How can anyone not see this doesn't work? The simple 100x100m to 5km translation is all you need to see it's hopeless. And why 5km? Some atmospheric scatter, but you'd need a convex mirror to get that.
The 5km diameter comes from the 0.5 deg angular diameter of the sun as seen from earth. This means that a flat mirror at a 500 km orbit shines a cone of light down that spreads out over a 500 * sin(0.5deg) = about 5 km disk of light on the ground.
I wonder if they did all the calculations for 10x10 km mirrors in each satellite, which would be insane of course, but it would probably get pretty close numbers to their initial claims..
Tech bros once again falling into the trap of spending absurd amounts of money to put solar power systems in impractical places, instead of spending a fraction the amount of money to put solar panels on rooftops and empty land and battery systems to power overnight
Don't forget the energy needed to manufacture the satellites in the first place when counting from the mines to final assembly and packaging into launch units. These things are probably net-negative long before they reach the launch pad.
Honestly, at this point you can't blame those scam companies. If investors want to throw money away, who's to stop them? "We are YouWish! We invented a new way to produce energy - cosmic wind generators! It's like wind turbines, but in space! Cosmic wind is a higher form of wind that is capable of producing much higher levels of energy than regular wind! We pop those bad boys into orbit, and they beam the energy back to earth using lasers! We're looking for a meager $2 billion in funding just to kickstart our first satellite. Let us turn YouWish space lasers from myth to reality!"
That seems to be what lot of these projects are really for. They don't even care if it's practical or not. It's lucrative especially if they can eventually get public funding involved, aka tax payers. There really needs to be more accountability for this sort of stuff.
Seriously. Placing mirrors in high places to illuminate shaded zones is actually a more practical idea and infinitely cheaper to implement with zero risk.
and there are plenty options for batteries: - used lithium batteries from EVs, in 10 years we will have lots - sodium and other less weight optimized but cheaper chemistries - flow batteries (this one is still not a mature technology though, but has a very long history)
bwhahaha.. I wonder, by how many orders of magnitude, would a battery be better... Especially with the belly in that duck curve being so much cheaper during the day.
@@adamrak7560 Kinetic batteries, aka flywheel batteries are the best solution for static deployment. No polluting technologies, volatile or precious metals needed.
@@andre-7423 no they arent. the star liner successfully docked and returned from the iss. if they worked for that team the iss would be a debris cloud by now. despite Boeing making some mistakes in recent years, they are still decades ahead of solar friggin satellite mirrors.
First, the you need to include the cosine of the angle. Assuming mirrors cannot reflect at 45 degrees you will get 70% or more. Then the mirror are not 100% reflective. But even if we ignore any of that, to reach 500W/m2 to have a sun equivalent in an area of 2500m radius, you will need more than 9.8 million mirrors. Earth is the only planet we can live in the foreseeable future, we won't colonize Mars soon, but I am really really afraid of this crazy startup companies if they get enough funding to launch almost non-controlled thousands of satellites in low-Earth orbit. It will take just a single chain reaction to make impenetrable barrier of debris to trap all humans on Earth.
The big problem, due to cost and weight limitation they have to put the mirrors on higher orbit where drag is very small. But due to optics, they need to put it into the lowest orbit with low enough drag. That exactly the orbit where Kessler syndrome can cause massive problems! This is literally the worst possible orbit to put their junk on.
@@adamrak7560 also the lower the orbit the more of the satellite needs to be ion thruster (and fuel tank) than mirror in order to be able to reflect light in a controllable direction. When the thrusters operare the mirror isn't likely to stay flat either.
* Orbital decay time of satellite with large surface of 100m2 and small weight of 1 - 10 kg will be very short - it is similar to a parachute! * Sun angular size is ~0.5 degree, even with prefect mirrors it can not be focused to a narrower beam (without loss of energy, proof: the second law of thermodynamics). The distance to solar farm is longer than satellite altitude. * Uncontrolled space debris on orbits perpendicular to most satellites * Unexpected light pollution annoying pilots, astronomers and environmentalists
You could use it as a solar sail, but you would have to be quite high, diluting your solar energy further. However, if they scale up the satellite after flying the demo mission, you could have say a 250m x 250m panel. That would give you a lot more power per satellite, negating at least part of the penalty of the higher altitude. It's a giant solar sail, so the deorbit time is not going to be very long, so I wouldn't worry too much about the space debris aspect. But the light pollution aspect would be massive, and lead to significant complaints.
@@placeholdername0000 It's a solar sale if the sun hits prograde, but on the other side of the planet, if yyou server customers there, it's retrograde, elimininating any gain from the prograde phase.
Rocket lab put a 1m 8kg disco ball into space, Humanity star. They calculated that it will stay up there for 9 month, but it reentered in 2 month. Was on a 300x530km orbit. Yea, this 100m² 12kg sat will reenter really fast.
Honestly I think it is much worse. It's busted on the most basic laws of physics, completely ignoring the logistically crap that makes solar roadways stupid and impractical.
@@vejymonsta3006 I guess that if FSRs were "evolved" into "freaking solar canopies on roads so you don't get slowly roasted on traffic jams, maybe with some fancy futuristic led-panels here or there or something" would be incomparably better than this.
I covered this topic for Hackaday in an article a while ago. Other than the ridiculous claims made, there are also massive health & environmental implications of space mirrors, mostly due to the disruption of day/night cycles. This messes with the reproductive behaviour of plants and animals, and like other forms of light pollution (like from cities & street lighting) has been shown to increase stress and incidences of cancer. Much like with beaming microwave power from space-based PV arrays, it's much cheaper and efficient to just build a few ground-based nuclear plants. Just good ol' hot steam generated from spicy rocks, powering steam turbines. No new science required and all off-the-shelf.
They would have to use more energy to 'turn off' the mirrors by folding them up or reorienting them away from earth when they're not over any solar array.
It won't impact day/night cycles b/c it only happens at twilight/dawn, not the middle of the night and only results in a spot of light around a solar farm which most people won't be sleeping. All the lighting people put up on their houses these days due to cheap high power LEDs is way worse.
@@takanara7 Atmospheric diffraction says that's nonsense. Plus many of these solar farms are in remote areas that used to be far away from artificial lighting.
Alright it is settled... I am going to start a business called Solar Freakin Tires! I am going to put solar panels on car and truck tires. just doing some toilet paper math here and I think it will be enough to charge a Tesla so you never have to plug it in. Don't question my math because I am a math god. Anyone who criticizes my ideal is a big oil bigot.
@@gblargg Joke aside, I really want those TPMS to use the changing pressure differential between inside and outside while driving for energy harvesting and to pump up the tyres as needed. I'd say that is totally doable. The electronics need minimal amounts of energy, and the pump doesn't need to pump any large amounts, just what's lost over time.
@@HenryLoenwind Oh wow, that would be awesome. Self-airing tire caps. I wonder if some kind of microscopic molecular diffusion mechanism could be used that used micropower to slowly move air in.
Brilliant! (no pun intended) they can reflect this on solar road ways. All the batteries inside the roadway tiles should also be fitted with batterizer tech.
This would also make Solar Freaking Roadways more efficient, because you wouldn't need the LEDs anymore! Snow will melt in the light, so those heating elements can also be removed! It's a win-win.
No one need even envelope to do calculations. Obviously, if we want to have the same power output as under direct sunlight, then area of mirror should match lighted area on the ground - for 5 km diameter light spot it should be 5 km diameter mirror(not counting for angle).
I love Dave's "doing the maths" but I can't get around the simple argument: a mirror of 10x10m can only reflect the sunlight of 10x10m (max!), how do you power a solar farm of thousands of sqm with this? The produced power would always be a tiny fraction of what is financial viable - even without all the huge losses.
It really does come down to this. Even the basic intuition on hearing this idea should be enough to ask “hang on wait…” But no one has asked this? How?
@@cottsak I mean there are other Applications for "light from space with a switch" the Russians surely didn't research this for purely civilian reasons...
