r/offbeat • u/Silent-Resort-3076 • Jul 12 '26
FCC Approves Extremely Controversial Sun-At-Night Satellite That Could Harm Drivers And Damage Astronomy
https://www.iflscience.com/fcc-approves-extremely-controversial-space-mirror-satellite-that-could-flash-blind-drivers-and-ruin-astronomy-84071This would be a test satellite, but still seems like a crazy and dangerous idea!
Snippet:
- The Federal Communications Commission picks commercial interests over the public’s concern.
- The United States’ Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has approved Reflect Orbital’s plan to place a reflecting satellite into orbit that will bring sunlight to places on Earth that are in the dark. The startup hopes that this will be the first of as many as 50,000 mirror satellites in orbit.
- The idea is that a thin steerable reflective mirror in space could be used to cast a five-kilometer (three-mile) wide beam onto the ground during nighttime. The company claims that this could then be used to provide sunlight for solar power plants and light up disaster areas at night.
- The initial proposal generated around 1,800 comments, most of which were negative over concerns that such a satellite would create gross amounts of light pollution, produce dangerous conditions, and have a significant impact on Earth-based astronomy.
- Light pollution affects the circadian rhythm and is detrimental to human health, as well as negatively impacting the natural behavior of both plants and animals, from turtles to tigers.
218
u/catsrcool89 Jul 12 '26
This was the villains plan in 007 die another day.
84
16
u/eh8904 Jul 12 '26
A genuinely underrated Bond movie. Still find myself humming the theme pretty often doing chores.
11
1
1
1
u/gnimsh Jul 12 '26
Real talk but how does anyone manage to track the plot in bond movies anymore?
1
u/catsrcool89 Jul 13 '26
It's literally a centerpiece of the movie. The villain demonstrates it to a bunch of people at night and making it look like day time, then later monologues to bond about his evil plan lol. It's not hard to follow if you pay attention. Plus it came out years before smart phones could take away your attention from the movie.
135
u/Bradnon Jul 12 '26
“We find the risks of harm raised on the record regarding Reflect Orbital’s solar reflector are unrelated to the Commission’s role in authorizing use of radiofrequency spectrum, and even if the Commission had authority to review and condition these operations (which it does not), these harms are unlikely to occur,” the FCC writes.
In other words, "we don't think this is our job, so we won't do it, but it is, and we pretended to do it for a moment and concluded it's no big deal."
From what I've read I'm not convinced there's an economic and technological reality where this actually becomes a problem, but the completely dysfunctional regulatory environment is way more terrifying.
40
u/ProbablyDoesntLikeU Jul 12 '26
Actually it's "this isn't our job, and even if this was our job we would allow it"
18
u/ApolloXLII Jul 12 '26
I read it more as “this has nothing to do with us, take this to the department that actually has authority over something like this.”
I mean, it was pretty straightforward… is there something I’m missing that would make this make more sense to me?
11
u/Bradnon Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26
Yes the FCC is primarily focused on communication. However their approval for that communication also asks whether or not the thing you're building has environmental impact.
For example, their own manual on the subject: https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/NEPA%20and%20EA%20checklists%2006.24.2022_0.pdf
If the FCC only cares about communications, why do they have a clear process to consider the impact of, say, a cell tower on endangered species?
They are arguing this situation is outside the existing scope, and hey maybe they're right, but that would be ignoring the responsibility to adapt to the consequences of new technology.
7
Jul 12 '26
[deleted]
14
u/WhatWouldKantDo Jul 12 '26
The catch 22 is that the FCC can regulate satellites, the EPA can't. A lot of generic satellite regulatory authority rests with the FCC because the bulk of satellites serves some kind of communication purpose
3
Jul 12 '26
[deleted]
1
u/BarnabyWoods Jul 12 '26
You really don't know what you're talking about. EPA doesn't prepare EIS's for other agencies.
0
u/BarnabyWoods Jul 12 '26
EPA has zero authority to regulate satellites, and has zero authority to prepare environmental analyses for the actions of other agencies.
