Survivability of Starlink constellation versus anti-satellite missiles

[Robotbeat]

How survivable is Starlink in case of use of anti-satellite missiles?

[cdebuhr]

That would take a ludicrous barrage of ASATs (thousands).  At that point I'd be more concerned about packing those orbits with so much orbital debris as to initiate a full-on Kessler cascade.  This would potentially hurt the aggressor as much as the aggressed.  The best defence Starlink has is strength in numbers

Just my take- not an expert by any measure.

[rklaehn]

How survivable is Starlink in case of use of anti-satellite missiles?

The Starlink constellation is so big that it can shrug off losing multiple sats. They lost 40 sats due to a solar storm recently, and it did not seem to be a big deal.

So to really damage the constellation as a whole you would have to create so much debris that the entire orbital altitude band becomes unusable. But even then, this altitude band is so low that it would clean up relatively quickly, and SpaceX could relaunch quickly.

It would help if the US government could accelerate Starship launch approval. With Starship, you can basically ensure that everybody everywhere with the possible exception of China has uncensored internet access. Even if somebody triggers the Kessler Syndrome, with Starship you can brute force it. by launching sats below the polluted altitudes, and just accept that they will only last for a year or two...

[Hobbes-22]

ASAT missiles are expensive, and built in small numbers. So it becomes a numbers game: can you produce more missiles than SpaceX can crank out replacement satellites?

[Reynold]

ASAT missiles are expensive, and built in small numbers. So it becomes a numbers game: can you produce more missiles than SpaceX can crank out replacement satellites?

Boy, I would not want to bet on that, SpaceX is pretty fast at making those now.  I would be really surprised if Russia could keep up with ASAT construction.