this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2026
9 points (76.5% liked)

Ask Science

16046 readers
194 users here now

Ask a science question, get a science answer.


Community Rules


Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.


Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.


Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.


Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.


Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.


Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.


Rule 7: Report violations.Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.


Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.


Rule 9: Source required for answers.Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.


By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.

We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Delta_V@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

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.