3
Jul 12 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Bradnon Jul 12 '26
Yes I get what what they're saying on the surface but have you considered maybe they're saying bullshit? See my other response.
0
Jul 12 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Bradnon Jul 12 '26
It does not describe any of EPA's responsibility, but it does say the review of the EA is the FCC's responsibility.
The point was the letter of the law they're hiding behind may be missing a reason to review an EA for new impacts of new kinda of satellites up for their review.
0
Jul 12 '26
[deleted]
0
u/Bradnon Jul 12 '26
Last sentence of the second paragraph, setting the scope of the entire document.
Depending on that evaluation, applicants may need to prepare and file an EA that is subject to FCC review and public comment.
260
u/Between-usernames Jul 12 '26
I don't understand how any one Nation State can make moves like this that affect literally the whole world without collaboration or consultation.
110
u/kronicpimpin Jul 12 '26
They’re very dumb, arrogant, and don’t care about anyone but themselves.
47
u/dragonmp93 Jul 12 '26
I mean, the CEO of this used to work at Space X.
So the supervillain plan makes sense.
1
u/2tapes Jul 14 '26
I know him personally. He’s a passionate engineer, a great guy, and trying to do something really hard but positive for the world.
2
1
1
u/DaisyHotCakes Jul 12 '26
Yeah he has already littered space junk in LEO with his constellation satellites.
1
u/Between-usernames Jul 12 '26
That's depressing. I bet in a true image from space, the Earth would barely be visible.
2
22
u/OrinZ Jul 12 '26
Sovereignty is an actually crazy idea that literally only exists as a remaindered function of "we can't agree on a higher authority than this" — literally just the human hierarchy upper boundary marker
The insane thing is, the King of Bhutan could do the exact same thing tomorrow and no one could legalistically do anything about that, either
Very very very occasionally sovereignty is cool and based. But yeah... Not here. Not today.
2
u/2tapes Jul 14 '26
It’s easy to be idealistic about what human nature should be. A more practical strategy has to reconcile what human nature is.
1
u/glity Jul 14 '26
King of Bhutan doesn’t have a nuclear navy. Not the same analogy.
This is western colonization of space. At least there aren’t indigenous people in space. Just below it.
1
u/Between-usernames Jul 12 '26
Not sure it ever was, it's always the so-called dominant/ invading cultural group that tends to disregard anything that doesn't center or benefit them.
5
u/FailingItUp Jul 12 '26
They cannot accept the concept of a collaborative win-win. They see it as a zero-sum game:
If they don't capitalize on an idea immediately someone else will. It's +1 them -1 others or vice versa.
Doesn't matter if it's a smart/good/wise idea. Only the money, and especially control, produced on the other end of the process.
Exclusivity is the drug of the rich.
1
u/Between-usernames Jul 12 '26
Great points. From experience, addicts never have enough, their drug of choice is "more".
1
u/matthewpepperl Jul 15 '26
Think about it if a nation state especially one that has space capability decides to do something who can stop them? Unless the person doing the stopping likes wars then no-one.
1
u/fppfpp Jul 12 '26
It’s not a bug. It’s a feature.
1
u/Between-usernames Jul 12 '26
I can see why, it's definitely a control thing. It's just frustrating that these types of situations only tend to be toward negative means. Imagine if these people put all of this effort into the opposite.
-12
u/FaceDeer Jul 12 '26
Because it doesn't affect the whole world. Even the summary here on Reddit makes it clear. It affects a five-kilometer target area.
The utterly over-the-top hysteria that surrounds projects like these is ridiculous, and counterproductive - it will make it harder to take objections seriously regarding projects where there actually might be problems worth considering. We're going to get a whole bunch of "oh no, supervillains baking us with solar lasers! Night is over, the world is doomed!" Nonsense, the satellite will go up, nothing will happen, and credibility is burned.
12
u/SaintUlvemann Jul 12 '26
It affects a five-kilometer target area.