Well, there are indeed some good idea about mirrors - on a mountain. Like in Rjukan, Norway or Viganella, Italy. So, it might be OK-ish to put mirrors in space to enlighten darker areas on the globe, but that's just.. for the human soul, not the watt-meter.
All correctly calculated in the video and extremely generous. There is no way none of those people know all this but they want to scam the investors for a few years.
Their Mylar reflectors will serve as targets to catalog how much space junk there is. Put some cameras on them to photo the holes as they form over time.
@@EEVblog You underestimate how much stupid people will fall for this, if they get a test satellite we're screwed because then governments will start dumping truck loads of money onto them.
There needs to be serious financial consequences for these 'companies' that collect other peoples money and waste it on these clearly false claims. Misleading shareholders isn't enough. But what's worse... people are dumb enough to invest in these people in the first place.
There should also be serious financial consequences for companies putting things in space. Like a hefty property tax or similar, to discourage people from sending up junk just to prove that they are bad at maths.
The words that they overlooked are called "dissipation" ... or "dilution" . You can't spread the same energy over a larger area without the density going down. It's just physics 101 .. This has to be where they went wrong.. they are looking at energy density at the mirror and just "assuming" it would be the same on the ground (minus clouds, etc). It's amazing that they can get this far without someone tapping them on the shoulder and explaining this
@@xponen You're still only dealing with a maximum capture area of 100m sq. (each).. It's just not enough to justify the price of a satellite.. If you make it a concave mirror so that (ideally) it would shine down a perfect 1 to 1 ratio so that it mimics direct sunlight, your 100m mirror would only be supplying light for 100m area on the ground. lol.. not to mention inefficiencies of the reflection... What is that? like 50 to 70 solar panels? For only a few minutes per day? It just makes no sense. If they could get Square Kilometer sized mirrors, it still wouldn't make sense. Let alone at 100m sq..
I do recall the French government back in the '70s talking about a giant spinning mirror in a synchronous orbit positioned above Paris with the intention of extending daylight hours. Personally I wish they'd spent the research money on making a less smelly sewerage system in Paris.
well if you didn't have third worlders urinating everywhere and turning your parks into large outdoor toilets than maybe people would realize the sewage system smells
Reverse comparison......The 'Centrale solaire Thémis' in the Pyrenees was a solar thermal plant. 11000 square meters of reflectors all pointed at a single receiver 15 square metres in size. It was a concentrated solar power (CSP) plant, i.e. thermal and had an output of 2.5MW. So, the power reflected per square meter was approx. 227 Watts (2.5MW/11000). ........but using Reflect Orbitals maths it'd be quite scary the output it should have been producing.....LOL!
Yeah, seems to match the number they got from the baloon test, which sounds about what you'd expect. The problem is the cost to put it up into the orbit, and the spot size on the ground.
Using whatever form of math they had, it wouldn't be a scary amount of power, you would be able to run a fusion reactor off of that energy input. Sence their math bumps up solar power input by many orders of magnitude and then if you do their math in the situation you layed out.....
There actually are plants like that in the USA as well. They are a failure, economically. Just too much investment and upkeep compared to the amount of energy produced.
I believe if this were presented to an undergrad physics class, they would conclude within an hour that the idea is unworkable as stated. The people hawking the orbital mirrors must realize they can’t deliver what they’re suggesting. To that extent, it is tough not to conclude that this is an overt investor scam.
What an absolutely ridiculous idea. What were they smoking to even believe for a millisecond, that you can use a mirror of 100m^2 to serve a ground area of nearly 20km^2? This project would have been an April Fools' Day joke at best, but how on earth can they be serious about this? Just for the record: even Pluto nearly gets an entire Watt per square meter, over 100 times more than this ridiculous mirror project would provide.
Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation - DUH. Put enough high altitude sharks with freakin' lazer beams mounted to their heads between the space mirrors and the solar panels, and boom - --free-- amplified energy!
That's the least of their concerns considering even if it stayed in place for a few hundred years it still wouldn't come close to getting a return on investment
In low earth orbit a 10-by-10 sail will experience significant drag. It probably won't stay up for 10 years. If you go to higher orbits, you fix that, but you dilute the light more
I love the idea that we'll be shining spotlights down on various places on earth and all sorts of lawsuits start cropping up demanding that their neighbors stop ordering sunlight so that they can sleep.
I'm here to announce my new start-up, KittenPower; we are developing a groundbreaking new system of generating eco-friendly power enabled by the latest disruptive technologies such as GaN, AI, and ultra efficient super conditioning materials by harvesting energy from hyper kittens with a never before seen patented running wheel! We also have plans to add additional monetization by live-streaming the kittens! Accepting VC funds now.
We are YouWish! We invented a new way to produce energy - cosmic wind generators! It's like wind turbines, but in space! Cosmic wind is a higher form of wind that is capable of producing much higher levels of energy than regular wind! We pop those bad boys into orbit, and they beam the energy back to earth using lasers! We're looking for a meager $2 billion in funding just to kickstart our first satellite. Let us turn YouWish space lasers from myth to reality!
FWIW, I have seen solar export energy under a bright full moon. Of course it was in winter and with a clean snowfield. Still wasn’t significant but I was surprised to see export of any power.
Waitwait! Hear me out... What if we rebuild them? Paint 'em with an ultrablack paint, change the orbit, and sell shadow squares to observatories? Midnight on demand!
That's one of the few things that wouldn't be a problem. The orbit for these things puts them comfortably our of the way for astronomy. They'll only be visible twice a day around dawn and dusk, where no telescopes point.
This is ignoring that this thing isn’t a flashlight that can be toggled on and off, the mirror is always reflecting sunlight when lit up. Most of the time the mirror is going to spend its time beaming light on random people and animals and generally being a massive nuisance to the Earth.
@@EEVblog your analisys is not worth a dollar. that guy proposes gains of say million dollars per watt. you have your solar freaking roof tiles. how many dollars do you get per watt? (watt-hour)
Would be interesting to see how much fossil fuel they are saving from the extra power they generate. And then compare it to the fuel they burnt to get it to space. I'd be interested to see how long it takes to break even.. if ever
3, 2, 1, launch…….3 months later……hmmm, we’re getting some light but the figures are real low? Oh wait a minute I think we……..What, our investor on the phone!……oh shhhhhhhh
Less than 100kW worth of solar light by the time it hits the ground will revolutionize the dusk/dawn outlook of 100+MW solar farms! Moving motorized solar panel racks to efficiently catch the extra light might consume more energy than what would be produced.
LMAO, I haven't even thought about how with their current orbits, the angle of incidence would effectively vary from horizon to horizon, from each satellite in the conga line rising and setting in the N-S direction.
@@Marci124 If each satellite is within working range for only 4min at a time, the movement is probably too fast for sun-tracking racks to keep up with, especially the time needed to reset position to catch the next one. Also, most sun-tracking racks are single-axis in the east-west direction. Since the north-south satellite ring is practically perpendicular, single-axis racks won't be particularly effective at tracking those satellites.
@@teardowndan5364 I was under the impression that, eventually, multiple satellites would be reflecting at a time, meaning that some, if not most, would fall outside the optimal range of the panels.
@@Marci124Since solar panels can only point in one direction at a time, the "optimal range" becomes much narrower when you want to overlap satellites. Your panels pretty much can only point as close to straight-up as they can since that is the only position the "next" satellite can hit while panels are still receiving useful light from satellites about to depart the subscription window. If there were more satellites, then solar farms would likely end up buying increasingly narrow time windows instead of buying time that is 15+ degrees off-axis.
Peak pricing isn't going to be the same in 5 years as it is today either. The company I work for controls a mass of EV chargers and we've got some grant funding to experiment with effectively pausing charging momentarily in response to a request from our energy suppliers to smooth out their demand peaks (or something like that, it's not my project). Presumably as adoption of a demand-driven approach goes up peak spot prices will go down.
You know that they'll put up a bunch of these reflector sats anyway, and we get years of global permanent light pollution as they each begin to fail and tumble randomly in polar orbit. The world will love this and thank America!
