@mindpersephone I doubt it's viable financially - there's like a gazillion of those satellites up there. I guess it would cost millions to destroy just one.
I understand the feeling that you should be able to destroy a bunch of sats at the same time, but you gotta imagine those sats to be like little cars on the biggest highway ever, and with an added dimension too - imagine having to blow up a bunch of these cars, driving kilometers away from each other, with one frag grenade. that's nigh impossible :)
so I'm afraid the financials just don't really check out
@kkarhan @vxo @mindpersephone hate to be a party pooper but the thing is, space is LARGE. causing kessler syndrome takes A LOT of destroyed satellites, and then still a lot of time (years) for any meaningful number of other sats to collide with the debris.
and finally, the starlink sats fly in low orbit, so debris simply de-orbits and burns up in the atmosphere within years, so even if you'd blow up a 100 starlink sats, the debris wouldn't cause that much of a problem.
@bazkie @kkarhan @mindpersephone that's a relief to think about... at least in the low orbit, we won't lose the ability to access space forever if we gunk that up.
Still not a necessary evil by any means.
@bazkie @vxo @mindpersephone relative...
Already there's a shitton of evasive maneuvers in low earth orbit and millions of objects measung 8.000t weight in total are being tracked.
Anyone else remember #Iridium 33 and #Cosmos2251 crashing into each other at 11,7 km/s at an almost 90° angle?
@mindpersephone @bazkie idk how likely it ks cos star link is in fairly low LEO but yea the risk isnt to the orginal sats but to causing kesler syndrome (where the number of objects hitting stuff causes more stuff that cah hit more stuff...)
Ny personal suspsu9j is that wouod mark a drastic escalation. In the same way there not yet hitting water sites. Its something avable for the *next* escalation or the one after
Persephone
bazkie 👩🏼💻 bitplanes 🎵
vxo
Kevin Karhan 
ember