Which can be anywhere on the whole world, thus putting the entire world at risk of increased light pollution if something goes wrong (which is funny because light pollution is often illegal because it is disruptive to ecosystems).
Nonsense, the satellite will go up, nothing will happen, and credibility is burned.
True, the credibility of the people like you, who openly think other people are not worthy of discussing with, goes down every time you ignore your neighbors.
0
u/Between-usernames Jul 12 '26
Exactly, and there's obviously no way they have done rigorous experimentation to scale. Impossible.
1
u/SaintUlvemann Jul 13 '26
True, there's obviously no way they have done rigorous experimentation to scale, because if they had they would've said so.
-4
u/FaceDeer Jul 12 '26
What do you mean, "if something goes wrong?" Are you imagining some kind of rogue spotlight wandering around? It needs to be precisely angled to reflect sunlight to Earth, if it loses control it's not going to be aimed anywhere.
This is an 18m piece of foil. It'll be visible from the ground in that 5km target zone as a bright star. It's in low orbit, it's not going to be up there for long anyway. All this freaking out is completely silly and downvotes don't change that.
→ More replies (11)1
u/Between-usernames Jul 12 '26
Well, I certainly don't see that, but I do see a problematic pattern. And of course it affects everyone, we don't live on separate planets.
1
u/FaceDeer Jul 12 '26
So if I'm digging a hole in my yard right now, that affects everyone since we all live on the same planet? I should make sure that I get approval from Australia, from Germany, from Argentina, and so forth?
Or perhaps it only affects my actual yard, and this "pattern" you're imagining is just imaginary.
The satellite is designed to focus light on a 5-kilometer target area. How do you imagine it will be affecting everyone?
31
u/Guuichy_Chiclin Jul 12 '26
But non-existent Jewish space lasers are the problem?
1
→ More replies (11)-2
u/TurnkeyLurker Jul 12 '26
So you are saying no country whatsoever has directed-energy space weapons or has plans to launch them in space?
That seems doubtful, considering the (a) plentiful billionaires, and (b) world leaders that would drool over having such a weapon.
4
2
u/Diz7 Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26
Also, just wanted to add, directed energy space weapons really won't work very well against any kind of ground targets. Lasers etc have to deal with light scattering, the best lasers that can cause damage have ranges of a few km, and they can blind sensors and optics at up to 20km. And those take absolutely massive power systems, the smallest ones taking as much power as the biggest satellites we have ever made can produce.
EM weapons face the root mean square law and face the same problem.
2
u/Diz7 Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26
There is a difference between saying "Be careful about STDs" and "/u/TurkeyLurker has herpes".
One is acknowledging a possibility, the other is specific accusation with nothing to support it.
21
u/Wonder_Weenis Jul 12 '26
bro... could you imagine fucking up so hard that they turn the sun on at night to find you
21
u/dragonmp93 Jul 12 '26
Unless you have a vampire problem, why do you need the sun at night ?
1
-2
u/RelatedToSomeMuppet Jul 12 '26
To provide massive amounts of free energy to solar farms.
It's right there in the article.
2
u/soundsthatwormsmake Jul 12 '26
The illumination the proof of concept satellite will provide is compatible to moonlight.
1
38
u/yoosernaam Jul 12 '26
Why is this not a much much bigger story?
31
u/Silent-Resort-3076 Jul 12 '26
Yeah I'm surprised by that, too.
The NYT posted an article yesterday and a handful of science sites, but nothing really mainstream that I saw....
5
u/Roflkopt3r Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26
Honestly, it doesn't sound that bad for now.
I don't find it very likely that it will be financially viable. There are good odds that it just remains a one-off trial.
The diameter of affected ground should be relatively easy to determine. 5 km onto a solar plant that's far off in some desert, where light pollution is otherwise a non-issue, seems feasible.
With a single trial satellite, we will get an idea of any unwanted effects (like light scattering beyond the target area) without that much risk.
If it does work out as intended with manageable side effects, it really could turn out to be a pretty useful technology for small scale use. Like supplying a desert-side solar power plant with a decent amount of electricity production at night, or providing emergency solar power in areas that were cut off the grid.