This was proposed back in the 1970s. The cost of launches not even the cost of the satellites which would have used materials such as emeralds etc meant it never got anywhere.
Imagine if you tell people in 1970 that we will have starlink now. And we use that starlink to watch a YT video that claims it is impossible to make a profitable model for sunlight. I have news for you: sunlight is more expensive than internet if you have the right clients.
@@Xizario2 lol! in 1970 they already had sats that streamed tv and even transmitted computer data. how do you think cable tv worked? it was sat tv that was beamed down and then a local network of cables transmitted the images. Also in the 1970s there were plans for sats in space to collect sunlight and then beam it by microwaves to local relays who would then put the power into the local grid.
@@toomanyaccounts The 1970s orbital microwave transmitting things were several km square and the bits were going to be lofted into orbit using the awesome star raker space plane. Iirc construction time was projected to be several decades. Non of it was remotely practical or cost effective. It was a proposed solution to the American oil crisis which sorted itself out within a year anyway. Starships huge payload capacity might actually make something like it somewhat feasible and microwave transmission is a far better solution than shining sunlight onto solar farms.
Its not useless, for power generation yes. For rescue and reduction of street lighting its pretty efficent. Specially if you focus multiple satellites to same area.
I wonder if this is actually a "dual use" type thing, where the military use might be actually the money-maker. Lighting up a battlefield, annoy your enemy cities with a subtle reminder that "we're always watching", etc.
They would be expensive to launch because of the weird orbit. And they'd have to change that orbit throughout the year to stay along the terminator. It makes less than no sense.
@@russell2952 That isn't actually true. They use a "sun synchronous orbit", that is an orbit with like 97 deg of inclination, i.e. slightly retrograde. Due to the precession of the orbit, the orbital plane will rotate slowly and will remain perpendicular to the line to the sun. So, without any propulsion it will remain above the terminator "indefinitely". This kind of orbit is actually used by low orbit weather and reconnaissance satellites. Still, the point made above is true: it cannot reflect light into night areas, only to the dusk area.
Dave, just to put your worst fears to rest. Climate Capital is registered as a venture capital fund. So in theory, any retirement assets that are invested into it would be part of their "high risk" portfolio - so it's not going to be wiping out some worker's fund "low-risk" management like the credit default swap scenario did.
Yes, the tiny 10mx10m reflectors are bunk as revenue generators. But they are an adequate proof-of-concept, good enough to play with beam steering and focusing, though the SNR against the twilight skyglow could make the data noisy. Going with a larger yet thinner structure that borrows from solar sail research could provide a better testbed for the same launch volume and mass. The basic satellite idea looks OK, viewed only as something that can be built. Moving the target spot by warping the mirror can work using minimal power, significantly less than trying to pivot the entire structure. This should be investigated on-orbit to determine both functionality and reliability, with only enough solar flux reflected to permit accurate performance measurements from the ground. Thrust will be needed both to maintain the SSO orbit (to correct for the solar thrust against the collector and orbital perturbations due to the earth's shape and space weather), which can be accomplished in any number of ways (ion thrusters, electromagnetic tether, etc.). Some force will also be needed to maintain the overall reflector orientation, again which can be done in any number of ways (gyros, gravity gradient boom, etc.). Let's assume the underlying concept works (a solar reflector in SSO that can be focused). As Dave said, the scale of the reflector is off by orders of magnitude for minimally useful flux to be delivered to a solar farm. First, how big of a mirror is needed to reflect full solar intensity (1 sol) to a solar farm? Assuming a perfect reflector, to reflect the projected size of the sun (0.5°) onto LEO (600km-800km for typical SSO), would mean an area of roughly 14km^2 after accounting for a 45° tilt. That's on the order of 4km on each side! (I'm using hand-waving math here, barely above mental math, so I could easily be off by 2x or more.) OK, that's way too large. The limit of engineering may be closer to 1km on a side, but I'm thinking the Mylar thickness would also need to grow, due to the tension needing to be applied to accomplish the dynamic focus requirements. Let's go for 1/4 sol (still very useful) and add some redundancy at each orbital slot, say, 4 satellites at each location, meaning each would be ~500m on a side. That seems more manageable. Maybe. But that's still one hell of a lot of Mylar needed to fill all the orbital slots! The 10m satellites are an excellent and affordable proof of concept that's worth testing. Scaling up to commercially useful levels of solar flux at affordable systems costs is the problem. Even if Starship can provide delivery to SSO at 1/10 of the Falcon 9 price, launch costs will still dominate, meaning the satellites would need to have maximal lifetimes to amortize JUST the launch costs, meaning thicker Mylar to tolerate cumulative micrometeorite damage, meaning a heavier satellite, and the cost spirals upward. There is probably an optimum balancing satellite mass against launch costs against longevity against performance against revenue, but I'm way too lazy to try to calculate it.
Could you imagine swinging those huge mirrors - CMGs or reaction wheels would be needed - to direct the reflection to where you want it, without twisting the mirror, which would scatter the light and make it worthless?
@@slipperyslope3912 No. it means the Earth is between the sun and the satellite 12h a day. That's why sun-synchronous orbits are used in the first place.
No. The reason why the spot on earth is 5km from a 10x10m mirror is that the sun isn't a point lightsource. it has an angle of 0,5° So the area that is lit up will get bigger and bigger. with every km , the diameter gets larger by 18m. So at 35.000km, the diameter would be 630km
I'm curious about the level of the founders pay? How much of that investment capital is going into their pockets? When the money runs out what will actually have been built vs. what is in the founders bank accounts...
Any dyson swarm of mirrors that can be repositioned any time would be a very piwerful multi tool. Could be used for energy harvest, asteroid defense, space travel to accelerate an spacecraft , terraforming by lets say boiling mars ice caps to thicken its atmosphere, etc...
I have a better idea. Why not just simply blow some of that solar wind down to earth to provide extra power to wind turbines? That makes a lot of sense to me. Who's in? Send me money and we'll start a company.
Do you know what solves the "duck curve" problem for essentially free? More daylight savings time. If you shift the clock so people are going home when the sun is still shining, problem solved.
I feel that, the amazing thing is even farmers when polled (if I remember correctly) are not interested in the whole shifting time thing depending on the time of the year so who actually wants it? During WW2 in the UK there was double summer time, so at the height of summer you'd be looking at 22:40 or so by the time the sun went below the horizon, that's a significant chunk of daylight after people get home, and in the bottom winter it means it'd be some time after 18:00, which isn't great but better than 16:00.
@@blitzwing1 Because farmers don't do anything other than farm. To them it makes no difference, if they're awake, they're "at work". And they're not the ones driving the duck curve anyway - they don't stop what they're doing and go home and have supper because it's 6PM - they work while the conditions are right, and might not go home to eat until midnight, and the dew is making whatever they're working on too wet. It mostly matters to office and factory people, and they're the ones driving the duck curve anyway. If you polled most people that work fixed hour jobs, I think they'd appreciate more "sunshine hours" after work to do their own thing.
Changing topic slightly but our friend "Solar Roads" are making their way to the UK .. they say ---- " Solar roads are a new and innovative concept as they do not require land to be specifically allocated. This is because the road infrastructure already exists. Therefore, this emerging technique of embedding solar panels into pavements and roadways is becoming a more attractive proposition." ----- and they say that "solar roads may supply up to 96.42% of the UK's total electricity, which is a substantially promising potential." i bet your BS sensor picks this up lol
I disagree pretty strongly with the idea that they are 100% serious about this. I'm much more inclined to think that this is an obvious venture capital cash grab scam. It's hopelessly stupid on its face.
Unbelievable. If only those doing the investing had al little more science / engineering knowledge. I remember learning the inverse square law in a high school physics experiment aged 14. It's about all you need to know to see this can't work.
@@xponen That doesn't help at all. With a collimated beam you get a smaller spot of light on the ground, so can hit less panels, for less time as each satellite passes overhead. They're effectively un-collimating the beam anyway (i.e. making it diverge more by using a convex mirror - there must be a word for that) to make a 10m mirror make a 5km spot on the ground. If the mirror were flat (and perfect), you'd effectively get a 10m spot on the ground too, as the satellite orbit altitude will be irrelevant relative to the distance to the sun
I've got a brilliant idea. Orbit a gigantic magnifying glass and focus the light on a kettle of water on the surface using the steam to drive turbines. Investors will be lining up any day now.
