You could burn the ground stations down, but they’re all around the world, and all it takes is 1 to route the data to via the inter satellite laser links. You’d definitely add latency though taking out ground stations near you.
And I don’t know if the space datacenter is quite as untouchable as he thinks…
It will obviously be in a very low orbit, because that’s the easiest to reach and construct…
Maybe it would be within reach of some fairly advanced amateur rocketry? We don’t have to reach a stable orbit, which makes things much easier. Just shoot it straight up, with much less velocity needed than for orbit. In fact, the speed difference between our rocket and his orbital datacenter will be very useful – that speed difference will lead to a very energetic impact.
Maybe it could be vulnerable to some directed energy weapons? Very strong lasers, highly directional microwave beams, that sort of thing.
There’s always hacking. For extra irony bonus, use Space Grok to vibe code the tools you need to hack its orbital control systems. Then you can de-orbit it or collide it with other objects in orbit.
It would probably be easier to launch shrapnel into their orbit than try to hit one, and let them begin to cascade into each other. The dishes are so low (or at least starlink is), that there’d be no real kessler risk since it’d all fall back down to earth in 5 years or less.
Oh absolutely. Waiting and pouncing on some vulnerability would be the safe bet. Maybe blind their sensors or command and control uplink radios with lasers or microwaves, not damage them directly.
Can we please not destroy objects in orbit? It’s already crowded up there without untrackable debris. Deorbiting is much safer and probably easier, considering the precision needed to hit anthying, especially because those satellites would have station keeping thrusters to evade other satellites.
@Jobe@technology The precision is do-able, at least by high-tech nation states. The closing speed is so great that evasion using low-power station-keeping thrusters is just not fast enough to avoid terminal guidance of the impact vehicle. Plus, the targeted sats may not even be looking. In around 2008, the US demo’ed an anti-sat rocket that took only 119 seconds from surface launch to kinetic impact on a satellite in a 272 mile high orbit. In that instance, we are told at 95% of the debris de-orbited quickly, with the last sizable piece taking around a year to come down. So they say. I agree that creating more space debris is not a good idea.
It will obviously be in a very low orbit, because that’s the easiest to reach and construct…
Well, for a bunch of reasons, these space data centers probably won’t be at very low orbits. First and foremost, very low orbits like the ones starlink uses experience a lot of atmospheric drag. With the huge solar arrays these data centers will need, that high drag environment is a killer. Going just a bit farther out would significantly reduce that drag. Also, latency isn’t a huge concern with space data centers, so very low orbits aren’t required. Lastly, since those low orbits are so highly valuable and contested, it just doesn’t make sense to put something there that doesn’t need to be there.
TLDR: Space data center orbits are likely to be somewhere between 500 - 1000 km altitudes.
And yes, that’s in untouchable range for anything but advanced militaries.
What it’s not untouchable to is legislation. That’s the practical way to fight it.
I really hope they don’t go into the 700-1000km range with something of this scale if it actually happens as thats where a real risk of debris staying in orbit for hundreds or thousands of years starts to happen if something catastrophic happens to the constellation.
China blew up a satellite in a test in the 800km area and it’ll be there for hundreds of years.
Yeah, that’s a valid point. And yeah, that’s totally where they’re gonna put them. They’re gonna be huge, delicate targets…
I’m generally pro space, I think all the massive advances in space flight in these last couple of decades has been truly amazing. That said, I wish I had a more positive way to spin this, but yeah, that’s a serious concern. That’s bad.
It won’t happen, but if globally we could agree to put a moratorium on large constellations in those orbits until we have more experience with constellations in the really low orbits, that would at least help and give us more time to learn. Without everyone agreeing though, someone else will just be like, MINE and fill it anyway.
Edit: like lets see what happens as starlink becomes even bigger and moves into 10s of thousands, and kupier appears etc before moving up higher.
Very low orbits are less of a concern, though. Because if the worst happens, they and the vast majority of their debris will be slowed by atmospheric drag and fall relatively quickly.
