are they real?

>>31015905
Are there all kinds of super sekret space weapons in orbit? Probably.

They'd be a lot more efficient than rods from god though.

>>31015905
Why not put nuclear missiles or even reentry vehicles up there? It'd be way cheaper.

>actually hauling a brazillion tons of tungsten up there at the current cost

>>31016091
Because Kessler syndrome is a bitch.

>>31016247
just put more up there for the same price in case things get hit : ^ )

has anyone ever been hit by a rod from god?

>>31016364

Your mom has been hit several times by mine

>>31015905
disguised nukes is way, way more likely. It is just logic. Why develop an all powerful weapon and hide it from everyone, if you can just use a preexisting all powerful weapon that you would hide anyway.

>>31016091
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
It's illegal
Plus if someone does it, everyone will put thousands of missiles in orbit so fast that everyone will be in even more danger from nuclear holocaust

>>31015905
They're pretty inefficient compared to nukes, only people who don't understand orbital mechanics think they're any good.

And 5 year olds can play KSP, so...

>>31016429
Since when has legal issues stopped anyone?

>>31016439
Since always.

>>31016439
Legal issues are the reasons Russians are allowed to come and inspect US weapon stockpiles.

>>31015905

Kinetic kill vehicles aren't all that impressive in light of how much energy you have to spend sending them up.

>>31016429
Genius, we should make murder illegal too so people stop doing it.

>>31016500
Not quite on the same scale.

>>31016429
Too bad it doesn't say anything about giant tungsten rods, only WMD's.

>>31016555
Good job giant tungsten rods sitting in orbit are a really shitty weapon so no one will bother doing it.

>>31015905
>>31016572

>5th generation nuclear weapons can create a warhead using nothing more than depleted uranium

Technically they could be viable but here's the problem...

You have to accelerate the projectile up to orbit so its got to be going 17,000 mph.

But when you release things they dont just fall, and even if you did propel it downwards to re-enter it may be awhile before it actually re-enters the atmosphere. And since it wont be decelerating like a Shuttle it may be less accurate to predict where it will land.

TL;DR - You can send it down but your list of targets is kinda restricted.

Also its hard to launch that many of them to have them stored up in orbit, thats alot of expense. For each piece of ammunition.

>5th Gen Nukes

Depleted Uranium can be made weaponized by treating it with Deuterium to make a hydride.

One reason DU does so much damage in tank rounds is because a very light nuclear energy release takes place, in addition to the material being poryphoric (combustible). If it was merely an issue of density they'd be using tungsten.

DU tank rounds literally explode, and penetrate at the same time, yet still come out the other side.

Up the ante with a Deuterium Hydride and slamming into the earth at 17,000 mph and you've got enough compression that...

The DU will compress enough that the U-235 in its makeup will chain react. The Deuterium bonded to it at the molecular level will begin undergoing Fusion when the temperature (at the microscopic level) gets high enough (since the Deuterium is already more or less stripped of its 1 Electron and is nothing more than an Atomic Core).

TL;DR - It can cause a small nuclear explosion without being classified as an actual nuke, in addition to its kinetic energy. Its a nuke even if its a shitty highly inefficient nuke.

Altogether it wouldn't be major but it could be enough, maybe in the 1/2 Kiloton range for something small about the size of an air to air missile (in terms of rod-shaped).

>>31016741
The idea to use tungsten in these things is so they don't burn up on reentry, would Deuterium Hydride be able to the same?

>>31016741
>>31016781
Melting point of tungsten: 3695K
Melting point of uranium: 1405K

>>31016781

If they were going to do something like this then I expect they'd have a ceramic coating on the outside like they use for other re-entry vehicles.

But since the inside portion would be high density due to the depleted uranium, and it would have almost no moving parts that would probably be enough. Being in a shell of tungsten or titanium might also help it compress.

>>31016830
Okay so it's possible to do, but is it worthwhile to do? Is it worth expending all the energy to put up a rod into orbit, along with all the propellant to rapidly deorbit it, on the off chance you'd need a 1/2 kiloton bunker buster? And all of that whilst simultaneously pissing off everyone else by smugly having a psuedo-WMD in space when WMDs in space are banned?

>>31016741
This sounds like major bullshit, how come they dont use weapons grade uranium in APFSDS shells to create a nuclear detonation? Surely it should work despite being at quarter of the velocity as the U-235 content is thousandfold higher

>>31016962
It is bullshit, DU penetrators are used instead of tungsten because DU self sharpens on impact where tungsten blunts.