In theory, this would work. In practice, we don't have the tech to do this affordably. Besides, logically this would result in more heat hitting the earth which would be bad. So even assuming that they get the amount of power that they dream of it'd still be a terrible solution. The better option would be scaling this up until it becomes practical. So massive mirrors that can capture light from hundreds or thousands of kilometres, convert all of that energy into a focused microwave beam, and then finally send that power down to collectors on earth. But that requires having better launch tech than what we currently have.
Collecting all that power into a concentrated beam.....like a giant space death ray, eh? If it went astray even for a minute, it could cause massive amounts of damage and kill who knows how many people.
@@WereCatfI mean, for some people that might be the point, especially if they've got a fluffy white cat and a penchant for holding the world to ransom...
@@WereCatf Seems my comment didn't want to post, so I'm forced to retype it. Still not planning on doing any actual math for what a safe beam energy would be. Anyway, there's no need to use a beam that's got many thousands of times the energy of regular sunlight to be commercially viable. Even just a few times regular sunlight would be sufficient. Not sure what the safe range would be, but my estimate would put it at around 10x regular sunlight. Then just build a larger collecting region while keeping the incoming energy at 10x sunlight per metre. Also beams can be focused from multiple collectors into a single area on earth. That way each of those collectors individually has a beam of only a few times the energy of normal sunlight. So even if one of the satellites is compromised, it can't cause any damage on it's own. It can then be promptly destroyed or retargetted correctly. Though of course that'd still be concerning if all the collectors were turned into a weapon.
@@to_loww Currently, yes. Once we have cheap launch costs or industry in space, placing the solar collectors up there will be the better option. This is all mainly an engineering and political limitation rather than an scientific limitation. While stuff like solar roadways is a scientific limitation cause its stupid, placing solar panels in space gets you more efficient energy (space doesn't really have weather, clouds, useful land, day/night cycles, etc). So once we get the tech and will to make such a thing for cheap, it will be done and it'll be more affordable than covering the planet in solar panels. Unless you're suggesting that we'll never get to a point where we can or need to do that. Which would be quite disappointing.
The problem of alternating periods of excess supply and no supply of a vital resource was figured out over 10,000 years ago and it was a simple and straight forward solution that didn't involve satellites: storage.
As an amateur astronomer I am so annoyed at all these companies tossing junk into orbit. Let's also not forget the "accidents" where Chinese and Russian satellites that had "accidents" that have increased the amount of junk in space. Compounded by so many countries planning to put up their internet satellite constellations.
Soviet Russia tried this before it's dissolution. First try was a success. I have to define what success was for their first try. They deployed a big reflector on a satellite where able to stay on target while the satellite moved. But on the second satellite (second try), a bigger reflector, an antenna ripped the reflector while it was unfolding. After that they scrap the idea as too expensive.
Imagine amount of fossil fuel needed to deploy single cubesat with mirrors. Better to supply that to fossil fuel power plant. Energy gain will be higher.
Besides „Dave's solar power math“, I don't know how attitude control or mirror alignment would work effectively for such a system, with a 12U cubesat ... and also, up to 20 year lifespan? Within this budget? 🤣No way!🤣
They simply forgot to take into consideration that the power captured will not scale up. They probably calculated with 1000W per square meter for the 5km spot. Thought maybe they hope to reflect down light to the same spot from multiple locations at once but how many sats do they really hope to release? You would need a massive number of them to compensate for the loss in power/sqrm.
They know it doesn't work. All they're look for are headlines in blogs and news. That's the real revenue they are after. Moreover, having the opportunity to use in their CVs the words CEO or CTO or co-founder... come on, how do you expect the new spacex, or whatever will be the next vaporware-techno-bro-multi-billion dollar company, will find their next CEO?
Just reminded of the old SimCity game. The space reflector power system similar to this that would occasionally trip a natural disaster where the beam would move and catch everything around the ground station on fire. If this actually worked the way they wanted it to that might be a concern.
How can anyone not see this doesn't work? The simple 100x100m to 5km translation is all you need to see it's hopeless. And why 5km? Some atmospheric scatter, but you'd need a convex mirror to get that.
I know nothing, and it sounds ridiculous to me...
@@volvo09 When I told her about it, Mrs EEVblog laughed and said "are they serious". She instantly knew it was impractical for generating power.
I'm completely ignorant on this and even I know sure enough to bet money that is isn't going to work as claimed
The 5km diameter comes from the 0.5 deg angular diameter of the sun as seen from earth. This means that a flat mirror at a 500 km orbit shines a cone of light down that spreads out over a 500 * sin(0.5deg) = about 5 km disk of light on the ground.
I wonder if they did all the calculations for 10x10 km mirrors in each satellite, which would be insane of course, but it would probably get pretty close numbers to their initial claims..
Mom can we get a dyson sphere?
No, we have a dyson sphere at home.
Dyson sphere at home:
Worst. Ringworld. Ever.
This is more like surviving mars but earth instead.
The energy it would take to launch the rockets would never be reclaimed from reflected light from orbit.
That would be an interesting calculation...
Tech bros once again falling into the trap of spending absurd amounts of money to put solar power systems in impractical places, instead of spending a fraction the amount of money to put solar panels on rooftops and empty land and battery systems to power overnight
Don't forget the energy needed to manufacture the satellites in the first place when counting from the mines to final assembly and packaging into launch units.
These things are probably net-negative long before they reach the launch pad.
It's in another GALAXY
Hang on, rocket plumes generate lights right? what if we direct the rocket plume light with mirrors onto a neighbouring solar farm! CHECKMATE
Never underestimate the gullabilty of investors picking startups based on vibes and marketing buzzwords.
Honestly, at this point you can't blame those scam companies. If investors want to throw money away, who's to stop them?
"We are YouWish! We invented a new way to produce energy - cosmic wind generators! It's like wind turbines, but in space! Cosmic wind is a higher form of wind that is capable of producing much higher levels of energy than regular wind! We pop those bad boys into orbit, and they beam the energy back to earth using lasers! We're looking for a meager $2 billion in funding just to kickstart our first satellite. Let us turn YouWish space lasers from myth to reality!"
They just have a budget for renewables and such, which they obviously don't give a damn about so they just dump it somewhere.
That seems to be what lot of these projects are really for. They don't even care if it's practical or not. It's lucrative especially if they can eventually get public funding involved, aka tax payers. There really needs to be more accountability for this sort of stuff.
They would have even more investors if they added AI and Machine Learning to their buzzwords.
@@edthelazyboy Yeah, and 3D printing.
I never buy anything now that isn't 3D printed, even food.
Their proof of concept of using mirrors mounted on balloons makes way more sense their actual planned final product.
Ironically, yes.
Exactly what I was thinking. You beat me to it.
Seriously. Placing mirrors in high places to illuminate shaded zones is actually a more practical idea and infinitely cheaper to implement with zero risk.
@@vejymonsta3006 there are risks. If placed low - animals and ice chunks, if placed high - ice chunks, but the repair is still cheaper.
@@vejymonsta3006 And that's actually done already. So proven tech. (One just need polished stainless steel plates, really)
My guess is that a battery is cheaper to deploy than a space mirror.
and there are plenty options for batteries:
- used lithium batteries from EVs, in 10 years we will have lots
- sodium and other less weight optimized but cheaper chemistries
- flow batteries (this one is still not a mature technology though, but has a very long history)
Just the commercially available grid scale batteries right now would be orders of magnitude better value per kWh than this
No contest.
bwhahaha.. I wonder, by how many orders of magnitude, would a battery be better...
Especially with the belly in that duck curve being so much cheaper during the day.
@@adamrak7560 Kinetic batteries, aka flywheel batteries are the best solution for static deployment. No polluting technologies, volatile or precious metals needed.
