nazi. Hate both.

  7. ThreadCountHigh on

    Don’t really see this as an innovation. Starlink satellites are in very low and well-known orbits, in addition to continuously broadcasting on known frequencies, making homing in on them trivial.

  8. If ever a serious war breaks out between major powers, in the early days of such a war, lots of satellites would be destroyed.

    Communications across the world would go down and lots of people would have no back up and no idea what to do.

  9. Quaaaaaaaaaa on

    It can’t develop any practical weapon for that.

    Destroying satellites means putting your own at risk because of the space debris you create. It’s literally shooting yourself in the foot.

  10. brazilliandanny on

    If only there was a conflict Russia was involved with where the US could help the opposition to weaken them.

  11. that exactly what we need. World peace solved. We all getting laid tonight.

  12. LordOfRuinsOtherSelf on

    Starlink can maybe deorbit old sats somewhere other than the Indian ocean or some other disposal site, maybe drop them on putin. Hey you broke this one, you can have it.

  13. Absolutely stupid weapon system. If someone decides to use such a thing, then he will give absolutely everyone the right to call him an imbecile.
    I don’t think they’ll use that. It’s the same suicide as using nuclear weapons – it’s a signal to all countries that you’re completely inadequate.

  14. B-b-but internet told me that Musk is friend with Putin and uses starlink to cover the russian army in Ukraine!

  15. Fearfuldrip on

    We already know they have been testing anti-satellite capabilities for a while now.

  16. Meanwhile their drones depend on them and Musk allows it. Classic Russian self own

  17. I think there’s a real likelihood that it costs Russia more to knock out satellites this way than it costs Starlink to replace them; Russia does not have reusable rocket technology. Starlink can launch a lot of payloads (each with tons of sats) for the cost of a single Russian launch. Economic self-inflicted defeat.

    Not too mention that the Starlink orbits are „self-cleaning“ – anything without propellant (to counter the upper-atmospheric drag) falls back down in a few weeks/months/years. (Starlink sats have propulsion, allowing them to stay up for years. Russian ball bearings do not, so they can’t stay up there).

    So even if Russia burns it’s treasure to sabotage civilization, in short order the ball bearings will be gone and the satellites replaced. It’s an expensive way to inflict a brief window of patchy Internet. Maybe useful for a battle rather than a war.

    For fucks sake Russia needs to grow up and work on raising its quality of life to modern standards instead of trying to burn down modern standards so Putin’s failures to build anything don’t look so pathetic. The only thing that man seems any good at is stealing his people’s money and building secret palaces instead of improving life for the people. 

  18. Conscious-Story-7579 on

    I suspect western intelligence forgot Russia had this ability since the 70s.

  19. SnackyMcGeeeeeeeee on

    Alot of comments are missing a very important detail.

    These satilites cost 250k, that’s less than 2 new Ford raptors.

    Its not economical to shoot down LEO satitlitirs that get launched in batches of 80. If starship ever gets working, it will be hundreds at time.

    This is kinda why LEO satilites are alot better than many people understand. They also automatically fall out of orbit after a few months if not propelled, or after a few years by design.

  20. Drak_is_Right on

    If a serious war broke our, Russia would detonate multiple nukes in space. Possibly a few dozen.

    This would be to mess with the power grid and take out the majority of US satellites.

Leave A Reply