NonCredibleDefense
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
view the rest of the comments
How dare capitalism.... Innovate in space technology? You hate just because the people doing it are rich. That's real silly.
The fuq? Lots of great examples of Capitalism but Fossil Fuels isn't it, pal.
The problem with fossil fuels is that they're incredibly energy dense. Gasoline has about 12000 Wh/kg of energy density compared to about 250 Wh/kg for lithium ion.
Space is hard, and the paradox of launching a rocket is that you need a lot of fuel to fuel an engine for long enough to escape the Earth's atmosphere and achieve orbit. All of that fuel adds weight so you need more fuel to compensate for more weight, which adds more weight meaning more fuel. Burnable fuels have the advantage of depleting as you burn it, so as you get higher your rocket gets lighter and therefore requires less fuel to pilot.
In case that's not enough challenge, in the vacuum of space there's no great way to propel a vehicle on electrical power alone. Wheels ain't gonna work and neither will propellers, and while solar sails appear to work, they offer such incredibly low specific impulse (thrust basically) that realistically no manned mission that isn't a generation ship can use solar sails
So in short, space is going to require fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. Hopefully we as a species can find the technology to make a fully reusable and renewable space program at some point, but until then we'll have to burn chemicals get vehicles off of this planet.
Additionally, right now, until another organization actually builds and launches reusable space vehicles (and can demonstrate the competence and safety record) SpaceX is the world leader in reusability. SpaceX is one of two members of the exclusive "has relaunched a space vehicle" club, shared only with NASA's space shuttle program which ended over a decade ago
Jfc this guy
If they managed to shave enough costs for consumer space flights you would be celebrating as the entire world burned.
I don't give FUCK about natural gas energy density, we don't need rockets that run on it.
Bruh, global spaceflight contributes less than 0.01% of global CO2 emissions and enables climate resiliencey through weather and climate monitoring satellites, plus technological skunkworks (many of the challenges in the microclimate of a space station happen to be the exact same challenges of the macroclimate of the Earth, plus there's a proven path of technology developed for space directly improving lives on the ground here on earth)
If you can build an orbital launch vehicle that doesn't rely on fossil fuels, please do! Seriously that is a greatly needed technology and you'll have earned the wealth and fame that would bring you. But until then I'll take the next best thing which is having a space program and compensating for it's (absolutely tiny compared to basically all other industries) emissions in a larger global climate plan over not having a space industry
Starlink doesn't monitor the weather, in fact it could actively impede that soon given the amount of frequency noise they're creating, and space tourism sure as fuck ain't gonna be about the betterment of science.
The problem is that your entire argument stands on the leg of conflating that bizarre bullshit being developed with the rich and beneficial past history of NASA.
Correct, and I wasn't talking about Starlink, I was talking about the various GPS, climate and weather satellites spaceX has launched recently (and that's just the missions I can remember off the top of my head), and their capabilities to continue launching satellites for any purpose at an incredibly cost effective and potentially less destructive manner than with single use rockets
Plus this isn't just a matter of SpaceX good/bad. SpaceX proved 98 times this year alone that reusable rockets work, something that before them was theoretically possible but appeared to be too technically complex and too costly to be a worthwhile endeavor. Now other space agencies have a proven model to point to when choosing whether or not to invest in their own reusable rocket designs. The US Federal Government could even simply compel SpaceX to license it's designs and software for reusable rockets if it felt so inclined
Oh and you've moved the goalposts in your Elon-hate because first you were complaining about rockets using fossil fuels instead of being electrically powered and now that I've pointed out how uninformed that is you're complaining about Starlink, which is unrelated to the original point. Yes I agree, Elon is an ass to say the least, and Starlink poses a hell of a danger to the world's ability to continue studying anything in the sky. But let's be honest with ourselves about what we're talking about and the facts of the technologies we're discussing.
If your argument is simply that "the CO2 emissions from accessing orbit aren't worth the global services that they enable" guess what that's an opinion, which everyone is entitled to. But let's form these opinions based on an accurate understanding of the industry you're talking about
Oh ok you just get to choose to ignore everything you don't like while discussing the validity of criticising industry practices.