The following is a reference and spoiler for Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
spoiler
What we need to do is hijack a submersible fortress, steal the prototype railgun designed for stealth-launching nuclear warheads, and mount the rail gun on the fortress so you can guard it with your battle-harem of cyborg soldier women. Bonus points for getting your arm chopped off by a ninja, replacing it with a transplant, getting possessed by the donor’s ghost because you were unknowingly the child of a medium, but then getting the transplant arm replaced by a prosthetic and hypnotizing yourself into thinking you’re still possessed because reasons… Oh yeah, point the railgun at the orbital data center while all this is going on to ragebait the clone sibling of the arm donor I guess!
Indeed. I had to remind people that this was the actual third/fourth act of a flagship title and I was among the many people who took it very seriously because it “changed gaming forever, it was art!”
I mean, I still love Metal Gear Solid, but we have to be able to see it with some objectivity
A variant of the first bullet is another option: put something in orbit going in the opposite direction, then release a few dozen ball bearings in the path of Elon’s data center. Closing speed is something on the order of 100 km/hr. That should do just fine.
Trying to put something in reverse orbit is even more difficult and requires a much more powerful rocket. Normal orbits follow the same direction as the earth’s rotation, because that allows you to take advantage of the earth’s already-existing rotational speed to give you a head start on achieving enough speed to reach orbit.
Putting something into reverse orbit (while possible) is significantly more difficult, because now the earth’s rotation is working against you. It has been done a few times, but it’s significantly more expensive and difficult to achieve, which is going to be a problem for amateurs trying to shoot down a space station.
Anyway, the difference between orbital velocity and a (relatively stationary) rocket that has been fired straight upward will be plenty of speed difference to cause lots of damage on impact.
Data center in space: untouchable
Strictly necessary ground radio station to get any usable amount of data to and from said data center: still flammable
You wouldn’t say untouchable if you’d seen me with a slingshot.
You could burn the ground stations down, but they’re all around the world, and all it takes is 1 to route the data to via the inter satellite laser links. You’d definitely add latency though taking out ground stations near you.
And I don’t know if the space datacenter is quite as untouchable as he thinks…
It will obviously be in a very low orbit, because that’s the easiest to reach and construct…
Maybe it would be within reach of some fairly advanced amateur rocketry? We don’t have to reach a stable orbit, which makes things much easier. Just shoot it straight up, with much less velocity needed than for orbit. In fact, the speed difference between our rocket and his orbital datacenter will be very useful – that speed difference will lead to a very energetic impact.
Maybe it could be vulnerable to some directed energy weapons? Very strong lasers, highly directional microwave beams, that sort of thing.
There’s always hacking. For extra irony bonus, use Space Grok to vibe code the tools you need to hack its orbital control systems. Then you can de-orbit it or collide it with other objects in orbit.
It would probably be easier to launch shrapnel into their orbit than try to hit one, and let them begin to cascade into each other. The dishes are so low (or at least starlink is), that there’d be no real kessler risk since it’d all fall back down to earth in 5 years or less.
The latter two would be way easier.
You’d think… But a laser or microwave emitter that big would also be quite an undertaking.
Honestly, hacking seems the most likely option to succeed on a small scale.
Oh absolutely. Waiting and pouncing on some vulnerability would be the safe bet. Maybe blind their sensors or command and control uplink radios with lasers or microwaves, not damage them directly.
We have had missles that you can lob from a high altitude aircraft, and hit a satellite, since the 80s.
Can we please not destroy objects in orbit? It’s already crowded up there without untrackable debris. Deorbiting is much safer and probably easier, considering the precision needed to hit anthying, especially because those satellites would have station keeping thrusters to evade other satellites.
Great way to enforce a moratorium on new large-scale projects in LEO for a few years.
@Jobe @technology The precision is do-able, at least by high-tech nation states. The closing speed is so great that evasion using low-power station-keeping thrusters is just not fast enough to avoid terminal guidance of the impact vehicle. Plus, the targeted sats may not even be looking. In around 2008, the US demo’ed an anti-sat rocket that took only 119 seconds from surface launch to kinetic impact on a satellite in a 272 mile high orbit. In that instance, we are told at 95% of the debris de-orbited quickly, with the last sizable piece taking around a year to come down. So they say. I agree that creating more space debris is not a good idea.
