this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2025
702 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

74247 readers
4206 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

To put into scale how wrong you are about taking out a satellite, the last satellite the US shot down was in 2008, and it took a specially modified 9 million dollar missile to shoot it down. A Starlink satellite with launch costs included is just under 2 million dollars. Not only is it technologically difficult to take out a satellite, but it's much more costly to shoot them down than it is to put them up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Burnt_Frost

It's not a trivial thing to take out a single satellite, let alone a whole constellation of satellites.

You literally could not be more wrong about this.

...Russia bombed their power plants, all the cabling, and it was a literal war zone.

Here you are acknowledge that ground-based systems are very vulnerable to attack. Guess what still works in Ukraine right now (or at least when Elon allows it to work). You got it. Starlink.

How about another comparison. Starlink has a full project estimated cost of ~10 billion dollars, that's with launches and satellites. The estimated cost to rebuild Ukraine's telecom network is 4.7 billion dollars, and that is just for the damaged infrastructure in Ukraine. Starlink has already generated 72 million in profit (not revenue, but profit!)

We gave telecom providers 200 billion in tax breaks to build a fiber network in the US, and they didn't even finish the job. 20x what Starlink's estimated cost is.

Serioualy, the scale of how wrong you are about all of this is staggering.

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 0 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Here you are acknowledge that ground-based systems are very vulnerable to attack.

Which includes the ground stations that Starlink uses.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Still works over Ukraine somehow... Maybe that fancy satellite network just carries it to the next available ground station?

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 1 points 44 minutes ago (1 children)

It works, only if Elon wants it to work. Did you forget he shut it off during the war, several times?

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 1 points 24 minutes ago (1 children)

Sure, that's a fault of Elon though, not a fault of satellite networks.

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 1 points 7 minutes ago

We are talking about Starlink here, correct? Owned by Elon?

That said, all satellite networks are subject to dying if their ground-stations are taken offline, so if "all the fiber for a country goes down", so does Starlink.