Nuclear is taboo, but a mass moving at high velocity in space and then impacting the Earth is just as powerful, if not more so. Seeing it launch, and knowing it is coming but unstoppable except through leveraged diplomacy is more strategic. The timeline is long, but the potential for a redistribution of geopolitical power structures is large.
I think it is likely a distant future type of problem. Refueling of a large craft in space is likely a major factor, but we are nearly at that point now. I am curious if such a technology comes before large scale space colonies or after. Does it make more sense to weaponize some low earth orbit asteroid for the mass, like covering the surface with an expanding ablative resin before redirecting it to a target.
If all major wars last for years, when (if ever) does it make sense to have a launch platform around a Jovian moon for the largest gravitational assist.
Not that I want any such thing. I am thinking about hard science fiction and the overall timeline.
02-06-2026 12:10:02
Rods from God deliver the energy of about 12 tons of TNT.
For comparison:
The British used 12 ton "Tallboy" bombs, carried by Lancaster bombers, in WWII against submarine pens.
The "Little Boy" nuke delivered the energy of 15,000 tons of TNT.
Some modern ICBMs carry 10 warheads, each of which delivers the energy of 475,000 tons of TNT.
One benefit of dropping a tungsten telephone pole from orbit is that there's no good way to stop it, because its just a chunk of metal moving very fast. Hitting it with a missile might scratch the paint, but won't significantly alter its course.
The main drawback is the expense of getting them into orbit. Falcon 9 can lift 2 of them if the poles are cut in half to fit under the fairing, at a cost of about $70 million. That does not include rocket engines, fuel, and targeting computers needed to get those 2 tungsten rods out of space and onto target.
02-06-2026 12:27:40
It's been a while since I watched this, but by memory, its just hard to aim them accurately and if you put control systems on them then it's basically a missile
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s7piGzIULQE
The Rods from God: A Brief History of Kinetic Orbital Bombardment
Channel: Megaprojects
02-06-2026 14:07:12
This is an issue, but there is also a lot more space up there than people intuitively understand. There are less than 20,000 satellites in space. If they were all at surface level at the equator, that's 300 m apart. In reality there is a 3D space so they're not all constrained to a single line (but that's where most of the complications come in too). Low earth orbit is about 200 km to 2000 km so that's a lot of layers to spread satellites out vertically. Its going to get a lot more busy and its important to have a better mechanism for deciding how we share that area, but there is a lot of it there to share around too
02-06-2026 18:04:01
Difficulties to overcome:
- Atmospheric interference and heat of reentry
- The monetary cost of getting it into space
- The monetary cost of resupplying a weapons platform in space compared to more conventional weapons
- The monetary cost of materials large and dense enough (big ole tungsten or depleted uranium rods) to withstand atmospheric reentry and still have enough mass and velocity to cause the intended damage
- The fact that if you launch a weapon space to surface, why not also add a warhead on it for more damage?
- Precision or lack of: If there's a propulsion or guidance system, well, that's just a rocket or nmissile at that point.
Wikipedia has more detail
02-06-2026 19:22:48
Not sure, but i imagine with how much space trash is up there running and maintaining a weapon is just not feasible. Especially as more time goes on, more trash is thrown into low earth orbit
02-06-2026 20:41:46
Lemmy
Related topics
