If only there was some simple, deterministic (vs. "get really lucky"), and truthful answer to that question...
Though it might be useful to define your "rich". Are you just hoping for reliable food, clothing, housing, and medical care? Or yearning for a yacht bigger than Larry Ellison's? No matter what you do, the odds against the latter are astronomically long.
Or - one might interpret her comment as a very normal, human way to vocalize her displeasure with the really crappy hand she's been dealt in life. She's not a Law Lord, with actual power to restrict your freedom of speech. Nor a Philosophy Professor, whose statements should always be analyzed with the Pedantry control dialed up to 11.
Vs. in modern America - how many adopted twins might be raised apart because prospective parents can no longer afford to adopt two children?
(If I recall, "One Child" was very much a Mao-era policy. And if you're criticizing the ethics of the Mao-era government - that bit is pretty mild, compared to ...
Needing a secret army of humans - to help in all the situations where your uber-expensive computerized robotaxis can't cope - sure sounds like a loss-making business model.
How long 'till the VC's wise up, and stop covering their bottom line?
Cylindrical straw not included. Limited time offer. Warranty may be void if spaceship uses any reaction wheel or propulsion system. Other exclusions and limitations apply, see ...
Starlink satellites are initially launched into such orbits, then use their built-in thrusters to raise themselves to somewhat higher orbits.
If somebody's launching "blow up a box full of BBs" weapons into orbit...their ability to control even the initial orbits of all those BBs will be kinda limited. (But if 10% of a million BBs go where you wanted 'em to - probably good enough, eh?)
BBs with lower perigees may fall out of orbit within days - but that's plenty of time to hit something, if a particular orbit was being targeted.
"developing a new anti-satellite weapon" seems a laughably overblown description, when the supposed weapon amounts to little more than a box full of BB's, with a couple sticks of dynamite in the middle to spread 'em out in orbit. If they had a suitable rocket ready to launch, then a good-enough warhead could probably be designed from first principles, fabricated, and launched within 24 hours.
But from a Russian PoV - considering such weapons, and leaking that fact, could be an extremely cheap and credible method of sabre-rattling.
(Vs. actually using such weapons against Musk's constellation would be a clear attack on America's interests and capabilities, and would draw a very harsh reaction. Outside of WWIII or WWIII-lite scenarios, it'd be a Bad Move.)
I’d be more impressed with something that could pump enough energy into a StarLink satellite from the ground to disable it during its orbit over ground Russia (or China) controls, but I’m unsure if we’re there yet, as 550km is a lot of distance to cover with directed energy considering the short period of visibility during a pass.
I'd assume that both China and Russia are routinely experimenting with "orbital tracking radars". Which might "accidentally" hit various satellites with overly energetic EMP pulses at times.
>Vs. actually using such weapons against Musk's constellation would be a clear attack on America's interests and capabilities, and would draw a very harsh reaction.
And using Starlink to provide communications for Ukrainian army and allowing them to control drones striking Russian forces, including Russian ships isn't an attack on Russia's "interests and capabilities"?
I'd bet that after Russian strike on Starlink constellation the US will say "Oh, well. Fair enough. Wonder why they tolerated that for so long."
A "very harsh reaction"? ... you mean like in Ukraine?
Russia will do what they want and the US will sit back (eit: or, bend forward I should say) and take it up the ass. That's precedent now.
The most likely scenario is sabotage attacks like Russia have already been doing underwater. All of which have a whiff of vodka about them but with zero retaliation.
From the PoV of American's ruling plutocrats and military-industrial complex, Ukraine is a distant proxy war. Sure, lots of national security folks and petty idealists want to "win" Ukraine - if nothing else, the RoI on having that conflict going poorly for Russia is looks great (for America).
Vs. a serious attack on Starlink is a direct attack on both the business of an A List American Plutocrat, and on America's extremely advantageous/pride-and-joy dominance in space. Nations with plutocratic ruling classes have a centuries-long history of fast and violent reactions, when those folks feel that their business interests are being targeted by nasty foreigners.
America, if it cared to, has lots of ways of making things far less pleasant for Russia. The simplistic "Do Nothing, or Launch Nukes" duality only exists in fiction, propaganda, and undergraduate philosophy courses.
Assume that no one in Putin's inner circle, nor Russia's nuclear command structure, nor Russia's badly-needed allies (China) are interested in an actual at-scale nuclear war. But they ain't stupid enough to footgun their own "nuclear sabre-rattling" options by outright saying that.
And also note that experts have had grave doubts about the reliability of Russia's nuclear arsenal for the past decade or three. Military budgets have been far, far tighter in Moscow than in Washington. Unused weapons degrade with time. And nothing could destroy Russia's "we have nukes!" cred faster than a major hardware failure when they were attempting a limited-scale proof that they are willing to use nukes.
You say that, but that's what the Trump admin have been saying for years and we've seen the result.
Either Trump isn't able or willing or has the sack to follow through on truly unpleasant options. Or, Russia is able to fall back sufficiently on global / "neutral" parties while the US implements it's policies.
tl;dr; Edition: Anything that is not a full-sized commercial passenger jet is orders of magnitude more dangerous. And your non-aviation-professional emotions about any alternative (to that Safe Choice) are completely worthless as indicators of the actual hazards.
Though it might be useful to define your "rich". Are you just hoping for reliable food, clothing, housing, and medical care? Or yearning for a yacht bigger than Larry Ellison's? No matter what you do, the odds against the latter are astronomically long.
reply