> Which means Starling would probably pay for most of it

Then they’d switch to a user fee. Perhaps even at a profit, such that it’s deficit reducing.

That isn’t what they’re doing because that isn’t what this is about.

Assuming you mean "Starlink":

Don't all Starlink satellites have a plan to deorbit responsibly; specifically, do nothing, which results in a relatively quick deorbitting?

Starlink satellites are in low-Earth-orbit which can't accumulate much space debris, because everything deorbits naturally within a few years.

This isn't about budget, it's about reducing the USA's capability as a leader in science and research as commanded from certain parties in the former soviet union.

I mentioned this scenario before but I was downvoted. Can a rogue disgruntled state like Iran actually bring about destruction of satellites, say Starlink ones, to set off space debris chain reaction to pollute, poison the earth orbit for everyone. The thinking goes like if I can't have the advantage then no one else should.

In theory, yes, sure, why not? In practice, I would think that any nation with the capacity of launching such an attack would realize that that would be catastrophic not just for their enemies but for themselves. Not to mention that I'm sure various nations have intelligence about any nations that might consider such an attack and would attempt to thwart it.

iirc Starlink satellites sit in a low orbit so they'll burn up/down pretty fast.