Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

(post is archived)

[–] • 1 pt

Unfortunately or fortunately they don't/wont work

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Yea I was thinking of that video when I started watching this. He .. Veratasium didn't plan that experiment all that well though. Something like a blimp with a hanger and a way to stabilize the weight, plus some fins and .. actually trying out small scale versions of the design first .. would have gone a long way.

We do have way better guidance systems than back in the 70s. In theory we should be able to build something with fins and guidance that could withstand a harsh re-entry .. at least long enough to line itself up with a target. But testing would be difficult. Nuclear weapons you can bury in the middle of the desert. Our oceans are filled with shipping lanes. If you chose a big enough testing area and you're off by 1 mile, you're probably okay. If you're off by 100 miles, you could have a lot to cover up or explain.

As other comments have mentioned, it's cool, but it's impractical and way too expensive/difficult to covertly develop compare to all the traditional bombs and drones we now have.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

His experiment and video are garbage on many levels. He says it doesn't work... and offers zero proof that it doesn't. Discusses kinetic energy being explosive at hypersonic speeds, then drops things a few hundred feet up... not scaleable... not ever going to be exploding at low speed. Did not go supersonic let alone hypersonic. WTF. Shows no imagination to address issues he raises. (all look very over-come-able to me) Dropped steel rather than tungsten. Swung around the payload under that chopper like clowns. His expert lies/fucks up and says they aren't prohibited under same UN resolution as nukes in space from 1963.

[–] • 0 pt

9 tons x 2,000lbs. X $10,000 per lb. Launch cost = $180,000,000.00 per rod. There just aren't enough static targets worth more than that to justify building the system.

Another way to look at it, would you rather have 1 flying space Dick that could fuck up a single target once, or 26 F35s that could be used indefinitely? They both cost the same.

[–] • 0 pt

If the facts that went into that spot are right (which is unlikely due to inconsistencies) there's some issues.

Based on the orbital speed given at 3:17 (5 miles per second), they'll be in upper low earth orbit, about 500 miles. With a little fudge for air resistance (because I'm not going to bother estimating the friction coefficient for what I guess a rod is shaped like) that puts the impact speed of a body released from that height right at mach 10 (11250 feet per second). But wait, there's more. They did not seem to calculate any impact speed from the orbital velocity. Depending on how much of a retroorbital impulse they give the rod, it will still start with most of that 18000 feet per second (about 5 miles per second) lateral speed. That won't make any direct difference in how long it takes to reach the ground, but it sure will make a difference in how much energy it has at impact with stationary land. That's why a meteor impact can be so destructive - it's not just the height it falls from, it's how fast it's going before it starts falling to earth.

Also, while that orbit of 500 miles is definitely in space, by any definition, it is not outside of the upper atmosphere. It will experience atmospheric drag, and without reboost burns it will fall to earth in three to five years. That's far from the "indefinite" loiter time advertised in the video.

[–] • 0 pt

Mach 10 is not that much: hypersonic missiles can reach that speed and kinetic energy. But Missiles can change course to evade air defence.

[–] • 4 pts

There is no defense to the inertia of 9 tons of metal.

[–] • 6 pts

Exactly. Orbital bombardment isnt cost effective when 99% of the time, you can get the job done with bombs dropped from planes, Tomahawks, JASSMs, etc for a fraction of the price. Particularly when many targets are mobile.

But if you have a Maverick style immobile, heavily defended target...dropping a telephone pole sized tungsten rod at 7600 MPH is unstoppable. AAA? Tungsten laughs at you. ABM systems? Tungsten rod dont care. Reinforced concrete underground bunkers? Tungsten rod collapses them. Armor? Tungsten rod goes through that like a lawn dart through a Chihuahua. ECM? Tungsten rod is math on the front end to target its deorbiting, physics on the back end. You cant jam gravity.

Tungsten rods from space are a 9 ton honey badger.

[–] • 0 pt

Until a slight breeze sets them off target by 200 yards... It's a stupid idea compared to cheaper, more effective alternatives. They are probably hoping other countries will waste resources developing this boondoggle.

[–] • 0 pt

Most objects just disintegrate at mach 10. Not only special materials, but also carefully calculated aerodynamics are needed to make it work. The explosion of an air defence missile has just to tilt the rod a little bit and it will melt away.

[–] • 3 pts

Sure there is. Use another satellite to push the launch vehicle out of orbit.

This idea is stupid. The amount of rocket fuel it would take to deploy this in a meaningful way would be much better spent putting nukes in orbit, or just build more nuclear submarines.