[toast0]

My guess is Starlink isn't going to turn off subscribers for small countries, but large countries like Russia and China may have more influence.

The real question is if there's going to be enough receivers to make a difference.

[est31]

Any country which has the capability of shooting down satellites has more influence than countries which can't do it. But even a country with like 100 million residents, if it doesn't have a space program (or someone protecting it with a space program), it doesn't have much of a say.

[tomatotomato37]

Anti-satellite weaponry doesn't really apply here for the same reason land based artillery doesn't apply for trying to block pirate radio coming from a neighboring country

[est31]

You can also use a different analogy of an airplane that's in a foreign country's airspace without permission, not following any instructions by ATC.

[SahAssar]

The international law is very different for space and airspace.

[bleepblorp]

Shooting down an American-owned satellite would be an act of war against the United States. Not many countries have enough control over the US domestic political process to keep the potential risks of that low enough to justify the benefits.

[enkid]

Countries that have that capability can't shoot down 40000 of them.

[sergeykish]

A few hits would provide enough junk for runaway process

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

[marvin]

I don't think a country with space capability is seriously considering making orbit useless over censorship. That'd be like shooting yourself in the foot right after you've trained for a marathon, in order to ingratiate yourself with firearms manufacturers.

[sergeykish]

And private company would not consider such risk either. Like with nuclear weapon ability to shoot is enough. Funny how it works with

s/country/private company/

s/space/nuclear/, s/orbit/land/

[throw1234651234]

If this becomes a thing, they will put a laser on a satellite and call it a day. All of the big 3 (military, not economically, you know who I am talking about) can do this easily.

edit: In response to below - they are putting SHORAD lasers on Strykers soon. Things have become a lot more compact.

[est31]

High powered lasers on an aircraft carrier work because it has a nuclear power plant onboard. How will you launch a nuclear power plant into space?

Note that the response to star wars contributed to the Soviet Union's bankruptcy :).

[Enginerrrd]

Depends on duty cycle. It may only need enough power for a couple of big bursts. Chemical lasers might work quite well here if you can address temperature fluctuation issues. The power output can be sufficiently massive with a relatively compact storage of that power. The downside is just that they can't be easily recharged.

[ClumsyPilot]

Soviet union had nuclear powered radar sattelites for reconnaissance, with a real reactor onboard, not RTG. it's definately doable.

But the whole point of a laser is that you don't need to put it in space, it could be a large facility on the ground.

Main considerations are political impact, not technical feasability.

As for Soviet bancrupcy, impact of Chernobyl was definately much larger than space program shenanigans.

[grecy]

Even countries that have the ability to shoot down satellites probably aren't going to shoot down hundreds or thousands of starlink sats, which is what it would take to end coverage.

[est31]

Good point, and indeed they can't, but they can cause a mess by shooting down a few. The other satellites will have to evade the debris which will cause headaches to the operator company.

[baybal2]

> My guess is Starlink isn't going to turn off subscribers for small countries, but large countries like Russia and China may have more influence.

That Musk guy lives in America? What about some extra persuasion?