this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
427 points (95.5% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6608 readers
444 users here now

A community for your defence shitposting needs

Rules

1. Be niceDo not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.

2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes

If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.

3. Content must be relevant

Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.

4. No racism / hatespeech

No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.

5. No politics

We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.

6. No seriousposting

We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.

7. No classified material

Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.

8. Source artwork

If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.

9. No low-effort posts

No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.

10. Don't get us banned

No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.

11. No misinformation

NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.


Join our Matrix chatroom


Other communities you may be interested in


Banner made by u/Fertility18

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 57 points 1 year ago (15 children)

The rods from God's idea is insane and won't work.

We had this back when the Russians announced they were going to drop conventional ordinance from space, and everyone pointed out that they would be lucky to hit the right continent, let alone Ukraine. In order to make this actually work, you would have to have an active aiming system. Which you know, is a missile.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

The launch platform can aim it and use math to account for gravity, the atmosphere and all that jazz to hit the target at least close enough. Just like we already do to safely crash/burn up space debris.

[–] Patches@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

at least close enough

To whose standards exactly? Dick Cheney's?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 12 points 1 year ago

No, they can't. The atmosphere is an unknown state, different temperatures, different densities, different wind directions, none of which can be known ahead of time. That's why weather forecasting is always approximate. You get a percentage chance that it'll rain. You don't get a definite time stamp with 100% accuracy.

We cannot predict atmospheric disturbances to the level necessary to make this a practical system. When they burn up space debris they do it "somewhere over the middle bit of the Atlantic" That's about the level of definition you get. It's not accurate at all.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 43 points 1 year ago (15 children)

From a purely physical point of view, is that realistic?

If all of its energy is kinetic, it means that the energy must result from it's potential energy+any fuel it is propelled with. Ignoring air-friction and terminal velocity for free falling objects, that means that still the energy of a nuclear weapon is required to bring this thing up into space, or stored as fuel for its propulsion.

So unless the projectile is assembled in space, any rocket bringing it into space will contain at least the energy of a nuclear warhead. Gotta be a very nervous launch, knowing that any failure will result in a fire with the energy of a nuke.

[–] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A lot of the energy comes from orbital speeds.

The Hypervelocity Rod Bundles project proposed 6,1x0,3 m tungsten rods, weighing about 8200 kg, impacting at about 3000 m/s, meaning about 42 GJ of energy per projectile [wikipedia].

The weakest recorded nuke, the Davy Crocket Tactical Nuclear Weapon, is estimated at about twice that (84 GJ), and the largest, Tsar Bomba, at about 3 000 000x the yield (210 PJ).

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That’s their point, how do you get such a heavy thing to orbital speed without spending all that energy? You can’t unless you build it from materials harvested in space.

[–] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

Oh, I apologise, I suffered some curse of knowledge there, the answer is time.

A blast is a release of energy over a short time, the whole point of building weapons is to store and handle energy in safe amounts over time.

Global electric energy consumption is about 200 PJ a day, approximately the same as the Tsar Bomba, but there's no risk for a huge explosion neither when you incinerate trash or turn off the AC.

Because time.

Although we could explode a nuke and propel things ballistically, it turns out it's a lot easier to use rockets. A rocket, although carrying frightening amounts of fuel and exploding spectacularly when it fires wrong, has several safeguards to not expend all that fuel at once. And also gives the opportunity to correct course along the way.

Now imagine that the same amount of energy has been expended many many many times over the course of the space era, and almost any mass in orbit has serious potential for damage.

For example, the MIR was 130 tons, orbiting at about 7,8 km/s, for a kinetic energy of 4 TJ, and another 235 GJ of potential energy. Totalling about a tenth of Little Boy that levelled Hiroshima.

Edit: Specifying and correcting the global energy consumption.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Right, and tungsten rods are dangerous because they don’t slow down and burn up in the atmosphere like most spacecraft do (like you said, spreading out that energy over time and space). As long as you can deorbit them accurately, they are devastating since they convert the entire orbital potential energy into surface kinetic energy all at once. (Oddly, orbital potential energy and surface kinetic energy are the same thing, just from different points of reference.)

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One of the things that's stuck with me during my time on Lemmy is someone remarking that the only difference between a battery and a bomb is how controlled the release of energy is. Having seen what happens when you puncture a LiPo battery, I believe it 😰

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] burble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The mass to orbit isn't the hard part. A reusable Falcon 9 can put 18,400 kg in low Earth orbit. That should cover two rods, plus hardware to hold and deploy them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Red_October@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

So a little bit of looking around, and some "Close enough, fuck it" math suggests that the Saturn V over the duration of it's launch emitted about the same amount of energy (190 Gigawatts over 2.5 minutes = 2.85x10e+13 joules, close to 7000 tons of TNT at 2.93E+13 joules) as 1/3 the yield of the Fat Man dropped on Nagasaki (FM = 20,000 tons of TNT = 8.36e+13 joules).