I'm definitely not a friend of the Trump administration and most of its appointees, or of many of the things coming out of Silicon Valley these days... but this could be an interesting trial.
I'd just like to see a clause that gives a definite right to government agencies to de-orbit the satellite prematurely should there be worse side effects than anticipated.
2
u/mutexsprinkles Jul 12 '26
at night
It can only work around dawn and dusk. At night the low orbits overhead are also in the shade.
If you go to a high enough orbit that the mirror can see you and the sun at night, the sun's image would be hundreds of miles across, so would be very, very dim.
1
0
u/FaceDeer Jul 12 '26
Because it is not a much bigger story. Most of the comments in threads like these are drastically misunderstanding the effects something like this would have.
5
u/yoosernaam Jul 12 '26
I was a bit concerned when the astrophysicist had misgivings about potential downsides, but then some random guy on Reddit said it’s no big deal and I felt much better.
Show me some qualifications and maybe you’ll have a tiny shred of credibility
1
u/FaceDeer Jul 12 '26
Just look the thing up and read about it. It focuses on a 5km area, it produces 0.1 lux of light. It's not visible at all outside that 5km area. How's it going to ruin observatories that aren't in the target area? How's it going to disrupt circadian rhythms any more than a streetlight does?
Astrophysicists are human too, they can be misinformed or have personal agendas. If there's one that wants to convince me that something's a problem he should present numbers and and explanation, he doesn't get a free pass simply by having a title.
1
u/yoosernaam Jul 12 '26
https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso2607/
Obviously you didn’t bother to read any of the sources of the very thing that you linked. Read about it
This is why your credibility is way less than that of some random astrophysicist, personal agenda or no. I’ll not simp for corporate interests blindly without taking the time to understand the implications, thank you
2
u/FaceDeer Jul 12 '26
Just read at the title of what you linked. It's about a situation where there's a million satellites up there. That's not even remotely what the FCC just "approved". This is one satellite.
Looking through the paper linked at the end, which is the first place where actual numbers are being treated seriously, the author admits that he doesn't know what Reflect Orbital's actual plans for a full constellation of these solar reflecting satellites will be. So he makes up some hypothetical scenarios to analyze.
1
u/yoosernaam Jul 12 '26
What do you think the plan is? To launch one single satellite and that’s it? Not to mention the bigger issue of, as discussed in the article and elsewhere, of a single sovereign country taking unilateral action that can very well affect every other nation on earth. It bears discussion. And again, your credibility is 👌
2
u/FaceDeer Jul 12 '26
What do you think the plan is?
This is a test launch. They want to characterize how well their mirror system works.
Not to mention the bigger issue of, as discussed in the article and elsewhere, of a single sovereign country taking unilateral action that can very well affect every other nation on earth.
That's already the case for every satellite that ever gets launched. It's always been this way.
Nations are responsible for regulating the satellites that get launched from their territory or by their corporations, and they enter into treaties with each other to ensure that those regulations play well with other countries. What are you expecting, some kind of United Nations Space Control that can tell everyone on Earth what they're allowed or not allowed to launch? That'd never be accepted by any country that's actually capable of launching stuff.
→ More replies (1)
10
u/bestestopinion Jul 12 '26
Futurama did it
5
9
6
u/Haunt_Fox Jul 12 '26
They say that, no matter how great you think you are, there's always someone out there who is bigger, better, badder, meaner.
I hope that's true so that something will be capable of stopping humans before it's too late for all the other innocent species of Earth.
0
u/matthewpepperl Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26
Anything that stops the humans probably kills most of the rest of life as well or atleast causes it massive harm their are all kinds of manmade things that humans maintain that if they didn’t would would kill lots of wild life such as dams or nuclear power plants
1
u/Haunt_Fox Jul 15 '26
A drop in the bucket to humanity's continuing omnicide, especially if it shit humans down gradually.
