zlacker

>>alden5+(OP)
In the long run that could become a massive strategic advantage for the US. A 2nd layer of resilience over undersea cables

>>Havoc+p56
Real time video and telemetry for military drones that’s nearly immune to electronic warfare counter measures is the real end game. The fpv drone carnage in Ukraine is currently limited to the contact lines plus or minus a few kilometers. Satellite comms change that drastically. Yes it’s available now but highly restricted.

>>le-mar+966
But not immune to missiles. Russia's already threatened to target Starlink satellites. Maybe they're bluffing, or not, but it does offer a reminder that these are just floating computers in the sky.

>>techop+qa6
How feasible is it though once the network reaches a huge size? Starlink satellites are tiny, and they've been deploying thousands of them over the last few years. I imagine it would take enormous resources to shoot them down, especially if the US does treat them like a strategic resource and adds more for redundancy.

>>mindwo+wd6
The huge size of the network is itself a risk. Kessler syndrome is something everyone is currently trying to avoid, but if you wanted to intentionally induce it you could just start launching giant payloads of tiny ball bearings into their orbits, or take down enough of them that the shrapnel becomes equivalent to that anyway. Starlink is low enough that the debris from even a full Kessler syndrome cascade will deorbit very rapidly, but we're still talking a 3-5 year timeframe, not months, and trying to rebuild capacity in that period will just worsen + extend the problem.

>>lucubr+rl6
This is something commonly misunderstood. Kessler syndrome is a statistical process that happens over many years. It is not a sudden cascade like is seen in movies like Gravity. Statistical processes are not what militaries are interested in.

It's actually thought that Kessler syndrome is kind of already happening right now, which is why there's a lot of push right now to try to de-orbit the very large pieces of debris, so they can't act to form further debris.

>>mlindn+Ox6
Why can’t every satellite have a small rocket/firework like thing on the back pointing out to the expanse and if the power goes out or it doesn’t receive a signal from the dead man’s switch for long enough then it ignites? Even with a big mass you don’t need to give it much of a shove downwards in a zero friction environment to speed the de-orbit period up.

I’m sure I’m missing something but it just seems like a no brainer to make the deorbit process speed up with something relatively failsafe, as opposed to hopefully/maybe saving a bit of fuel to push it that way eventually

>>robbie+b47
1. Most significant satellites already have propulsion, only the smallest do not (which is a side problem). The problem is that when satellites fail, the guidance will often fail too.

2. Engines and fuel are heavy. Including one on the smallest satellites may take up the entire mass availability that would go to the instruments, leaving the satellite with nothing to do. There are people working on this, one idea is including a small air canister and a balloon. At end of mission the balloon can be inflated which greatly increases the drag of the satellite causing it to de-orbit relatively soon.

3. As a side note, you don't want to fire "out to the expanse" as that won't de-orbit your satellite. It'll just "twist" the orbit, lowering the perigee and raising the apogee. Primarily it'd just waste fuel. To de-orbit you want to slow down, so you need aim "backwards" along your orbit's path.

4. With a big mass you need an equally large amount of fuel as what determines your ability to de-orbit is the satellite mass, your engine's propulsion efficiency, and the amount of fuel you have.

5. The problem isn't existing satellites. The problem is very old defunct satellites and rocket bodies and existing small debris. Many rockets used to (and still do to some extent) leave large pieces of themselves in orbit.