Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Militaries are scrambling to create their own Starlink

newscientist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 171 posts

Re: Militaries are scrambling to create their own Starlink

#111

Post by mylies43 »

rationalist wrote: post #100
bryanlarsen wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink is redeploying to 300 miles. Many consider Kessler to be impossible at 300 miles. Any unpowered satellite at a 300 mile orbit will deorbit within a couple of months. But a collision means fragments which deorbit faster because they have a higher surface/weight ratio, and because orbit disturbances lower that time considerably. Any single disturbance that raises aphelion lowers perihelion.

Would collisions cause debris to be ejected into a higher orbit? Although I guess as long as the debris does not pick up any significant speed boost, its orbit would be elliptical and would just collide with Earth (burn up on re-entry)?

Wouldn't a explosion give it that energy?

Re: Militaries are scrambling to create their own Starlink

#112

Post by cameldrv »

I think also underappreciated is that Starlink can be used for purposes other than communication. It's already physically capable of acting as a giant radar, and SpaceX has gotten a missile tracking contract, and the E-7 wedgetail radar plane has been cancelled, which the DoD had publicly said was because it is obsolete given what's possible from space. It could be that they're planning on launching another radar constellation, but my guess is that it's already up there and it's called Starlink.

Re: Militaries are scrambling to create their own Starlink

#113

Post by ExpertAdvisor01 »

polalavik wrote: post #99
bryanlarsen wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China did 92 launches in 2025. If they only need to put up 500, and if they can put up 22 per launch like SpaceX can, they have the capability now, let alone 5 years from now.

i don't get why more folks aren't just going for the much cheaper option like this https://www.solaris-suborbital.space/

Because they will be destroyed immediately

Re: Militaries are scrambling to create their own Starlink

#114

Post by kazen44 »

adrian_b wrote: post #86
ciupicri wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many in these circles thought the USSR would take 20 years to develop the bomb if they ever did. It took 4 years. Because some people committed treason and gave the technology to the Soviets.

Because of the traitors, the Soviet Union has gained a few years, but the end result would have been the same. At that time, there were a few good Russian nuclear physicists, and they have also captured many German physicists and engineers. Actually I think that the effect of the information provided by the traitors was much less in reducing the time until the Soviet Union got the bomb than in reducing their expenses…

also, the knowledge about how a nuclear bomb works wasn't a secret. The way to produce one was the hard part to figure out. Without the espionage, a industrialised country like the USSR would have figured out how to produce an atomic bomb eventually.

Re: Militaries are scrambling to create their own Starlink

#115

Post by ExpertAdvisor01 »

thisislife2 wrote: post #104
tekla wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those countries (well probably except China) have any significant launch capacity to deploy constellations

India is already one of the cheapest service providers for such launches - ISRO puts 36 OneWeb satellites in orbit - https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/isro-successfully-... (They are ofcourse working to create a reusable launch vehicle too).

Not true. The reason why they launched with India is because Russia got sanctioned.

Re: Militaries are scrambling to create their own Starlink

#116

Post by bob1029 »

cameldrv wrote: post #112

I think also underappreciated is that Starlink can be used for purposes other than communication. It's already physically capable of acting as a giant radar, and SpaceX has gotten a missile tracking contract, and the E-7 wedgetail radar plane has been cancelled, which the DoD had publicly said was because it is obsolete given what's possible from space. It could be that they're planning on launching another radar con…

Starlink has become quite massive since v1.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10283270

Re: Militaries are scrambling to create their own Starlink

#117

Post by jmyeet »

pantsforbirds wrote: post #91
jmyeet wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't simultaneously argue that NATO is a "protection racket" for the US to sell weapons and control European foreign policy, and also argue that the EU would be in trouble without the current levels of US participation. Sure I can. I can both deny you the means to defend yourself, forcing you to rely on me for protection. That's the definition of a protection racket. > The US has spent 3-4% of GDP on defense f…

Ignoring the ... less substantive portions of your response > I can both deny you the means to defend yourself, forcing you to rely on me for protection. That's the definition of a protection racket. The US didn't deny Europe the means to defend itself. Europe chose not to build those means because it was cheaper to rely on the US. These were domestic political choices made by governments whose voters preferred socia…

> You expect America to adopt a one-way obligation where it provides for the defense of its allies, and receives no help in return? Why wouldn't that deal fall apart?

If I drop you into a war zone and don't give you a gun, don't you have to kinda do what I say?

> You can disagree with the decision to strike Iran.

There's only one country on Earth that supports attacking Iran and that's Israel [1]. Americans don't support this war [2].

> But when Iran retaliates by launching missiles and drones into 12 different countries (11 of which had not participated in the initial strikes against Iran in any way), the question of whether allies will support defensive operations is separate from whether they endorsed the initial strikes.

What targets did Iran strike in those 11 countries? Was it US military bases? Radar installations? There were also hotels housing US military personnel who had abandoned US bases because the US either chose not to defend them or was unable to.

Everybody, except you it seems, understands America is doing this for Israel and the Gulf states are caught up in this because they house American military bases and provide indirect or direct support an unprovoked war. These arne't innocent bystanders.

[1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/13/success-uncertain-b...

[2]: https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54284-americans-think-war-...

Re: Militaries are scrambling to create their own Starlink

#118

Post by mikkupikku »

noosphr wrote: post #107
cyberax wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China also had made industry espionage their way to go in these things. They're even espionaging from themselves in the future! Dude, have you ever _been_ in China? They don't need espionage, they're now way ahead of the world in technology, except in a few areas like biotech research and semiconductor manufacturing. For the last decade, China has been having more engineers in _training_ than the total number of en…

I strongly suggest to anyone who thinks this isn't true to go to Shenzhen and then SF. One feels like the future. The other feels like you will get shot.

Nonexistent relevance to rockets.

Re: Militaries are scrambling to create their own Starlink

#119

Post by nine_k »

ExpertAdvisor01 wrote: post #113
polalavik wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i don't get why more folks aren't just going for the much cheaper option like this https://www.solaris-suborbital.space/

Because they will be destroyed immediately

To shoot something down at 70,000 ft (21 km) all you need is a conventional military jet fighter, and a long-range rocket, or even a MiG-31 with a conventional cannon. At best you can make these birds cheaper than the rocket + flight time.

Something that flies at the upper edge of the stratosphere, at 40-50 km (160,000 ft) would be hard to reach with currently available means. You can of course fire a THAAD at it, but you can fire a THAAD at a Starlink satellite as well.

Post reply on HN