@@dgo4490pumped hydro power stations are a solution to energy storage that has been used for over 60 years.
These are the people that space companies did not want.
nope - they are perfectly qualified for the Boeing starliner team, perfect fit. :)
Nah - if they pay that is all those companies need.
Apparently one of them worked for SpaceX, which would explain a lot.
@@andre-7423 no they arent. the star liner successfully docked and returned from the iss. if they worked for that team the iss would be a debris cloud by now.
despite Boeing making some mistakes in recent years, they are still decades ahead of solar friggin satellite mirrors.
And we barely talked about the existence of atmospheric scatter and clouds, and weather in general.
Even assuming perfect weather, they are still several orders of magnitude off on the calculations.
@@EEVblog corresponding higher capital efficiency
And when it gets dark at 3pm in winter.
@@dogwalker666 at 5 pm
Clouds came to mind immediately here as well. Those reduce the ideal business case even more...
First, the you need to include the cosine of the angle. Assuming mirrors cannot reflect at 45 degrees you will get 70% or more. Then the mirror are not 100% reflective.
But even if we ignore any of that, to reach 500W/m2 to have a sun equivalent in an area of 2500m radius, you will need more than 9.8 million mirrors.
Earth is the only planet we can live in the foreseeable future, we won't colonize Mars soon, but I am really really afraid of this crazy startup companies if they get enough funding to launch almost non-controlled thousands of satellites in low-Earth orbit. It will take just a single chain reaction to make impenetrable barrier of debris to trap all humans on Earth.
I didn't calculate how many mirrors it would take to get the claimed 200W/sqm, it's was already enough clown world for one video.
The big problem, due to cost and weight limitation they have to put the mirrors on higher orbit where drag is very small. But due to optics, they need to put it into the lowest orbit with low enough drag.
That exactly the orbit where Kessler syndrome can cause massive problems! This is literally the worst possible orbit to put their junk on.
Good for the universe ✨️
u only need one mirror, for maximum capital performance
@@adamrak7560 also the lower the orbit the more of the satellite needs to be ion thruster (and fuel tank) than mirror in order to be able to reflect light in a controllable direction.
When the thrusters operare the mirror isn't likely to stay flat either.
* Orbital decay time of satellite with large surface of 100m2 and small weight of 1 - 10 kg will be very short - it is similar to a parachute!
* Sun angular size is ~0.5 degree, even with prefect mirrors it can not be focused to a narrower beam (without loss of energy, proof: the second law of thermodynamics). The distance to solar farm is longer than satellite altitude.
* Uncontrolled space debris on orbits perpendicular to most satellites
* Unexpected light pollution annoying pilots, astronomers and environmentalists
You could use it as a solar sail, but you would have to be quite high, diluting your solar energy further. However, if they scale up the satellite after flying the demo mission, you could have say a 250m x 250m panel. That would give you a lot more power per satellite, negating at least part of the penalty of the higher altitude.
It's a giant solar sail, so the deorbit time is not going to be very long, so I wouldn't worry too much about the space debris aspect. But the light pollution aspect would be massive, and lead to significant complaints.
If it were able to generate enough energy to be useful there would be massive environmental and weather risks.
@@placeholdername0000 It's a solar sale if the sun hits prograde, but on the other side of the planet, if yyou server customers there, it's retrograde, elimininating any gain from the prograde phase.
Rocket lab put a 1m 8kg disco ball into space, Humanity star. They calculated that it will stay up there for 9 month, but it reentered in 2 month. Was on a 300x530km orbit. Yea, this 100m² 12kg sat will reenter really fast.
I keep telling these people they just need to put the solar panels on the sun for the most energy output per panel.
I vote we run an extension cord straight to the sun. Lifetime supply of energy. 🤪🤪😆
Dyson sphere and a giant extension cord from the sphere to earth
@@cojones8518 Why an extension cord? Solar freakin' lasers!
thats not the best idea solar panels lose efficency when they heat up you need a distance where there is enough light with out generating the heat.
@@rlfvac E=mc²
When the obvious solution of "just buy a battery" is not exciting enough...
This is almost worse than solar roadways, which is pretty impressive in a way.
Honestly I think it is much worse. It's busted on the most basic laws of physics, completely ignoring the logistically crap that makes solar roadways stupid and impractical.
these ideas are better than the classical solutions
well you can still reflect the sunlight at night onto a solar roadway
@@8o86 only if you are stupid. if you are smart, you reflect things onto themselves, and collect energy from the quantum foam space
@@vejymonsta3006 I guess that if FSRs were "evolved" into "freaking solar canopies on roads so you don't get slowly roasted on traffic jams, maybe with some fancy futuristic led-panels here or there or something" would be incomparably better than this.
I covered this topic for Hackaday in an article a while ago. Other than the ridiculous claims made, there are also massive health & environmental implications of space mirrors, mostly due to the disruption of day/night cycles. This messes with the reproductive behaviour of plants and animals, and like other forms of light pollution (like from cities & street lighting) has been shown to increase stress and incidences of cancer.
Much like with beaming microwave power from space-based PV arrays, it's much cheaper and efficient to just build a few ground-based nuclear plants. Just good ol' hot steam generated from spicy rocks, powering steam turbines. No new science required and all off-the-shelf.
You could use it as a weapon of mass annoyance. Focus it on an enemy city and cost everyone twenty minutes of sleep. True evil!
They would have to use more energy to 'turn off' the mirrors by folding them up or reorienting them away from earth when they're not over any solar array.
There trying to play God there is day and night a reason
It won't impact day/night cycles b/c it only happens at twilight/dawn, not the middle of the night and only results in a spot of light around a solar farm which most people won't be sleeping. All the lighting people put up on their houses these days due to cheap high power LEDs is way worse.
@@takanara7 Atmospheric diffraction says that's nonsense. Plus many of these solar farms are in remote areas that used to be far away from artificial lighting.
Alright it is settled... I am going to start a business called Solar Freakin Tires! I am going to put solar panels on car and truck tires. just doing some toilet paper math here and I think it will be enough to charge a Tesla so you never have to plug it in. Don't question my math because I am a math god. Anyone who criticizes my ideal is a big oil bigot.
Straight to StartEngine or Indiegogo
This sounds good. I put one of those TPMS things on my tires and it's amazing how hot they get when parked in the sun. That energy could be harvested.
@@gblargg Joke aside, I really want those TPMS to use the changing pressure differential between inside and outside while driving for energy harvesting and to pump up the tyres as needed. I'd say that is totally doable. The electronics need minimal amounts of energy, and the pump doesn't need to pump any large amounts, just what's lost over time.
@@HenryLoenwind Oh wow, that would be awesome. Self-airing tire caps. I wonder if some kind of microscopic molecular diffusion mechanism could be used that used micropower to slowly move air in.
You got my backing! :D
They should team up with solar freaking roadways for that infinite investment money glitch.
They should launch directly the freaking solar highway stuff into space.
yes, they could illuminate the solar freaking roadways from space... 😎
Brilliant! (no pun intended) they can reflect this on solar road ways. All the batteries inside the roadway tiles should also be fitted with batterizer tech.
This would also make Solar Freaking Roadways more efficient, because you wouldn't need the LEDs anymore! Snow will melt in the light, so those heating elements can also be removed! It's a win-win.
And send satellites to orbit using space elevator
No one need even envelope to do calculations. Obviously, if we want to have the same power output as under direct sunlight, then area of mirror should match lighted area on the ground - for 5 km diameter light spot it should be 5 km diameter mirror(not counting for angle).
I love Dave's "doing the maths" but I can't get around the simple argument: a mirror of 10x10m can only reflect the sunlight of 10x10m (max!), how do you power a solar farm of thousands of sqm with this? The produced power would always be a tiny fraction of what is financial viable - even without all the huge losses.
Yep, it's no harder to figure out than that. And that's all I'll edit into my 1 minute Short on this.
Sun radiation isn't perfectly collimated, if they orbit at about 1100km they should get a spot 5km in diameter if I did the math right.
