this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2026
254 points (95.7% liked)

World News

57185 readers
2196 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 89 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Yay!

Kessler Syndrome! Kessler Syndrome! Kessler Syndrome!

/s

[–] SparroHawc@piefed.world 49 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Low Earth orbit means that the debris will get dragged down by the atmosphere before it becomes a cascading problem. Thankfully.

[–] treadful@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Assuming none of the debris gets pushed into higher orbits.

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 24 points 1 week ago (11 children)

Orbits are elipses, which are loops. So after the explosion gives an object more energy it's in a new orbit right? That orbit has LOOP. Which means it has to come back to a similar point it's at now. Therefore if an object passes through low orbit, no one explosion can make it be in a high orbit. At best it'll be an ellipse with a point in high orbit and a point in low orbit.

Any amount in low orbit means a decaying orbit due to drag with eventual falling out of the sky.

If you get to the high orbit point and you get a SECOND explosion that's perfectly timed you could theoretically enter a new high orbit that's stable over the long term and contribute to Kessler syndrome.

[–] testaccount372920@piefed.zip 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Blowing up a low orbit satellites can lead to many particles reaching high altitudes, if only temporary as you say, where they can cause cascades. Unstable orbits make the probability of collisions smaller, but they need to shatter only one satellite to end up with a mess in stable orbits.

[–] kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Space is pretty big. I understand the odds are non zero but it's still really small in this scenario.

[–] testaccount372920@piefed.zip 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think it will depend on how they would disable the satellites. There's a lot of Starlink satellites, it's a lot of particles if they use explosives...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nullify3112@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There’s a whole concept about this, a Kessler countdown of some sort. Some scientists are trying to figure out in the hypothetical situation where all satellites in orbit lost attitude control and evasive maneuver capabilities, how long would it take to initiate the Kessler syndrome. Apparently we went from months to days within the last decade.

An astrophysicist I follow on Matodon is super vocal about it. I’ll have to find her posts.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nosuchanon@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So we can directly pollute the upper atmosphere with heavy metals? I’m sure that’s a good thing. /s

[–] SparroHawc@piefed.world 3 points 1 week ago

Happens all the time with meteors. There's a lot of atmoshpere and only so many Starlink satellites; far too few satellites to meaningfully affect anything.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 12 points 1 week ago

On the plus side, global cooling achieved through a shield of reflective debris!

[–] Ontimp@feddit.org 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Who needs GPS and climate data anyway, right?

[–] UFO64@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago (2 children)

GPS is comically higher than starlink.

I’d be much more worried about a direct attack.

[–] Ontimp@feddit.org 3 points 1 week ago

Yea but you still have to get the GPS satellites up there safely. I see though that it might actually not be that big of an issue of GPS.

load more comments (1 replies)

That's not what these satellites are used for.

[–] Phantaloons@piefed.zip 30 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Yay! but the Ukraine war effort Boo! but less space junk! Yay! but all those just... normal Starlink customers who need internet Boo! but fuck Musk! Yay!

I'm gonna need a drink.

[–] EvilBit@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (2 children)

How about a frozen yogurt? I call it frogurt.

[–] tektite@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] EvilBit@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The frogurt is also capitalist.

[–] tektite@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] EvilBit@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

But you get your choice of topping.

[–] tektite@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] EvilBit@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The toppings contain regulatory capture.

Edit: That’s bad.

[–] anarchy79@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Why not frozurt? It sounds less cursed!

[–] HerbGrower@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Blowing up satellites turns it from 1 bit of space junk into thousands...

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] signalsayge@infosec.pub 4 points 1 week ago

I think by pure count, the amount of space junk would go up. The pieces would just be a lot smaller.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] plyth@feddit.org 24 points 1 week ago (2 children)

That is inevitable. The sky will be filled with the trash of struck down satellites and nothing can leave earth for a while. Before starlink, China had already demonstrated that they can shoot down satellites. No investigation needed.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 9 points 1 week ago

Even the worst Kessler syndrome scenarios don't stop new satellites from being launched through the debris-containing altitudes to reach clear orbits.

[–] diaphragmwp@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

filled with the trash of struck down satellites

It's already full of trash of operating satellites. Starlink is very very low orbit. When pieces go in random directions (assuming significant enough vertically), they either go back to the atmosphere (air will stop it, duh) or slightly higher up to be in an orbit that's original height on one side and slightly higher on another.

[–] dragginupagain@lemmy.today 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

'somebody at a security conference said one method of dealing with a target is destroying it'

wow incredible story. Surely this is being upvoted because it's a quality article about current events that are globally relevant and not because the musk obsessives are jerking off to the fantasy the headline presented.

There is an enough_musk_spam community where this stuff should be posted.

Here's the actual reporting that this clickbait was extracted from https://archive.ph/20260709102553/https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-new-axis-of-evil-der-spiegel-investigation-reveals-deep-military-cooperation-between-russia-and-china-a-12dc295a-413d-4a2f-b44f-2922092270e3#selection-1635.25-1635.374 fair warning it just boils down to 'Russia and China have some military cooperation because they see the US as a shared adversary'

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

We already have the technology if memory serves. Since civilians are the last to know, there have probably been satellite killers in orbit for years.

It's fun for Musk to get fucked, but I believe Ukraine uses Starlink to defend itself

[–] it_wasnt_arson@awful.systems 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's not even secret, there have been highly publicized tests of ground- and air-launched interceptor missiles, and a fair few tests observed by amateur astronomers where military satellites rendezvoused and closed to observation/weapons range with dummy targets. It's very hard to hide anything that happens in orbit.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CobraChicken3000@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] FilthyHands@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago

Sorry, space is closed.

[–] Dpek@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 week ago

According to the authors of the concept, if the resilience of a satellite constellation is ensured by its sheer number, then the response should be a weapon cheap enough to destroy satellites faster than SpaceX can launch new ones.

Smells of the good old forgeting that the target wont just sit by

At least they arent putting everything in one basket this time with physical destruction being the last option

Whats a satellite constallation destroyer but a anti ICBM weapon under a diffrent name?

[–] TheCriticalMember@aussie.zone 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I wonder how much taxpayer money will be spent trying to protect musk's satellites.

[–] RamRabbit@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Honestly, they are so cheap compared to anything that could kill them. The best passive defense strategy is to just launch more.

Obviously there are lots of active defense measures that would be on the table. But that would likely be the chosen passive defense strategy.

[–] 0x0@infosec.pub 2 points 1 week ago

Hopefully elol gets the point that he cant take up unlimited place in space for his 5g radars, sharing is caring

[–] anarchy79@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ooh I'm actually all for this! Destroy ALL the satellites!

[–] Tiral@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (7 children)

The problem is they won't clean anything up.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] kokesh@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

That's great. No space for anyone.

[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

I could get on board with that.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 4 points 1 week ago

they already have anti-satellite missiles, they just need to build alot of them. or have jamming satellites of thier own,.

[–] minorkeys@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And so the star wars begins.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›