Why do you think it is unfeasible to park hundreds to thousands of systems in multiple planes and orbits? You are assuming that all actors will abide by the non-weaponization of space. However, when actors do not abide by preset rules, they will only do so when it is futile—specifically, if other actors can do the same, making the violation useless.
Starlink, as a system that can generate revenue, has some rationale for deploying thousands to tens of thousands of units. However, for purely military satellites and missile defense interception systems, mass deployment is rather meaningless. Unless China assesses that, within the next 5–10 years, a nuclear war involving the exchange of hundreds of intercontinental missiles and the detonation of thousands of warheads between China and the United States is imminent, what purpose would deploying such a system serve? The lifespan of these systems is only 5–8 years. Without war, they would sit there depreciating, providing no economic value. Are you suggesting that, in the absence of conflict, the U.S. would be so restless as to attempt to destroy China’s satellites or space station? I’d say that’s overthinking it.
More importantly, even if deployed, would these systems truly be effective for missile defense? If their effectiveness is limited, why invest the effort in both interception and deployment?
Therefore, on matters like this, China merely needs to do nothing and watch its opponent collapse under its own weight.
Frankly, if the U.S. were to launch a large-scale destruction of China’s space assets, it would signal that the U.S. is on the brink of initiating a full-scale war, possibly even a nuclear war, against China.
Here’s a question: if the U.S. insists on deploying thousands of “Starshield” units, why not simply deploy thousands of nuclear warheads in orbit instead? If the adversary poses a wartime threat, launching a nuclear strike to annihilate the opponent would be more straightforward, wouldn’t it?
So, it’s important to understand that what you’re envisioning is a doomsday weapon—it’s only useful for doomsday. And even in doomsday scenarios, it might not be that useful (there are multiple ways to destroy an opponent). If the target does not attempt to intercept the attacking missiles but instead launches a devastating retaliatory strike (e.g., using hypersonic intercontinental weapons flying entirely within the atmosphere), your “Starshield” would essentially be worthless and ineffective.
Therefore, if China cannot solve the issue of launching large payloads in a regular, inexpensive way—meaning hundreds of thousands of kilograms of mass into orbit easily—there is no deterrence. Why do you think Starlink is there in the first place? Everyone, including Musk, knows that global internet from space is always an expensive proposition, even for people in remote locations. You could simply build sub-gigahertz-based 5G (600–900 MHz band) and cover the continental mass. But that was not the point. The point was to market it as a commercial product with a mass-market position so that it attracts investment based on expectations of good returns, only for it to function as a strategic product with high strategic objectives. It is essentially the American government building a costly infrastructure project without having to pay for it directly.
Are all Westerners like this? You invent a new technology, and your mind is immediately filled with thoughts of using that technology to wage war and eliminate your adversaries? Is that really the purpose behind your technological inventions?
You want to achieve hundreds of thousands of tons of payload to orbit annually, and all you can think about is using that hundreds of thousands of tons of payload for weapon deployment?
Do you know approximately how much a space-based KKV (Kinetic Kill Vehicle) weighs? The ones used on SM-3 are about 10-15 kg (from memory), and the EKV (Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle) is probably 40-60 kg at most (and even that is considered too large, as it affects the number of kill vehicles carried). There's also the MKV (Multiple Kill Vehicle) concept, which involves launching a cluster of interceptor vehicles, each also in the 10-15 kg range. You can calculate how many of these interceptor vehicles one ton of space launch capacity can carry.
So, if you think about it clearly, you'll realize that even deploying 10,000 such satellites/interceptors would only have a total mass of around 2,000 tons (if a Starshield-type satellite weighs about 200 kg).
Therefore, even if China wanted to deploy a similar system in space, it wouldn't need to wait for the construction of a launch system capable of delivering hundreds of thousands of tons of payload to do so.
An annual launch capacity of 100-200 tons for this purpose would be more than sufficient. That's only about 15-20 launches per year of rockets equivalent to the Falcon 9.
The implications? You see them. It is a far less expensive way to conduct warfare in faraway lands through intrusive communications. You could simply airdrop communication modules with solar power and local transceivers and do whatever you want without other actors being able to do anything about it. When a large number of airlines switch to Starlink, it becomes embedded; it is harder to convince them to rip it out and use alternatives. There is a good chance global aviation, shipping, and even mobile handsets will run on a network that you do not control and that can be turned adversarial.
I'll stick to the same point: can you Westerners ever break free from this endless loop of war and aggression logic?
Starlink is civilian. Musk has used Starlink to generate revenue, fund his launch company, and reduce launch costs.
I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Do you think Starlink can be used as an infiltration tool during wartime, like it was during the conflicts in Ukraine and Iran?
If you believe this thing is useful (for overthrowing the Chinese government), then go ahead and pursue it yourself. I can’t be bothered to argue anymore. Once the Chinese people understand the United States’ actual threshold for decisive action, I really don’t see the point.
But it did not have to turn out this way. It was never about China being technologically backward. Never. Starlink satellites are made with simple silicon-based solar cells and simple electronics, even if their inter-satellite links are cutting edge. I don't believe China lacks the core technology to build a Falcon 9 equivalent; rather, it was investing large sums of money aimlessly into multiple projects. Recent events make this evident. Space Pioneer’s rise was awe-inspiring, but one mistake later, they still cannot launch what is now an obsolete rocket. Everyone is now building 5-meter class rockets and 150–200 tonne class engines, yet they are still on hold trying to launch yesterday’s technology. Do not tell me these issues are solely the result of company incapability. A large part of the issue stems from the command and control ingrained by the central government—very similar to how it fears even a bull market run. Let the masses know how to deal with it. Similarly, let private enterprises get funds, and allow for failures—multiple failures. And please, get the "boomers" out of the administration. They are trying yesterday's solutions for present-day issues, assuming the rules of the past still work.
This issue has been discussed many times before. If you don't understand the technology, don’t make unfounded claims. China’s progress is actually very fast (in the aerospace field)—you just aren’t aware of it. China’s space program has been catching up technologically, with plans to roughly complete this process around 2030–2035 (one of the key indicators being a heavy-lift launch vehicle). The U.S. space technology foundation was laid in the 1950s, and many critical technological achievements were developed and refined from the 1970s to the 1990s.
China only reached a level in certain aerospace areas around 2015 that the U.S. had achieved around 1995–2000 (many areas are still空白 to this day, such as heavy-lift launch vehicles).
Technology cannot be faked, which is why China has always developed at its own pace. The speed of China’s catch-up is roughly more than twice the pace of U.S. development—meaning China is accomplishing in 15–20 years what took the U.S. 40 years. Musk’s SpaceX has a history of about 25 years to reach where it is today. China started late, so progress may appear slower (the absolute存量 lags behind the U.S., but the增量 far exceeds that of the U.S.).
Therefore, what you’re saying is essentially meaningless.
The conclusion is: China needs multiple, highly capable launch vehicles that are unaffected by central points of failure. Proactive development and innovation is needed; merely imitating what others have already developed is not going to cut it.
Stop bragging here. Go ask the industry experts at NASA—how many people today have the nerve to claim that China’s space program lacks innovation and simply copies U.S. technology? Even Elon Musk, whose SpaceX you admire so much, wouldn’t dare say such a thing. He has interacted with more Chinese specialists than you have. Whether the Chinese have creativity—he knows better than you.