It really does come down to this. Even the basic intuition on hearing this idea should be enough to ask “hang on wait…”
But no one has asked this? How?
@@cottsak I mean there are other Applications for "light from space with a switch" the Russians surely didn't research this for purely civilian reasons...
You get thousands of satellites to reflect on one farm
hopefully they go public so I can short their stock
Well, there are indeed some good idea about mirrors - on a mountain. Like in Rjukan, Norway or Viganella, Italy. So, it might be OK-ish to put mirrors in space to enlighten darker areas on the globe, but that's just.. for the human soul, not the watt-meter.
All correctly calculated in the video and extremely generous. There is no way none of those people know all this but they want to scam the investors for a few years.
All those engineers..and nobody to do a quick calculation off the top of his head? And they still get to keep the "engineer" title..?
They probably understand it doesn't work, but want to scam investors out of money. I guess it's easier than getting a real job.
The math does actually work out.... if you never deliver the project
oh, they did the calculations, rest assure! but those calculations are proffessional mistery
p.eng -net 5 (000.00)
@@krzysztofkowalski2816 you in crisis?
They did manage to get a LOT of suckers to pay them a LOT of money! THAT IS WHAT COUNTS!
Did they?
What's the chances that an entire team of sus and shady people come together on a project like this? Its astronomical!
Either than, or what else could this be used for? Military's like to secretly build stuff in plain sight and claim that it's for something else..
I will bet with Epstein's body.
I think the term you're searching for is "tech-bro-nomical" - it's way more prevalent than you think - shysters of a feather flock together...
Already got a layer of space junk orbiting our planet at 10 times the speed of a bullet, and now people want to put more junk up there?
They'll go out of business after the first test satellite, if they get that far.
Their Mylar reflectors will serve as targets to catalog how much space junk there is. Put some cameras on them to photo the holes as they form over time.
Bet the astronomers will love all those things up there. They're already complaining bitterly about all the junk in orbit now.
That's the musky dream
@@EEVblog You underestimate how much stupid people will fall for this, if they get a test satellite we're screwed because then governments will start dumping truck loads of money onto them.
There needs to be serious financial consequences for these 'companies' that collect other peoples money and waste it on these clearly false claims. Misleading shareholders isn't enough. But what's worse... people are dumb enough to invest in these people in the first place.
There should also be serious financial consequences for companies putting things in space.
Like a hefty property tax or similar, to discourage people from sending up junk just to prove that they are bad at maths.
Worse than the wasted money is the environmental destruction to build this crap and shoot it into space.
@@lostcreek9286 i dont know what they actually can do.
The words that they overlooked are called "dissipation" ... or "dilution" .
You can't spread the same energy over a larger area without the density going down. It's just physics 101 ..
This has to be where they went wrong.. they are looking at energy density at the mirror and just "assuming" it would be the same on the ground (minus clouds, etc). It's amazing that they can get this far without someone tapping them on the shoulder and explaining this
they can fix that with concave mirror shape, but the ground tracking will be very hard.
@@xponen You're still only dealing with a maximum capture area of 100m sq. (each).. It's just not enough to justify the price of a satellite.. If you make it a concave mirror so that (ideally) it would shine down a perfect 1 to 1 ratio so that it mimics direct sunlight, your 100m mirror would only be supplying light for 100m area on the ground. lol.. not to mention inefficiencies of the reflection... What is that? like 50 to 70 solar panels? For only a few minutes per day? It just makes no sense. If they could get Square Kilometer sized mirrors, it still wouldn't make sense. Let alone at 100m sq..
The guy naively excessively nodding on the other end of video conference could be meme-worthy
I do recall the French government back in the '70s talking about a giant spinning mirror in a synchronous orbit positioned above Paris with the intention of extending daylight hours.
Personally I wish they'd spent the research money on making a less smelly sewerage system in Paris.
well if you didn't have third worlders urinating everywhere and turning your parks into large outdoor toilets than maybe people would realize the sewage system smells
🤣
Improving the sewage system would adversely affect the rat population. Rats are citizens too in Paris!
Reverse comparison......The 'Centrale solaire Thémis' in the Pyrenees was a solar thermal plant.
11000 square meters of reflectors all pointed at a single receiver 15 square metres in size.
It was a concentrated solar power (CSP) plant, i.e. thermal and had an output of 2.5MW.
So, the power reflected per square meter was approx. 227 Watts (2.5MW/11000).
........but using Reflect Orbitals maths it'd be quite scary the output it should have been producing.....LOL!
Yeah, seems to match the number they got from the baloon test, which sounds about what you'd expect. The problem is the cost to put it up into the orbit, and the spot size on the ground.
Using whatever form of math they had, it wouldn't be a scary amount of power, you would be able to run a fusion reactor off of that energy input. Sence their math bumps up solar power input by many orders of magnitude and then if you do their math in the situation you layed out.....
Oh dear... they should just apply for DARPA and call it orbital solar.
There actually are plants like that in the USA as well. They are a failure, economically.
Just too much investment and upkeep compared to the amount of energy produced.
When do they install the " space fans " to blow cloudy weather out of the way ??
I believe if this were presented to an undergrad physics class, they would conclude within an hour that the idea is unworkable as stated. The people hawking the orbital mirrors must realize they can’t deliver what they’re suggesting. To that extent, it is tough not to conclude that this is an overt investor scam.
What an absolutely ridiculous idea. What were they smoking to even believe for a millisecond, that you can use a mirror of 100m^2 to serve a ground area of nearly 20km^2?
This project would have been an April Fools' Day joke at best, but how on earth can they be serious about this?
Just for the record: even Pluto nearly gets an entire Watt per square meter, over 100 times more than this ridiculous mirror project would provide.
Yup. They aren't just having overunity with this, they are completely in fantasy delusional land
Just install 100 m² of solar panels in another time zone and you outperform this crackpot idea.
Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation - DUH. Put enough high altitude sharks with freakin' lazer beams mounted to their heads between the space mirrors and the solar panels, and boom - --free-- amplified energy!
@@to_loww You do have to build transmission lines for that, and they tend to be 'spensive...
@@gorak9000 No, you just need local customers. Transmitting money over long distances has never been an issue.
Linus got possessed by Emmanuel Macron 😱
I can't unsee it now.
Each satellite will effectively be a solar sail. How will they maintain orientation against the pressure of sunlight?
That's the least of their concerns considering even if it stayed in place for a few hundred years it still wouldn't come close to getting a return on investment
By being shredded to tatters by micrometeoroids 😁
In low earth orbit a 10-by-10 sail will experience significant drag. It probably won't stay up for 10 years. If you go to higher orbits, you fix that, but you dilute the light more
@@tymoteuszkazubski2755 that was one of my first thoughts...
Investors who will put their money in this scam don't need to know about petty details like radiation pressure and aerodynamic drag!
I love how excited they get discovering that mirrors work.
I have been following Ben for years and years and years, since he was a kid. I knew he would eventually go down this pathway. Pretty sad TBH.
I love the idea that we'll be shining spotlights down on various places on earth and all sorts of lawsuits start cropping up demanding that their neighbors stop ordering sunlight so that they can sleep.
100sqm mirrors shining light over 5sqkm areas? That's naff all energy.
Half a bee's dick.
@@EEVblog Nowhack.
I'm here to announce my new start-up, KittenPower; we are developing a groundbreaking new system of generating eco-friendly power enabled by the latest disruptive technologies such as GaN, AI, and ultra efficient super conditioning materials by harvesting energy from hyper kittens with a never before seen patented running wheel! We also have plans to add additional monetization by live-streaming the kittens!
Accepting VC funds now.
$100M valuation on StartEngine
this is still legit better idea than the orbital mirrors. Especially the additional monetization!
Wild animals like running on wheels, you can reduce your costs because you don't have to feed them.
We are YouWish! We invented a new way to produce energy - cosmic wind generators! It's like wind turbines, but in space! Cosmic wind is a higher form of wind that is capable of producing much higher levels of energy than regular wind! We pop those bad boys into orbit, and they beam the energy back to earth using lasers! We're looking for a meager $2 billion in funding just to kickstart our first satellite. Let us turn YouWish space lasers from myth to reality!
