• Dragging up again@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    ‘somebody at a security conference said one method of dealing with a target is destroying it’

    wow incredible story. Surely this is being upvoted because it’s a quality article about current events that are globally relevant and not because the musk obsessives are jerking off to the fantasy the headline presented.

    There is an enough_musk_spam community where this stuff should be posted.

    Here’s the actual reporting that this clickbait was extracted from https://archive.ph/20260709102553/https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-new-axis-of-evil-der-spiegel-investigation-reveals-deep-military-cooperation-between-russia-and-china-a-12dc295a-413d-4a2f-b44f-2922092270e3#selection-1635.25-1635.374 fair warning it just boils down to ‘Russia and China have some military cooperation because they see the US as a shared adversary’

    • RamRabbit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      22 hours ago

      Honestly, they are so cheap compared to anything that could kill them. The best passive defense strategy is to just launch more.

      Obviously there are lots of active defense measures that would be on the table. But that would likely be the chosen passive defense strategy.

      • 0x0@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Hopefully elol gets the point that he cant take up unlimited place in space for his 5g radars, sharing is caring

        • deltapi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          16 hours ago

          I suggest reading the Kessler syndrome article on Wikipedia. The short of it is that not all that debris is expected to come down.

          • dubyakay@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 hours ago

            The Kessler syndrome was a proposed scenario, not a scientific study. A hypothetical.

            This article is about countering Starlink. Starlink satellites are in such low orbit, they de-orbit by themselves and fall back and burn up in the atmosphere very quickly if they don’t correct their orbit regularly.

            • deltapi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 hours ago

              And the (heavily editorialized) news headline was to do it explosively. Not sure where you and I are disconnecting here.

  • stoy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Yay!

    Kessler Syndrome! Kessler Syndrome! Kessler Syndrome!

    /s

    • SparroHawc@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Low Earth orbit means that the debris will get dragged down by the atmosphere before it becomes a cascading problem. Thankfully.

      • nosuchanon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 days ago

        So we can directly pollute the upper atmosphere with heavy metals? I’m sure that’s a good thing. /s

        • SparroHawc@piefed.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Happens all the time with meteors. There’s a lot of atmoshpere and only so many Starlink satellites; far too few satellites to meaningfully affect anything.

        • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Orbits are elipses, which are loops. So after the explosion gives an object more energy it’s in a new orbit right? That orbit has LOOP. Which means it has to come back to a similar point it’s at now. Therefore if an object passes through low orbit, no one explosion can make it be in a high orbit. At best it’ll be an ellipse with a point in high orbit and a point in low orbit.

          Any amount in low orbit means a decaying orbit due to drag with eventual falling out of the sky.

          If you get to the high orbit point and you get a SECOND explosion that’s perfectly timed you could theoretically enter a new high orbit that’s stable over the long term and contribute to Kessler syndrome.

          • testaccount372920@piefed.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            2 days ago

            Blowing up a low orbit satellites can lead to many particles reaching high altitudes, if only temporary as you say, where they can cause cascades. Unstable orbits make the probability of collisions smaller, but they need to shatter only one satellite to end up with a mess in stable orbits.

            • kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              Space is pretty big. I understand the odds are non zero but it’s still really small in this scenario.

              • nullify3112@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                16 hours ago

                There’s a whole concept about this, a Kessler countdown of some sort. Some scientists are trying to figure out in the hypothetical situation where all satellites in orbit lost attitude control and evasive maneuver capabilities, how long would it take to initiate the Kessler syndrome. Apparently we went from months to days within the last decade.

                An astrophysicist I follow on Matodon is super vocal about it. I’ll have to find her posts.

              • testaccount372920@piefed.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 day ago

                I think it will depend on how they would disable the satellites. There’s a lot of Starlink satellites, it’s a lot of particles if they use explosives…

          • Talcosis@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            If bits of satellite get propelled in the original direction of travel, they will stabilize into a higher orbit.

            Much like how you can do the rocket equivalent of hitting the gas and end up in higher orbit.

            • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              Not without a second impulse at the minimum. There are no stabilising forces like friction or drag in space.

              • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                They’ll slow down whenever they hit their original altitude (or lower), no? Is it impossible for this to result in a stable higher orbit?

                • CADmonkey@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  There is a low altitude and a high altitude point in an orbit. (Apogee for the high point, perigee for the low point) If you slow down at perigee, the altitude of the apogee decreases. If perigee is in atmosphere, then every time you go through that point, you slow down and the apogee decreases again. Sooner or later too much of the orbit is below atmosphere, and whatever it is that was in orbit burns up or falls down.

                  I think.

      • UFO64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        2 days ago

        GPS is comically higher than starlink.

        I’d be much more worried about a direct attack.

        • Ontimp@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yea but you still have to get the GPS satellites up there safely. I see though that it might actually not be that big of an issue of GPS.

        • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yes, but a screen of tiny reflective particles spread through orbit between the Earth and the GPS satellites might cause communication problems.

  • Phantaloons@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Yay! but the Ukraine war effort Boo! but less space junk! Yay! but all those just… normal Starlink customers who need internet Boo! but fuck Musk! Yay!

    I’m gonna need a drink.

  • plyth@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    That is inevitable. The sky will be filled with the trash of struck down satellites and nothing can leave earth for a while. Before starlink, China had already demonstrated that they can shoot down satellites. No investigation needed.

    • diaphragmwp@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      filled with the trash of struck down satellites

      It’s already full of trash of operating satellites. Starlink is very very low orbit. When pieces go in random directions (assuming significant enough vertically), they either go back to the atmosphere (air will stop it, duh) or slightly higher up to be in an orbit that’s original height on one side and slightly higher on another.

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Even the worst Kessler syndrome scenarios don’t stop new satellites from being launched through the debris-containing altitudes to reach clear orbits.

  • Mulligrubs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    We already have the technology if memory serves. Since civilians are the last to know, there have probably been satellite killers in orbit for years.

    It’s fun for Musk to get fucked, but I believe Ukraine uses Starlink to defend itself

    • it_wasnt_arson@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s not even secret, there have been highly publicized tests of ground- and air-launched interceptor missiles, and a fair few tests observed by amateur astronomers where military satellites rendezvoused and closed to observation/weapons range with dummy targets. It’s very hard to hide anything that happens in orbit.

    • diaphragmwp@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I recall hearing about a contract with some EU based company too, though. For both one way and two way satellite IP. No idea if that’s still in effect. Also no idea if Starlink is still in effect. Well, apart from the star-to-cell bullshit Kyivstar is trying to do with the AI generated landing page. Or were trying earlier this year.

      Also, I recall someone complaining that if you order Starlink for one location and then put the unit in another, it will go “roaming mode” and limit speed. Doesn’t hurt too much but that sucks! I would imagine that if you are stationary enough you may as well take time to set up line of sight directional antenna shit on land to some other object.

  • Tiral@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    21 hours ago

    I’m surprised China just doesn’t say they created a better Starlink. The CCP lies/makes up about everything else so what’s one more thing.

  • Dpek@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    According to the authors of the concept, if the resilience of a satellite constellation is ensured by its sheer number, then the response should be a weapon cheap enough to destroy satellites faster than SpaceX can launch new ones.

    Smells of the good old forgeting that the target wont just sit by

    At least they arent putting everything in one basket this time with physical destruction being the last option

    Whats a satellite constallation destroyer but a anti ICBM weapon under a diffrent name?

  • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    they already have anti-satellite missiles, they just need to build alot of them. or have jamming satellites of thier own,.

  • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    This feels like one AI civ making a pact with a lesser AI civ that is already bogged down in war and clearly won’t win the military victory it’s going for, so that once it has run the course of its use will be invaded and incorporated with the bigger civ.

    They’re also already been sending settlers to the African continent, if it was me I’d be restarting the game because any turn now they will conquer Asia, Europe, and Africa, and achieve either a cultural or military victory by doomstack.