tell my why this thing should not be able to melt satelites that cross over during the day
this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2024
451 points (95.4% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6784 readers
496 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do 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
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !combatvideos@sh.itjust.works
- !militarymoe@ani.social
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
My scientific research of squinting at the poster says a spy satellite is probably about as long as a pickup truck which is probably about 20 feet long.
xkcd says space is 100 km away and I'm sure there's nothing else I need to understand about that.
At 100 km away, the change of angle that will move your beam by 20 feet (enough to make the difference between hitting or not, if the thing and the flat mirror are both about 20 feet long I guess) is (20 feet / 100 km / pi) radians or 0.0000194 radians, meaning you raised or lowered one edge of the mirror by 0.004 inches or around the width of pretty-thick hair. I would be a little surprised if the mirrors even stayed within that tolerance just from flexing around in the wind for as big as they are.
On the other hand, you wouldn't have to hit the spy satellite with every mirror; you could probably heat it up significantly just by hitting it with a bunch of the beams as they were swinging wildly around and mostly missing it. And if it was specifically a spy satellite, you could probably fry its optics with not really a lot of mirrors for not a long time actually managing to hit it.
On the other other hand the thing would be flying along at around 8 km/s, so you'd have to get your mirrors positioned accurately enough, and then start moving them at a relatively insane speed while still keeping their absolute positioning dead accurate when their motors and overall construction clearly weren't designed for either of those tasks at the required level of precision.
TL;DR Let's try it
and then start moving them at a relatively insane speed while still keeping their absolute positioning dead accurate when their motors and overall construction clearly weren't designed for either of those tasks at the required level of precision.
That's what they want you to think.
Props on your Internet math and research. It was a fun read.
load more comments
(1 replies)
You still have a crap-ton of atmosphere you have to get through, and the beams being reflected aren't coherent. So the light reflected is subject to the inverse square law, which means that the energy diminishes as the inverse square of the distance. So the actually energy reaching the satellite would be minuscule. If you want to effectively use light to punch all the way through the atmosphere, you'll need beam coherence.
The difference in the angles of the beams is the angle difference of a beam that came from an object 149,597,871 km away at a separation of 20 feet i.e. basically fuck-all. For this purpose I think they're effectively (edit: ~~coherent~~) parallel. And I think the atmospheric reduction would be significant but not defeating-to-the-purpose; I mean the sunbeam on its way in still had plenty of effectiveness after getting through the same atmosphere. If you did it on a cloudy day or something then yeah it wouldn't work at all.
(Edit: Wait, I don't understand optics; I mean parallel, not coherent. I don't think coherence enters into it?)
The losses due to beam angle is nothing compared to the losses due to the inverse square law. This is why coherence is so critical for getting substantial quantity of photons from point A to point B. Lasers are defined by this difference, in that the light they produce is coherent. Because of this lasers are detraction limited, and have very low divergence at distance. Incoherent light sources like the sun have random amplitudes and phases in regards to time and space, so have very short coherence distances.
You could buy and build what this guy did, and probably get a few photons all the way through the atmosphere. The GEDI space laser fires with a power of 10mJ, and still results in a beam footprint of 25m. Granted the laser has to make a two way trip, but only a couple of hundred thousand photons are making it back to the sensor. So you would probably be able to see the glittering object using a high resolution camera, but there is no way that incoherent light could make any meaningful difference to something in space (considering, you know, its also being hit by radiation from the sun, you know radiation that hasn't been filtered trough the atmosphere.)
load more comments
(28 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
The suns angular diameter is about 0.01 radian, so at a distance of 100km, the suns reflection will spread out to a disc about 1km across.
392MW over a disc that size is 500w/m2, which is weaker than direct sunlight.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Uh… losses from transmitting through the atmosphere a second time?
Damn. I wonder what its operational range would be.
load more comments
(6 replies)
The inverse square law.
in my defense:
That is 300 ft, not 600-1,200 miles.
The Sun puts more energy on a spy satellite than the array could do.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Because it's always nighttime in space.
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.
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.
where they reflected an image made of sunlight at the ISS and an astronaut took a picture
got a link to said picture? it may make for a good meme template. I saw that the chinese did that kind of 'pixel art' with there own near identical solar thermal plant
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm no optical physicist, but based on empirical evidence of not melting due to light arriving from a huge ball of thermonuclear fire 8 light minutes away (and sure it's not exactly focused), I propose a hypotesis that light-based energy transfer in atmosphere is very lossy and not feasible as a weapon.
Which is perfect for this community, of course.
load more comments
(10 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Those are designed to focus on a large, stationary, object not far away, not a small hypersonic object very very far away.
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!
… for now!
Satellites be zoomin, it would be hard to hit one for more than a split second. But I'm definitely down to try!
load more comments
(2 replies)
Isn’t there some inverse square math rule about radiation like this? The further away you are the radiation reaching you is far less than it would seem? Not good at remembering this math so maybe someone can correct me.
Even if you could get the mirrors all focused accurately and tracking the object at speed it seems like it wouldn’t be any more of a concern than a really bright searchlight or something.
The power density square law is for an emitting light source that emits in all directions. Since the incoming light is basically parallel that doesn't really apply. If you were able to accurately track a satellite (a feat I'm sure is pretty hard) you would definitely vaporize it pretty quickly I'm talking under a minute since space is a good insulator.
Keep in mind that atmospheric interference would likely scatter the light enough to be ineffective
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
There is a cool easy-to-show fact that you can never make something hotter than the light source my focusing its light.
Since otherwise you could take heat and divide it into a hotter and colder region, decreasing entropy without using energy.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Who do you think you are? Archimedes?
Yeah except the focal point of those mirrors is measured in meters not 100s of kilometers. You can't use them to focus on something that far away.
I love the fact that those towers are so bright they glitch up Google maps satellite view.
Seeing them at a distance while driving from Primm to Nipton was fucking intense, that shit is overwhelmingly bright.
load more comments
(2 replies)
All this science talk but the first thing I thought of was a reference to Fallout New Vegas.
Patrolling the Mojave wasteland almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Euclid C Finder go brrrrrr 💥
Satellite is surrounded by vacuum. Thus insulated from getting rid of heat that way. So just pump heat into it and watch the temperature rise.
And you don't need to melt it. Just cook it till its electronics overheat.
I disagree, you need to melt it, because space is more interesting when its full of lances of molten metal whipping about at orbital speeds
Well all things (human) in space have special paint in order to modify their blackbody radiation and maintain a trade off between disipation heat by EM radiation and keeping a temperature that allows semiconductors to work.
The point is that satellites do disipate heat. Convection disipation is the worst disipation of heat. The best disipation of energy (heat) is by radiation. Thats why the thermal blankets look shinny weird, just like the satellites. You would need a realiable source of heat in order to overcome the satellite disipation and saturate the satellite.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Someone get this person a defense contract stat
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)
I don't think they're all accurate enough to all hit a focal point dead-on even if you built a targeting computer to handle atmospheric lensing.
Also, the economic cost of it probably makes missiles seem really cheap.
My brain has been poisoned too thoroughly by New Vegas for me to make any vaguely reasonable comment. W should make Archimedes and melt putin into a puddle.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›