Now I'm not math inclined, so you should take all this with more salt than your doctor recommends, but if the rocket's output is comparable to 1/3 of an actual nuke, then it's not unreasonable to think that converting all of that back into kinetic energy would get you roughly 1/3 of a nuke's output, which could be said to be "the force of a nuclear weapon." It would take a launch of something Saturn V sized or bigger to put one up there, but supposedly Starship would be up to the task if it ever stops exploding itself and/or it's launch pad.

What I'm saying is, it's plausible enough for a blurb on some article.

[–] lowleveldata@programming.dev 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And friction would cost some work both way

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There has actually been multiple occasions were Russia was caught trying to break that treaty, kind of interesting to think about. The question is if Russia does actually mobilize an orbital nuclear weapon someday like an advanced Sarmat or some kind of space bomber, will the nations of the world act in unison or watch in silence?

Have fun with that existential dread while I work on my laundry.

[–] baked_tea@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

They are super far from having that kind of money. Anyways the US would know early enough to stop it.

[–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today 18 points 1 year ago

True I bet the Russian Oligarchs would secretly siphon that project's funds in moments, just like they did to the Russian Navy.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nah, the USA would join them and try it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] itsgroundhogdayagain@lemmy.ml 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What about the Jewish Space Lasers that MTG said started the wildfires?

[–] Wodge@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

Magic The Gathering has a lot to answer for.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 28 points 1 year ago (18 children)

The problem I remember is that it is expensive to get the rod up there in the first place.

Also every other nation would hate us and make jokes about the collective small penis of the US state.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] rtxn@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If anyone wants some good sci-fi, I recommend The Expanse, both the books and the show. They make great use of kinetic impactors, especially Nemesis Games.

[–] nezbyte@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Doors and corners, kid.

Other recommended book series for scifi physics:

  • Expeditionary Force
  • Bobiverse
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Except you can't just drop it. You need to push it out of orbit, and then push yourself back in

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Quereller@lemmy.one 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Fun fact, everything with a high velocity (and a certain mass) has a lot of kinetic energy.

(Now think of space ships going light speed. You don't need photon torpedoes)

[–] Shareni@programming.dev 15 points 1 year ago

Inyalowda love rocks, so let's give dem sum, sasa ke

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

True, but to hit things within the atmosphere it needs high mass and low drag. The ISS re-entering would have high mass but high drag, and most of it would fall apart when entering and be slowed down by drag so the energy gets spread through a long streak on the atmosphere instead of on the target

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] skeeter_dave@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We should just build space colonies and just drop those when needed

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] AMillionNames@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Science fiction always challenges my suspension of disbelief is when people land on planets to skirmish with conventional weapons instead of, say, throw a big heavy aerodynamic solid rock from space.

[–] Thorry84@feddit.nl 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In the Expanse series Earth and Mars are at war. They can easily throw rocks and totally destroy the other side. Not just beat them in a war, like totally wipe them out. But Mars knows if they start throwing rocks all bets are off and Earth will wipe them out. Just as Earth knows the same, if they wipe out Mars, Mars will make sure the Earth is destroyed.

It's an analogy of the current situation we have with nuclear weapons. During the Cold War Russia made sure they could wipe out the US if the US ever tried a first strike and the US made sure they could wipe out Russia if they ever tried something. The Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) prevented anyone from taking the first step. These days the playing field is a bit more complex, but the same principles hold for now.

Of course in the Expanse there is a third party with nothing to lose that at one point employs such a weapon of mass destruction. But let's just hope that part isn't a mirror for reality.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Evilsmiley@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago

You can make good reasons or at least plausible ones. 40k has planetary shields. There could be a civil war so neither side might want to destroy the surfaces of each planet and civilians. Battletech has spaceship tech being rare and irreplacable, and there are treaties limiting orbital and nuclear bombardment.

Sometimes the most realistic route just isnt fun though so i can usually look past the contrivances.

[–] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good sci-fi usually treats this on par with using nuclear weapons (which it kinda is?). In Babylon 5, mass drivers are banned by intergalactic treaty, and when one race uses them anyway it literally bombs their victims back into the stone age, and it's treated as a horrifying event --one of the character's defining moments in the show is just him looking on silently in horror.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago

So no one considers moon a weapon of m.ass destruction? All it needs is a fairly good booster on the far side ...

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Neil Tyson said this is entirely impractical.

[–] nuke@yah.lol 60 points 1 year ago

Neil Tyson needs to shut the fuck up and stop cockblocking me from having based weapons

[–] datelmd5sum@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean you have to put a nuclear amount of energy into the rods with chemical energy. Why not skip a step and just drop a big conventional explosive?

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The idea is that it's too fast to ever intercept, is extremely penetrating, and you don't have to send a bomb to orbit in violation of treaty.

But all the really cool versions use rail guns and asteroid mining.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›