←back to thread

Yi Peng 3 crossed both cables C-Lion 1 and BSC at times matching when they broke

(bsky.app)
499 points perihelions | 7 comments | 20 Nov 24 06:56 UTC | HN request time: 1.735s | source | bottom
Show context
nabla9 ◴[20 Nov 24 08:15 UTC] No.42191758[source]▶
October 2023 there was similar incident where Chinese cargo ship cut Balticonnector cable and EE-S1 cable. Chip named 'Newnew Polar Bear' under Chinese flag and Chinese company Hainan Xin Xin Yang Shipping Co, Ltd. (aka Torgmoll) with CEO named Yelena V. Maksimova, drags anchor in the seabed cutting cables. Chinese investigation claims storm was the reason, but there was no storm, just normal windy autumn weather. The ship just lowered one anchor and dragged it with engines running long time across the seabed until the anchor broke.

These things happen sometimes, ship anchors sometimes damage cables, but not this often and without serious problems in the ship. Russians are attempting plausible deniability.

replies(8): >>42191786 #>>42191808 #>>42191875 #>>42191880 #>>42192160 #>>42197213 #>>42197559 #>>42201843 #
cabirum ◴[20 Nov 24 09:27 UTC] No.42192160[source]▶
After the Nordstream pipeline attacked and destroyed, its reasonable to expect shortened lifetimes for undersea cables and sattelites.
replies(5): >>42192401 #>>42194448 #>>42197215 #>>42198095 #>>42199025 #
nradov ◴[20 Nov 24 14:58 UTC] No.42194448[source]▶
Yes, this is why having a prompt satellite launch capability to replace attrition losses is now a strategic imperative. We need to be able to put up new ones in a matter of hours, not months.
replies(5): >>42194640 #>>42194810 #>>42196625 #>>42196917 #>>42197964 #
dylan604 ◴[20 Nov 24 15:36 UTC] No.42194810[source]▶
You can have the ability to launch 100 satellites in 10 days, but that doesn't really help if you don't have 100 satellites
replies(1): >>42194919 #
nradov ◴[20 Nov 24 15:44 UTC] No.42194919[source]▶
Well obviously you need to have a supply of replacements in stock. From a military perspective, think of satellites as rounds of ammunition that will be expended during a conflict.
replies(1): >>42196076 #
1. dylan604 ◴[20 Nov 24 17:15 UTC] No.42196076[source]▶
I think it'd be more apropos to compare them to fighter jets/tanks vs bullets
replies(1): >>42197621 #
2. nradov ◴[20 Nov 24 20:08 UTC] No.42197621[source]▶
Not really comparable. A new Starlink satellite costs ~$1M. A new F-35 costs ~$100M, and some of the guided missiles it carries actually cost more than the satellite. The militarized Starshield satellites probably cost more than their Starlink cousins but still I think you get the point that there are orders of magnitude differences in unit cost.
replies(1): >>42198029 #
3. dylan604 ◴[20 Nov 24 20:56 UTC] No.42198029[source]▶
And a bullet costs $0.0001, so it's off just as much in the other direction.

Also, your focus on cost was not the point. The point was numbers necessary. You need $lots of bullets, but you don't need any where near the same number of jets/tanks. You don't need $lots of satellites. You need a much smaller number closer to the number of jets/tanks. At least based on Starlink constellation numbers.

replies(2): >>42198325 #>>42198430 #
4. thfuran ◴[20 Nov 24 21:31 UTC] No.42198325{3}[source]▶
I assume you can get some significant bulk discounts at DoD scale, but it's probably still more like $0.10 than $0.0001, which is admittedly still rather less than $1M
5. nradov ◴[20 Nov 24 21:45 UTC] No.42198430{3}[source]▶
I think you might be getting a little confused by terminology. In military terms a round of ammunition doesn't necessarily describe just a small arms cartridge. It can be any munition that's stored for a long period until needed with minimal maintenance. So even an expensive missile or satellite might be treated as a round of ammunition, depending on the design and concept of operations.
replies(1): >>42198896 #
6. dylan604 ◴[20 Nov 24 22:41 UTC] No.42198896{4}[source]▶
Unless the satellite is meant to collide with another object, it's never going to be considered ammunition. It is a strategic platform for communication or intelligence gathering or maybe both. So calling a satellite ammunition is just belaboring the point for internet points or something.
replies(1): >>42199108 #
7. nradov ◴[20 Nov 24 23:10 UTC] No.42199108{5}[source]▶
No, you're still missing an important point. This isn't just semantics. Some types of satellites will be considered ammunition in the same way that some (expensive) aerial recon drones and decoys are already considered ammunition today. Not all rounds of ammunition are intended to physically strike a target.