@@ZergZfTw missed mentioning the Cat Delivery System (CDS).
They”ll probably get funding from DCS batteries
What we need is some solar road ways in space with built in Gen-AI
FWIW, I have seen solar export energy under a bright full moon. Of course it was in winter and with a clean snowfield. Still wasn’t significant but I was surprised to see export of any power.
Placing 1 sqm mirror in space will basically have the same effect as placing additional 1 sqm of solar cells on earth. Guess which one is cheaper? 🤔😂
More reflective objects in space?
*Every astronomer would like to know you're location.*
Waitwait! Hear me out...
What if we rebuild them? Paint 'em with an ultrablack paint, change the orbit, and sell shadow squares to observatories? Midnight on demand!
@@CptJistuce 😂
That's one of the few things that wouldn't be a problem. The orbit for these things puts them comfortably our of the way for astronomy. They'll only be visible twice a day around dawn and dusk, where no telescopes point.
Maybe the Brusaw's could chip in on this one, get some additional light on their installation in Sandpoint, Idaho!
They could offer their extensive government grifting experience as consultants.
This is ignoring that this thing isn’t a flashlight that can be toggled on and off, the mirror is always reflecting sunlight when lit up. Most of the time the mirror is going to spend its time beaming light on random people and animals and generally being a massive nuisance to the Earth.
i thought it can't get any worse. well you learn something new every day
Dave the bots freaking love you. 😂😂😂
I'm a chick magnet.
"click magnet" 😜@@EEVblog
@@EEVblog your analisys is not worth a dollar. that guy proposes gains of say million dollars per watt. you have your solar freaking roof tiles. how many dollars do you get per watt? (watt-hour)
Oh man those guys were hamming that stuff up hard in that video clip. I about choked on my drink there.
It would have been a funny if they had said it was all controlled from the cloud 😂
with AI - cloud AI - keep up here... cloud is so last decade
Would be interesting to see how much fossil fuel they are saving from the extra power they generate. And then compare it to the fuel they burnt to get it to space. I'd be interested to see how long it takes to break even.. if ever
3, 2, 1, launch…….3 months later……hmmm, we’re getting some light but the figures are real low? Oh wait a minute I think we……..What, our investor on the phone!……oh shhhhhhhh
They can pivot to become a really really expensive emergency moonlight provider.
Extra light for late night events and search and rescue would be a cool service. Too bad it's not $7,410,000 cool (using their Starship numbers)
Less than 100kW worth of solar light by the time it hits the ground will revolutionize the dusk/dawn outlook of 100+MW solar farms! Moving motorized solar panel racks to efficiently catch the extra light might consume more energy than what would be produced.
Details... Details...
LMAO, I haven't even thought about how with their current orbits, the angle of incidence would effectively vary from horizon to horizon, from each satellite in the conga line rising and setting in the N-S direction.
@@Marci124 If each satellite is within working range for only 4min at a time, the movement is probably too fast for sun-tracking racks to keep up with, especially the time needed to reset position to catch the next one.
Also, most sun-tracking racks are single-axis in the east-west direction. Since the north-south satellite ring is practically perpendicular, single-axis racks won't be particularly effective at tracking those satellites.
@@teardowndan5364 I was under the impression that, eventually, multiple satellites would be reflecting at a time, meaning that some, if not most, would fall outside the optimal range of the panels.
@@Marci124Since solar panels can only point in one direction at a time, the "optimal range" becomes much narrower when you want to overlap satellites.
Your panels pretty much can only point as close to straight-up as they can since that is the only position the "next" satellite can hit while panels are still receiving useful light from satellites about to depart the subscription window.
If there were more satellites, then solar farms would likely end up buying increasingly narrow time windows instead of buying time that is 15+ degrees off-axis.
The orientation reaction gyros would be massive.
sure, reflect more heat to an already overheating planet.....Great idea
Peak pricing isn't going to be the same in 5 years as it is today either. The company I work for controls a mass of EV chargers and we've got some grant funding to experiment with effectively pausing charging momentarily in response to a request from our energy suppliers to smooth out their demand peaks (or something like that, it's not my project). Presumably as adoption of a demand-driven approach goes up peak spot prices will go down.
Let's irradiate the shade side of the Earth with sunlight, what could possibly go wrong?
Other than that, it's just Dyson Swarm 0.1
More like v0.0.0.1 😂
@@profrook V0.0.0.0.0.0000000000000000000001
You know that they'll put up a bunch of these reflector sats anyway, and we get years of global permanent light pollution as they each begin to fail and tumble randomly in polar orbit. The world will love this and thank America!
This was proposed back in the 1970s. The cost of launches not even the cost of the satellites which would have used materials such as emeralds etc meant it never got anywhere.
Imagine if you tell people in 1970 that we will have starlink now. And we use that starlink to watch a YT video that claims it is impossible to make a profitable model for sunlight. I have news for you: sunlight is more expensive than internet if you have the right clients.
@@Xizario2 lol! in 1970 they already had sats that streamed tv and even transmitted computer data. how do you think cable tv worked? it was sat tv that was beamed down and then a local network of cables transmitted the images.
Also in the 1970s there were plans for sats in space to collect sunlight and then beam it by microwaves to local relays who would then put the power into the local grid.
@@toomanyaccounts The 1970s orbital microwave transmitting things were several km square and the bits were going to be lofted into orbit using the awesome star raker space plane. Iirc construction time was projected to be several decades. Non of it was remotely practical or cost effective. It was a proposed solution to the American oil crisis which sorted itself out within a year anyway.
Starships huge payload capacity might actually make something like it somewhat feasible and microwave transmission is a far better solution than shining sunlight onto solar farms.
Its not useless, for power generation yes. For rescue and reduction of street lighting its pretty efficent. Specially if you focus multiple satellites to same area.
One Sattelite is able to produce around 1/250.000 light of the sun so really useless
Wait...They ProtoTyped a NEW Form Of Energy? WTF? XD
It magically generates warm fuzzy energy.
I wonder if this is actually a "dual use" type thing, where the military use might be actually the money-maker. Lighting up a battlefield, annoy your enemy cities with a subtle reminder that "we're always watching", etc.
Anyone else came from Thunderf00t video?
Yup
"I didn't build this model to scale or paint it..." Great Scott!! 😂😂😂
Major problem in this calculations - Earth rotation ) They can reflect sun only in sunset point, not further.
They would be expensive to launch because of the weird orbit. And they'd have to change that orbit throughout the year to stay along the terminator. It makes less than no sense.
@@russell2952 That isn't actually true. They use a "sun synchronous orbit", that is an orbit with like 97 deg of inclination, i.e. slightly retrograde.
Due to the precession of the orbit, the orbital plane will rotate slowly and will remain perpendicular to the line to the sun.
So, without any propulsion it will remain above the terminator "indefinitely". This kind of orbit is actually used by low orbit weather and reconnaissance satellites.
Still, the point made above is true: it cannot reflect light into night areas, only to the dusk area.
Right on. Thanks for sharing.
Aim these space mirrors at the solar roadways, then you will get some real power.
Dave, just to put your worst fears to rest. Climate Capital is registered as a venture capital fund. So in theory, any retirement assets that are invested into it would be part of their "high risk" portfolio - so it's not going to be wiping out some worker's fund "low-risk" management like the credit default swap scenario did.
Yes, the tiny 10mx10m reflectors are bunk as revenue generators. But they are an adequate proof-of-concept, good enough to play with beam steering and focusing, though the SNR against the twilight skyglow could make the data noisy. Going with a larger yet thinner structure that borrows from solar sail research could provide a better testbed for the same launch volume and mass.
The basic satellite idea looks OK, viewed only as something that can be built. Moving the target spot by warping the mirror can work using minimal power, significantly less than trying to pivot the entire structure. This should be investigated on-orbit to determine both functionality and reliability, with only enough solar flux reflected to permit accurate performance measurements from the ground.
