this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2024
456 points (95.4% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

7382 readers
461 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (8 children)

There is the matter of space debris, which is already a problem. If you're going to attack satellites to disable them you want to capture them in a decaying orbit.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I suspect in order to stay focused on such distances you'd need extremely flat mirrors. Like, telescope grade stuff.

I doubt the mirrors they have is even within an order of magnitude flat enough.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (13 children)

You might even need adaptive mirrors to deal with atmospheric distortion. Also, they would have to move relatively quickly and very precisely (read: an impossible combination) to track satellites in low orbit. Plus, you could only hit satellites that crossed overhead at a relatively high angle.

But yeah, one solar tower plant did a stunt where they reflected an image made of sunlight at the ISS and an astronaut took a picture. They didn't melt.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

You damn scientists and your sciencing.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Satellites be zoomin, it would be hard to hit one for more than a split second. But I'm definitely down to try!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because of how far it is I'm guessing they could move the focal point very fast too with just the slightest of movements in the mirrors.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

I imagine the precision needed for that is lacking in a solar mirror motor.

Small satellite that's at least 100km away

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Those are designed to focus on a large, stationary, object not far away, not a small hypersonic object very very far away.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Someone's been drinking their government supplied fluoride tainted tap water, you're thinking like one of them. Don't believe The Man's lies!

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

thats what they want you to think

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

If its a optical image satellite, it probably doesnt take much to burn on the camera if it's shutter is open.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

… for now!

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago

Who do you think you are? Archimedes?

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›