this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024
110 points (99.1% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6660 readers
736 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
 

Not a good year to be boeing hardware

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 33 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Considering it's Boeing and the same thing happened to the last one a few years ago... I mean, it's not rocket science.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 weeks ago
[–] gravitas_deficiency 5 points 3 weeks ago

~(It’s~ ~literally~ ~rocket~ ~science)~

[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

We have outer space pretty well mapped, tens of thousands of pieces of space junk are tracked daily, I have a hard time believing you could take out a satellite and have nobody know.

Nah, just Boeing being Boeing.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

We have outer space pretty well mapped

An estimate from before this satellite broke up was that 97% of space debris is not tracked and that there are 131 million pieces of untracked debris in space.

Now that said, I think your point is valid because most of this untracked debris is much smaller than a satellite

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Does debris in the geostationary orbit move relatively to each other and the satellites?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If it's still in geostationary orbit, no. Generally debris aren't in a perfectly defined orbit like that, though.

If it's debris that used to be in geostationary orbit, they're going to be in an array of slightly different orbits, and so will have an epicycle of some kind as seen from the earth.

Also, note that intelligence satellites tend not to be geostationary, because that would limit their collection area. I don't know about this specific one.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

I was talking about Intelsat 33e which ~~is~~ was a communication satellite, not for espionage, on a geostationary orbit. The russian espionage satellites Olymp-K and Kosmos 1408 mentioned in the other replies, however are/were on a geosynchronous orbit and on low earth orbit, respectively, as you suggested.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh, okay. It's a funny name then.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Its named after the * International Telecommunications Satellite Consortium*

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Oh yeah, I think I have heard that name before. (It's organization, though)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Obviously the naming is not consistent among the wikipedia articles in different languages:

Intelsat 33e war ein kommerzieller Kommunikationssatellit des International Telecommunications Satellite Consortium (Intelsat) mit Sitz in Luxemburg.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelsat_33e

[–] einfach_orangensaft 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

communication satellite, not for espionage

[–] verity_kindle 1 points 3 weeks ago

I haven't heard that gifname in a long time....a long time.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Wouldn't we know if anyone was launching a rocket into space.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

They have one sigint satellite Olymp-K creeping around up there, why not a second that doesn't have a Wikipedia article

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Ah, ok. You mean another satellite on suicide mission. The russkis probably have some available. I was thinking of some anti-satellite ~~rocket~~ missile like it has been used for destruction of the satellite Kosmos 1408. However, as it is launched from an airplane, I doubt it produces a splash, like heavy rockets do, that would be visible from space by espionage satellites.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

ASAT missiles are only suitable for low earth orbit, you'd need a rocket about the size of a falcon 9 to reach GEO where Intelsat was sitting. Think people might notice that. Wouldn't need the satellite to be on a suicide mission, could just slap a gun on it like the good old days.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

Thanks. I didn't notice the satellites were on different orbits.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago

No ASAT is going out to geosynchronus orbit.

[–] teddy2021 -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Well, if it means one more thing foils that one shithead from South Africa, i.e. force him to die never having achieved anything of meaning to humanity nor achieving his ultimate escape, then fuck it, I welcome Kessler syndrome as the last horseman of the current apocalypse.

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

This satellite was owned by Intelsat, a company created by John F. Kennedy, an American; built by Boeing, a company created by an American and currently run by an American; and launched by the European Space Agency, on a rocket built by a company from France, headed by a Frenchman.

I'm sure there's South Africans involved somewhere along the way, but I don't think the person you are spitting vitriol about had anything to do with this satellite.

[–] teddy2021 -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh, absolutely. Perhaps I wasn't clear. It's not that he specifically worked on it, thought that would be more poetic, just that it prevents any mates colony efforts.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm still not sure I understand. You're saying because one guy is a bit of a dick, we shouldn't put anything in space?

[–] teddy2021 1 points 3 weeks ago

I'm saying that if the world is ending anyways, if rather it be impossible for the dick to escape.