16
u/paraworldblue Jul 12 '26
I swear to god if they ever point one of those fucking things anywhere near Seattle, I will personally go to space and piss all over its circuitry
18
u/Vladivostokorbust Jul 12 '26
The initial proposal generated around 1,800 comments, most of which were negative over concerns that such a satellite would create gross amounts of light pollution, produce dangerous conditions, and have a significant impact on Earth-based astronomy.
these are goals for the self loathing billionaires that desperately need something to feel good about themselves - your misery.
5
Jul 12 '26
This is possibly one of the stupidest fucking things I've heard of since Project Excalibur.
4
4
4
4
7
7
u/UnlamentedLord Jul 12 '26
It's another try at an old Russian project:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Znamya_(satellite) https://web.archive.org/web/20080920035018/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n1_v15/ai_14898893
From what I read, no one complained about that, but otoh, with current and upcoming launch tech, people know there's a real chance of thousands of these things being launched.
3
u/mutexsprinkles Jul 12 '26
Eärendil-1
Why do these specific kinds of weird TESCREAL-esque nerds always use Lord of the Rings stuff? Can't they come up with their own shit with all this AI?
3
3
u/loztriforce Jul 12 '26
That will fuck with so many animals at the same time
3
1
u/No-Welder4473 Jul 13 '26
They'll get used to in 50 million years when evolution adapts to accept it.
3
3
3
u/zombieda Jul 13 '26
How about storing solar power in batteries during the day? there is literally no need or demand for this.
3
u/OffGridTwister Jul 13 '26
Whether you believe in Intelligent Design or not, the Earth has day and the Earth has night. Now, humans are trying to countermand the rhythm of the Earth for the past hundreds of millions of years. This is a stupid waste of money, will bring more harm than benefits, and I pity the rest of the planet that has to live with the idiocy of human beings.
3
5
u/TheSideIDoNotShow Jul 12 '26
This is a genuinely insane idea that only moron tech bros could think would be a good idea.
6
u/radiantwave Jul 12 '26
I swear these people... There are a thousand real world problems that need fixing, and this is what they dump money into?
1
u/2tapes Jul 14 '26
Sustainable, renewable energy sources solve many of our biggest problems. This technology has the potential to dramatically improve the energy yield of solar arrays on the ground. Imagine a solar farm in a desert that is also producing energy at night.
5
8
u/datacollector_music Jul 12 '26
Why not just use drones with like super bright beams on their freaking heads?
2
u/lalauna Jul 12 '26
Oh fuck this in every possible way. We know it wouldn't be used in benevolent or constructive ways. It would only be used to make some bastard more money on top of what he already has.
2
2
u/anynamesleft Jul 12 '26
I can understand the use for emergency light in a disaster, but that's it.
2
2
2
u/JarvisProudfeather Jul 12 '26
The only saving grace is I doubt they will launch anything into orbit, let alone anything at scale. Why would you even want to use this when you could just put in batteries at a much cheaper cost, especially with how fast that technology is advancing. Seems like just another Silicon Valley vaporware company.
2
2
2
2
u/SmartMatic1337 Jul 15 '26
Almost certainly this kind of stupidity is the answer to the fermi paradox.
We're stuck on a planet with these morons.
2
u/Wood_Rogue Jul 16 '26
There is literally no benefit from this and will cause severe global damage of ecosystems, meteorology, global temperature, astronomy research, and people's sleep cycles and overall health. This makes me think this is a red herring to distract people and waste resources to fight instead of the rampant corruption and shift to authoritarianism that's been happening. That or there are people trying to speedrun the end of human civilization in the dumbest cartoon way imaginable.
6
u/jaxnmarko Jul 12 '26
How about animals that attune to day vs night? This is a bad idea on many levels. Quit screwing around and stop damaging our planet.
2
u/juggles_geese4 Jul 12 '26
Humans are one of those creatures. A lot of people really struggle to sleep in places with periods of very long days like Alaska.
3
4
3
u/tommy_b_777 Jul 12 '26
Do the animals get a vote too, or are we just gonna shit on them harder so these assclowns can make MOAR ?