How to make space worse and everyone hate you - 101
Well, maybe don’t fuck over most of the population so much that they see no progress as preferable to progress that only benefits the oppressors.
Well, for a bunch of reasons, these space data centers probably won’t be at very low orbits. First and foremost, very low orbits like the ones starlink uses experience a lot of atmospheric drag. With the huge solar arrays these data centers will need, that high drag environment is a killer. Going just a bit farther out would significantly reduce that drag. Also, latency isn’t a huge concern with space data centers, so very low orbits aren’t required. Lastly, since those low orbits are so highly valuable and contested, it just doesn’t make sense to put something there that doesn’t need to be there.
TLDR: Space data center orbits are likely to be somewhere between 500 - 1000 km altitudes.
And yes, that’s in untouchable range for anything but advanced militaries.
What it’s not untouchable to is legislation. That’s the practical way to fight it.
I really hope they don’t go into the 700-1000km range with something of this scale if it actually happens as thats where a real risk of debris staying in orbit for hundreds or thousands of years starts to happen if something catastrophic happens to the constellation.
China blew up a satellite in a test in the 800km area and it’ll be there for hundreds of years.
Yeah, that’s a valid point. And yeah, that’s totally where they’re gonna put them. They’re gonna be huge, delicate targets…
I’m generally pro space, I think all the massive advances in space flight in these last couple of decades has been truly amazing. That said, I wish I had a more positive way to spin this, but yeah, that’s a serious concern. That’s bad.
It won’t happen, but if globally we could agree to put a moratorium on large constellations in those orbits until we have more experience with constellations in the really low orbits, that would at least help and give us more time to learn. Without everyone agreeing though, someone else will just be like, MINE and fill it anyway.
Edit: like lets see what happens as starlink becomes even bigger and moves into 10s of thousands, and kupier appears etc before moving up higher.
Very low orbits are less of a concern, though. Because if the worst happens, they and the vast majority of their debris will be slowed by atmospheric drag and fall relatively quickly.
Thats why I said we should do it in the very low orbits for awhile before going to the 700-1000km range.
800km is already in the hundreds of years range.
The following is a reference and spoiler for Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
spoiler
What we need to do is hijack a submersible fortress, steal the prototype railgun designed for stealth-launching nuclear warheads, and mount the rail gun on the fortress so you can guard it with your battle-harem of cyborg soldier women. Bonus points for getting your arm chopped off by a ninja, replacing it with a transplant, getting possessed by the donor’s ghost because you were unknowingly the child of a medium, but then getting the transplant arm replaced by a prosthetic and hypnotizing yourself into thinking you’re still possessed because reasons… Oh yeah, point the railgun at the orbital data center while all this is going on to ragebait the clone sibling of the arm donor I guess!
Easy!
Man, those games got wild… I mean, they started pretty wild. But yeah.
Indeed. I had to remind people that this was the actual third/fourth act of a flagship title and I was among the many people who took it very seriously because it “changed gaming forever, it was art!”
I mean, I still love Metal Gear Solid, but we have to be able to see it with some objectivity
It’ll be very touchable while being built.
A variant of the first bullet is another option: put something in orbit going in the opposite direction, then release a few dozen ball bearings in the path of Elon’s data center. Closing speed is something on the order of 100 km/hr. That should do just fine.
“Kessler” bullets, amirite?
Trying to put something in reverse orbit is even more difficult and requires a much more powerful rocket. Normal orbits follow the same direction as the earth’s rotation, because that allows you to take advantage of the earth’s already-existing rotational speed to give you a head start on achieving enough speed to reach orbit.
Putting something into reverse orbit (while possible) is significantly more difficult, because now the earth’s rotation is working against you. It has been done a few times, but it’s significantly more expensive and difficult to achieve, which is going to be a problem for amateurs trying to shoot down a space station.
Anyway, the difference between orbital velocity and a (relatively stationary) rocket that has been fired straight upward will be plenty of speed difference to cause lots of damage on impact.
I like yours better than my suggestion because it has a sort of “Home Alone in Space” vibe to it!
deleted by creator