>>31016891

Since this kind of rod would be much smaller, about the same size as an Aim-120, you could have a pile of them put up there per launch. Make it 100 per launch.

The problem I described WITH this system is, its not exactly like you can just press a button and have it launched immediately.

Precision and timing for deployment is paramount, it may have to complete several revolutions around the planet. If you got some place you wanna hit and its not going anywhere then yeah it could be feasible.

But they're gonna know its up there. They will know who to blame.

Anti-satellite laser could probably knock it down from the ground anyway.

>>31016962

And who says they dont?

And whoever the hell would say it if it was going on huh? Best just to let the public believe that nukes aren't the kinda thing you can deploy and get away with it.

Would they want the world knowing that terrorists can drive a "mail truck" into an apartment complex and it goes off for 1/3 of a Kiloton?

If it makes a big boom but its not hiroshima sized people can explain it away as "oh it was just a big truck bomb" or it was "an ammo depot going off". My ass it was.

The radiation goes away pretty quick too. Unless you had geiger counters out at the scene it would be down to elevated-but-unremarkable levels after about 12 hours.

Back in the 70s it was demonstrated that aiming 2 shaped charges of uranium at each other could generate a 1 KT explosion.

Granted that was of 100 grams of weapons grade stuff.

But even at 7 to 11% purity DU... you're talking about a weapon small enough to fit in a laptop case which can cause a "nuclear fizzle" on the order of a 500-5000 pounds of high explosives worth of force.

Nuclear Fizzles may be seen as a failure of a nuclear weapon to properly detonate, but if you've got crap material that isnt considered "weapons grade" and can still do something with it... thats still alot better than C4 by a long shot.

>>31017063
>anti-sat laser
>from the ground
There's a reason they use anti-sat missiles and not lasers anon.

I suspect a lot of what you're saying is pulled straight out of your ass.

>>31015905
Probably not, as there's very few targets they'd prove effective against. The damage potential is too small for leveling a town like a nuclear device, and the 10-90 min prep+travel time mean they're completely impractical against mobile targets. The only possible purpose I can think of is lightly reinforced bunkers, factories/small strategic structures, and just general fear factor.

File: 1421449109432.jpg (1MB, 2936x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2936x2000px

So /k/, what would your ultimate Rod of God be like?

Mine would be a thick Plutonium tube filled with Tritium and the Plutonium tube would be sheathed by a layer of Osmium which itself is covered by a layer of Aerogel tiles.

>>31016741
Then why do other countries use tungsten in similar tank-ammunition? I'm pretty sure it's ammo that's specifically used to penetrate armor..
Don't the US only use DU as the main component of their AP-tank-rounds because it's just cheap and abundant?

>>31015924
>>31015905
I want to believe.
>secret NASA/Illuminati space empire with thousands of war satellites in orbit to kill Aliens/Demons/Russians etcm

There sure are people with a very active fanatsy in this thread kek

>DU is used in armor-piercing ammunition of variable type because it creates a minor nuclear fission explosion and not because it's dense af, pyrophoric and self-sharpening

>>31017250
that sure sounds like the fusion-stage of a nuke

I'm not sure it would have the desired effect if you slam it into the ground from orbit..

>>31017276

No they use it because the dust particles that shave off the DU round burst into flame and kill everybody. The US doesn't half-ass killing people.

>>31017394

>that sure sounds like the fusion-stage of a nuke

Thats the idea.

>I'm not sure it would have the desired effect if you slam it into the ground from orbit..

Well, the hard Osmium would form a very hard shell and due to being extremely dense, it is heavy and should be enough to compress the plutonium tube and its contents into going supercritical when slamming at near-orbital speeds into the target.

>>31017371
At least make it sound plausible.

>>31017250
you moms dildo launched from orbit

The most important thing I can mention is the design solely stems from the outer space treaty.
The international treaty establishes space law and bans what is to be considered "Weapons of mass destruction" from being used in space.
A giant tungsten telephone pole is not considered a "Weapon of mass destruction" and loopholes past the treaty.

>>31016741
>Depleted Uranium can be made weaponized by treating it with Deuterium to make a hydride.
>One reason DU does so much damage in tank rounds is because a very light nuclear energy release takes place
>>>/x/
It's time for you to leave. Also, time to take your medication. Take your meds.

>>31017513
>because the dust particles that shave off the DU round burst into flame and kill everybody
To be fair, that's not a property unique to DU. Tungsten alloy rounds create flaming spall as well.

File: books.jpg (56KB, 599x312px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 599x312px

>>31017328
Have I got some readin' for you