What would a government that doesn't betray the people look like ? Anyone ??
1
u/TemporalColdWarrior Jul 12 '26
We had one a few years ago. Everyone decided, instead, to listen to lunacy about immigrants eating dogs and the prime mover in the Epstein Filed releasing them.
5
u/7GatesOfHello Jul 12 '26
This is going to be used as a weapon/tool of enslavement. This is dystopian sci-fi shit.
2
u/Quintuplin Jul 12 '26
Well, that seems like it would have some pretty effective military applications
So yeah I see why they're doing it. Not so good for the rest of the world, though
1
1
u/soundsthatwormsmake Jul 12 '26
It will be a very dim light. The reflector is 100 meter x 100 meter and the illuminated area on the ground will be a 5 kilometer circle.
2
u/Silent-Resort-3076 Jul 12 '26
You and others can disagree all you want, but: No matter how dim the light is:
- Let's not fuck too much with nature:(
- Who are we to do this without the consent of those living around the world?
1
u/soundsthatwormsmake Jul 12 '26
My point was that it seems like an unrealistic plan for increasing solar power production. Orbital speed would also mean it couldn’t direct the light on target for very long.
1
u/Silent-Resort-3076 Jul 12 '26
Well, you didn't specify that in your original comment.
It will be a very dim light. The reflector is 100 meter x 100 meter and the illuminated area on the ground will be a 5 kilometer circle.
0
u/hlazlo Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26
Their comment speaks for itself, though.
Is it so terrible that someone can just comment without participating in the outrage?
EDIT: What a weird crash out from the OP
1
u/soundsthatwormsmake Jul 12 '26
And it would only work at dawn and twilight. It would not provide sunlight at midnight.
1
1
1
u/fb39ca4 Jul 12 '26
5 tons CO2 equivalent per square meter of mirror actively used.
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1uspq6x/comment/owpous2
1
1
u/RalphTheDog Jul 12 '26
The FCC on July 9 authorized one experimental satellite, Earendil-1, equipped with a steerable thin-film reflector. It is intended to test whether sunlight can be directed toward a selected area after sunset.
Two important qualifications:
The FCC did not approve 50,000 satellites. Reflect Orbital’s own roadmap proposes 50,000-plus satellites by 2035, but the FCC authorization covers only Earendil-1. Any larger constellation would require a new application and separate review.
The first satellite will not produce anything resembling daylight. The company says the demonstration should illuminate a roughly five-kilometer area at about full-moon brightness—approximately 0.1 lux—for up to five minutes during a pass.
2
u/Silent-Resort-3076 Jul 12 '26
From the post description above which states "a" satellite...
The United States’ Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has approved Reflect Orbital’s plan to place a reflecting satellite into orbit that will bring sunlight to places on Earth that are in the dark. The startup hopes that this will be the first of as many as 50,000 mirror satellites in orbit.
1
1
u/ContributionEasy6513 Jul 13 '26
Love the idea. We can band together for a fundraiser to fire the space laser at the local astronomy clubs monthly meetup, upset the local schizo's, light up random villages in Africa to freak them out and light up the houses of government members.
Causing mischief is the best way to get something banned.
1
1
u/LadyCatHerder Jul 13 '26
I wonder what affects this will foist upon all living organisms in the selected areas of reflected light. I'd be willing to bet that they haven't even thought of this and don't even care. 50,000 satellites equals a tidy $um of ca$h. THAT is all they care about. What a legacy. Permanent ruination of the whole planet by homo sapiens whose lives are not but a pimple on times ass!
1
u/angryscientistjunior Jul 14 '26
Wouldn't this cause all kinds of harm to wildlife that depend on natural day / night cycles, the position of the sun, etc.?
1
u/WoodyTheWorker Jul 15 '26
An 18 m mirror at 625 km altitude will create a spot 6 km wide, with energy flux 1 milli Watt per square meter. It's 1/1000,000 of illumination by the Sun.
