←back to thread

499 points perihelions | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
nabla9 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
dylan604 ◴[] No.42196076[source]
I think it'd be more apropos to compare them to fighter jets/tanks vs bullets
replies(1): >>42197621 #
nradov ◴[] 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 #
dylan604 ◴[] 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 #
1. thfuran ◴[] 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