• matcha_addict@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    8 months ago

    I’m pretty sure that starlink satellites are orders of magnitudes more expensive to manufacture and deploy than the weapons that can target them.

    • JohnDClay
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      8 months ago

      Really? You can put up 50 starlinks at a time for tens of millions of dollars, whereas asats need a more expensive an maneuverable kill vehicle and a launch for each one with lots more complicated targeting and maneuvering. It’s pretty hard to track and follow something down moving so fast through space and hit it. Plus Russia just doesn’t have the launch capacity to put up that much mass to orbit.

      • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        Not to mention that SpaceX has designed things so that they can piggyback starlink deployments on the back of other commercial launches. So, for example, AT&T pays them $25 million to launch a new telecom satellite, and they toss in another dozen or so starlink satellites along with it.

        AT&T pays for the majority of the launch costs and starlink benefits from it.

    • Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      8 months ago

      How do you know that? You’re launching an entire rocket to kill one satellite, that can’t be cheap.

    • UrPartnerInCrime
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Maybe, but one of the best traits about Musk is he’s willing to throw money at this regardless of profit. So he’s gunna keep throwing up more of these satellites, while Russia’s rocket supply is only going to get harder to resupply for the foreseeable future.