/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14515539
Yes. Toss up a bunch of FOD and let chain reactions happen. Yes, the low orbit means the debris will eventually deorbit and burn up. But even if that only takes a couple of years, that's two years that Starlink is without a revenue stream.
Even if we ignore that debris, China (or other countries) can toss up FOD much cheaper than Starlink can put up replacements and of course China has much deeper pockets. Lastly, what most think is Starlink's strength becomes its weakness: it is a constellation.
If there are gaps in the constellation, it ceases being able to provide consistent service. The density of the constellation is meant to increase to the point where gaps are easily filled in by other Starlink satellites nearby. EOL and random failures will happen at a mostly consistent rate, meaning failed birds can deorbit and be replaced. That's very different than having a nation-state intentionally targeting your satellites.
China doesn't need to destroy every single Starlink satellite to put them out of business. They only have to destroy the reliability. Starlink had a policy of absolute neutrality and a willingness to abide by access restrictions any country put on access from their soil. Then at their very first opportunity, they jumped on the Ukraine bandwagon, showing the world that Starlink isn't neutral, it's an extension of United States foreign policy.
They haven't even fully populated their constellation yet and they've already made an enemy of Russia and gave notice to everyone else on the planet that this is just another tool of US imperialism. It was probably the dumbest decision Musk has ever made and will haunt the company pretty much forever. I'm sure he thought it would help him with his woes with the current administration, but it's unlikely to have been worth the cost. Maybe if Starlink spins off into an independent company without Musk at the helm, selling service to those outside of the "international community" can be salvaged.