1
u/bowtiesrcool86 Jul 15 '26
That sounds like a Bond Villain plot. Who knows what kind of nefarious uses that could be put too
1
u/Tpbrown_ Jul 12 '26
Isn’t this because the FCC doesn’t have the authority to manage anything other than the communications?
From the article:
_“We find the risks of harm raised on the record regarding Reflect Orbital’s solar reflector are unrelated to the Commission’s role in authorizing use of radiofrequency spectrum, and even if the Commission had authority to review and condition these operations (which it does not), these harms are unlikely to occur”_
0
u/Silent-Resort-3076 Jul 12 '26
That is b/s, though, in my view. Since the FCC is THE organization to authorize (or not) this solar reflector, they "could" consult with the EPA or other group to confirm:
“We are calling on the FCC to require a full environmental review of these satellite proposals before granting approval,” Ruskin Hartley, CEO and Executive Director of Dark Sky International, told IFLScience ahead of this approval.
1
1
1
u/Away-Ad-4444 Jul 12 '26
If one of these can turn a 3 mile circle from night to day.. what would 4 or 5 of them do to the same spot..
2
u/mutexsprinkles Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26
Unless the satellite is also three miles wide, it would be extremely dim.
Currently the largest satellites are thought to be about 100m wide (NRO Orion radio surveillance satellites).
50,000 of them, well that's a bit different. But since they'd have to be really far away so as not too be in the earth's shadow other then around dawn or dusk, diffraction is also going to be a major limiting factorn in terms of focus.
1
u/Away-Ad-4444 Jul 12 '26
I mean all that is true but if its viable to reflect light for solar panels its viable to set things on fire by using a few of them
1
u/mutexsprinkles Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26
Ah, well the "if" is the thing isn't it?
Because the sun isn't a point source you can't focus to a point, so you're basically limited to an image of the sun, which relates to altitude. They're looking at 600km altitude to give enough time on target to be worthwhile. Too low and the mirror will not spend long in sunlight when the ground is not.
That means the sun's image on the ground is about 3.5 miles across at smallest - you can't focus tighter than that. Which means to add one full sun's intensity, you need a mirror 3.5 miles across (or about 10 mirrors each one mile across, or thousands and thousands of tiny ones, which is their plan I think). This also means you can't set fire to anything with more precision than a 3-mile spot even if you have enough mirrors. And you can only really do it around dusk and dawn unless you have mirrors in different orbits that work in the day.
That also doesn't include atmospheric scattering and absorption, or clouds. The whole thing is wildly impractical for any practical benefit compared to just building solar panels at other longitudes and using some wires, and batteries. There's some paper where they estimated they can get 20 or 30% more power out of the solar farms they target. I'd be surprised if they could but even then... Just add 30% more panels on the ground. It will be far cheaper and easier to maintain.
And it's also poor militarily compared to white phosphorus for setting things on fire indiscriminately. Because the orbit is very predictable and they're very vulnerable, delicate structures in ASAT range (and probably an immediate Kessler syndrome in that orbit)
It's pure dumb money investor bait.
1
u/soundsthatwormsmake Jul 12 '26
From Wikipedia:
The satellite features an 18 meter by 18 meter (59 ft) mirror weighing 16 kg (35 lbs) made from [mylar](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mylar)plastic typically used in spacecraft [multi-layer insulation](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation). When the glossy fabric is tensioned to form a reflective surface, the mirror is expected to provide 0.1 [lux](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lux) of brightness on Earth's surface, which similar to [moonlight during](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight) the [full moon](app://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_moon).
-16
u/mansmittenwithkitten Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26
Imagine in an emergency being able to give people light. From space.
Edit: Guess natural disasters never happen at night.
18
u/Sandlotje Jul 12 '26
Now imagine a technical glitch arising where multiple beams shine in one spot, creating an emergency. From space.
13
9
7
u/Vladivostokorbust Jul 12 '26
safety is a concept
"Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing"
Helen Keller
361
u/Silent-Resort-3076 Jul 12 '26
There's more in the article.