I'd be nervous about that return journey. Coming in hot like that might spook any number of nations right now, including the U.S.
this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2026
285 points (98.3% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
8130 readers
169 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Everyone knows it's happening tho so it's fine
If you say so. Fingers crossed.
Also, it's gonna come down in the ocean nearish the US on a very different trajectory from any ballistic missile. And it will be very very well tracked the whole way, and televised.
The people who are actually in charge of missile defense are wayyy more competent than most of our government
Edit: also a very different radar signature probably due to how it's shaped
Here's hoping you're right, my friend.
I'd still be nervous.
Actually there is a non zero chance Orion burns completely during re-entry.
Couldn't fix the faulty design of the heat shield from Artemis 1. So they will try a different re-entry trajectory to minimize the heat lol.
They sped up the re-entry to increase heat transfer rate to reduce off gassing issues. This is a great example of why engineering sometimes doesn't release a full description of issues, because dumb people don't understand why a decision is made.
Please avoid calling people dumb on the internet. And whatever you just said about not being transparent and the reason for it is so short sightest I'm honnestly wondering if you know what you are saying.
From the article I shared:
“I would never be happy accepting a workaround and flying something that I know is the worst version of that heat shield we could possibly fly and hoping that the workaround is going to fix it,” Camarda said. “What I really hope he [Isaacman] gets is that if we don’t get back to doing research at NASA, we’re not going to be able to help Starship solve their problems. We’ve got to get back to doing research.”
You honesfly think the new re-entry trajectory is not a workaround? Do you work there? Please provide some source. Sorry I forgot, I'm too dumb to understand, I don't deserve full description of the issues.
You mocked them, I'll call you stupid for it. You claimed they reduced heat transfer rate, which is false. The answer is in the article you linked.
For Artemis II, it would return through Earth’s atmosphere at a steeper angle, spending fewer minutes in the environment where this outgassing occurred during Artemis I.
This change is a perfect example of engineering research. Artemis I was within the expected boundaries of the heat shield material. It performed worse than expected, so they adjusted its heat exposure rate based on the actual outcome. The guy in the article seems to not understand that this is a huge part of actual engineering.
I'm a mechanical engineer. The article is mostly fluff sucking off to the rich guy you quoted.
I need this article lol
Seems to me the Artemis rocket would be ~~uncachable~~ going to fast to be caught by the time it is near Kuwait.
Trick is to aim where it will be when the thing intercepts it, not where it currently is. And if the rocket is a woman or child, just reduce the lead distance.
I understood that reference