Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

    (www.cnn.com)
    577 points mooreds | 16 comments | 18 Nov 24 14:31 UTC | HN request time: 0.668s | source | bottom
    1. philip1209 ◴[18 Nov 24 15:31 UTC] No.42173262[source]▶
    It seems that the obvious solution could be Starlink-style meshes.

    Can anybody comment on how fragile the Starlink protocol would be during a war? If its line-of-sight, presumably it would be hard to jam?

    replies(7): >>42173309 #>>42173423 #>>42173540 #>>42175300 #>>42175588 #>>42176250 #>>42180665 #
    2. mempko ◴[18 Nov 24 15:34 UTC] No.42173309[source]▶
    Did Russia make a threat to Elon Musk at some point that it would take down Starlink satellites?
    replies(1): >>42190232 #
    3. andrelaszlo ◴[18 Nov 24 15:42 UTC] No.42173423[source]▶
    The Swedish part of AMPRNet [0] has some ambitions to be a fallback in case of a crisis[1]. It seems cheaper and easier (a bit of an understatement) to deploy and repair, in case it gets attacked.

    0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMPRNet

    1: https://amprnet.se/images/Kriskommunikation-2014-01-27.pdf

    4. aredox ◴[18 Nov 24 15:53 UTC] No.42173540[source]▶
    Send some sharpnel on the same orbital altitude as Starlink and the whole constellation disappears.
    replies(2): >>42173599 #>>42181059 #
    5. bryanlarsen ◴[18 Nov 24 15:57 UTC] No.42173599[source]▶
    True, if by "some" you mean a few thousand rocket launches worth of shrapnel.
    replies(1): >>42173642 #
    6. nixass ◴[18 Nov 24 16:01 UTC] No.42173642{3}[source]▶
    few dozen crashed satellites quickly become shrapnel on their own, spreading in all directions. not at "shrapnel speed" but nevertheless..
    replies(1): >>42174604 #
    7. bryanlarsen ◴[18 Nov 24 17:23 UTC] No.42174604{4}[source]▶
    At Starlink altitude there is still operationally significant volumes of air. So much so that Starlinks need to altitude raise regularly. Starlink shrapnel would drop below Starlink orbit almost immediately, and completely deorbit in a month or so.
    8. jahnu ◴[18 Nov 24 18:23 UTC] No.42175300[source]▶
    Ignoring everything else, C-Lion1 has a bandwidth if 144 Tbit/sec

    How much can a constellation offer say between many points in both countries? Seems unlikely it could get close but I would like to know.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-Lion1

    9. verdverm ◴[18 Nov 24 18:50 UTC] No.42175588[source]▶
    Nuclear detonation(s) in LEO would likely cause significant harm
    10. wood_spirit ◴[18 Nov 24 19:57 UTC] No.42176250[source]▶
    Elon Musk is not someone Europe feels it can rely on in a crisis when Russia attacks
    replies(1): >>42176872 #
    11. Gud ◴[18 Nov 24 20:52 UTC] No.42176872[source]▶
    Elon Musk is probably the private individual who has done most for Ukraine.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrain...

    replies(1): >>42177756 #
    12. ◴[18 Nov 24 22:23 UTC] No.42177756{3}[source]▶
    13. looperhacks ◴[19 Nov 24 06:51 UTC] No.42180665[source]▶
    Russia already demonstrated that they are able to take down satellites [1] and that they can interfere with Starlink [2]>

    1: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/16/world/europe/russia-antis... 2: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/24/technology/ukraine-russia...

    14. TiredOfLife ◴[19 Nov 24 08:16 UTC] No.42181059[source]▶
    It's Starlink. It would take an sms from Putin at most for Musk to turn it off.
    replies(1): >>42202638 #
    15. m4rtink ◴[20 Nov 24 02:13 UTC] No.42190232[source]▶
    Sure, let them try down 1700+ satellites, with new being put up multiple times a week by the dozens. Cant't even cause a proper Kessler Syndrome due to the low orbit.

    Getting more and more Footfall vibes these days with Spacex already having a full orbital dominance. ;-)

    16. inemesitaffia ◴[21 Nov 24 09:51 UTC] No.42202638{3}[source]▶
    Oh really