Thrust will be needed both to maintain the SSO orbit (to correct for the solar thrust against the collector and orbital perturbations due to the earth's shape and space weather), which can be accomplished in any number of ways (ion thrusters, electromagnetic tether, etc.). Some force will also be needed to maintain the overall reflector orientation, again which can be done in any number of ways (gyros, gravity gradient boom, etc.).
Let's assume the underlying concept works (a solar reflector in SSO that can be focused). As Dave said, the scale of the reflector is off by orders of magnitude for minimally useful flux to be delivered to a solar farm.
First, how big of a mirror is needed to reflect full solar intensity (1 sol) to a solar farm? Assuming a perfect reflector, to reflect the projected size of the sun (0.5°) onto LEO (600km-800km for typical SSO), would mean an area of roughly 14km^2 after accounting for a 45° tilt. That's on the order of 4km on each side! (I'm using hand-waving math here, barely above mental math, so I could easily be off by 2x or more.)
OK, that's way too large. The limit of engineering may be closer to 1km on a side, but I'm thinking the Mylar thickness would also need to grow, due to the tension needing to be applied to accomplish the dynamic focus requirements. Let's go for 1/4 sol (still very useful) and add some redundancy at each orbital slot, say, 4 satellites at each location, meaning each would be ~500m on a side. That seems more manageable. Maybe. But that's still one hell of a lot of Mylar needed to fill all the orbital slots!
The 10m satellites are an excellent and affordable proof of concept that's worth testing. Scaling up to commercially useful levels of solar flux at affordable systems costs is the problem. Even if Starship can provide delivery to SSO at 1/10 of the Falcon 9 price, launch costs will still dominate, meaning the satellites would need to have maximal lifetimes to amortize JUST the launch costs, meaning thicker Mylar to tolerate cumulative micrometeorite damage, meaning a heavier satellite, and the cost spirals upward.
There is probably an optimum balancing satellite mass against launch costs against longevity against performance against revenue, but I'm way too lazy to try to calculate it.
Could you imagine swinging those huge mirrors - CMGs or reaction wheels would be needed - to direct the reflection to where you want it, without twisting the mirror, which would scatter the light and make it worthless?
-Now make them 1km x 1km
-Scale it with 100 units
-Stick in geo-stationary where it can beam all night long.
Now run your numbers. Big difference.
Someone might want to look up what geostationary means and reconsider their idea...
@@totalermist Geo-stationary means wider field of view.
@@slipperyslope3912 No. it means the Earth is between the sun and the satellite 12h a day.
That's why sun-synchronous orbits are used in the first place.
No. The reason why the spot on earth is 5km from a 10x10m mirror is that the sun isn't a point lightsource. it has an angle of 0,5° So the area that is lit up will get bigger and bigger. with every km , the diameter gets larger by 18m. So at 35.000km, the diameter would be 630km
@@Flinno-k8w Not if you concentrate it. Think lasers.
I'm curious about the level of the founders pay? How much of that investment capital is going into their pockets? When the money runs out what will actually have been built vs. what is in the founders bank accounts...
pretty smart to use his youtube career to make millions from vc money
@@Superchunk-k2h a fool and his money are easily parted.
Any dyson swarm of mirrors that can be repositioned any time would be a very piwerful multi tool. Could be used for energy harvest, asteroid defense, space travel to accelerate an spacecraft , terraforming by lets say boiling mars ice caps to thicken its atmosphere, etc...
Next they will have "Roadways in space" (solar even!).
Who needs space elevators when we have space highways?
solar freakin' moon-ways
you're my favorite debunker Dave!
I have a better idea. Why not just simply blow some of that solar wind down to earth to provide extra power to wind turbines? That makes a lot of sense to me. Who's in? Send me money and we'll start a company.
Is it AI powered? That's the most important question
We're gonna have mirror powered hyperloops!
Do you know what solves the "duck curve" problem for essentially free? More daylight savings time. If you shift the clock so people are going home when the sun is still shining, problem solved.
I feel that, the amazing thing is even farmers when polled (if I remember correctly) are not interested in the whole shifting time thing depending on the time of the year so who actually wants it?
During WW2 in the UK there was double summer time, so at the height of summer you'd be looking at 22:40 or so by the time the sun went below the horizon, that's a significant chunk of daylight after people get home, and in the bottom winter it means it'd be some time after 18:00, which isn't great but better than 16:00.
Is there any reason that everyone should be going home from work at the same time in the first place?
Particularly if you only shift the clock in the evening so people can still get out of bed after dawn, too.
Oh wait …
@@blitzwing1 Because farmers don't do anything other than farm. To them it makes no difference, if they're awake, they're "at work". And they're not the ones driving the duck curve anyway - they don't stop what they're doing and go home and have supper because it's 6PM - they work while the conditions are right, and might not go home to eat until midnight, and the dew is making whatever they're working on too wet. It mostly matters to office and factory people, and they're the ones driving the duck curve anyway. If you polled most people that work fixed hour jobs, I think they'd appreciate more "sunshine hours" after work to do their own thing.
regretably, no. the objective is the money, not the energy production
For reference, that illuminance is about the same as moonlight (~3-7mW/sqm) , and you can't run a solar plant on moonlight.
Changing topic slightly but our friend "Solar Roads" are making their way to the UK .. they say ---- " Solar roads are a new and innovative concept as they do not require land to be specifically allocated. This is because the road infrastructure already exists. Therefore, this emerging technique of embedding solar panels into pavements and roadways is becoming a more attractive proposition." ----- and they say that "solar roads may supply up to 96.42% of the UK's total electricity, which is a substantially promising potential." i bet your BS sensor picks this up lol
Is there a proposed UK system?
@@EEVblog It appears so
Tried sending a link but it wouldnt work ... just google "Solar roads - a new potential renewable energy for Great Britain"
@@kynkokytsumi1931 JFC they just got their 7th government grant in June! They have been grifting this for 18 YEARS now!
@@EEVblog funny they are making it sound like it's a new thing 🤣
I disagree pretty strongly with the idea that they are 100% serious about this. I'm much more inclined to think that this is an obvious venture capital cash grab scam. It's hopelessly stupid on its face.
Unbelievable. If only those doing the investing had al little more science / engineering knowledge. I remember learning the inverse square law in a high school physics experiment aged 14. It's about all you need to know to see this can't work.
just use concave mirror, then the collimated beam won't have inverse square law drop.
@@xponen That doesn't help at all. With a collimated beam you get a smaller spot of light on the ground, so can hit less panels, for less time as each satellite passes overhead. They're effectively un-collimating the beam anyway (i.e. making it diverge more by using a convex mirror - there must be a word for that) to make a 10m mirror make a 5km spot on the ground. If the mirror were flat (and perfect), you'd effectively get a 10m spot on the ground too, as the satellite orbit altitude will be irrelevant relative to the distance to the sun
I've got a brilliant idea. Orbit a gigantic magnifying glass and focus the light on a kettle of water on the surface using the steam to drive turbines. Investors will be lining up any day now.
and make sure AI is somehow involved
In theory, this would work. In practice, we don't have the tech to do this affordably. Besides, logically this would result in more heat hitting the earth which would be bad. So even assuming that they get the amount of power that they dream of it'd still be a terrible solution.
The better option would be scaling this up until it becomes practical. So massive mirrors that can capture light from hundreds or thousands of kilometres, convert all of that energy into a focused microwave beam, and then finally send that power down to collectors on earth. But that requires having better launch tech than what we currently have.
Collecting all that power into a concentrated beam.....like a giant space death ray, eh? If it went astray even for a minute, it could cause massive amounts of damage and kill who knows how many people.
@@WereCatfI mean, for some people that might be the point, especially if they've got a fluffy white cat and a penchant for holding the world to ransom...
@@WereCatf Seems my comment didn't want to post, so I'm forced to retype it. Still not planning on doing any actual math for what a safe beam energy would be.
Anyway, there's no need to use a beam that's got many thousands of times the energy of regular sunlight to be commercially viable. Even just a few times regular sunlight would be sufficient. Not sure what the safe range would be, but my estimate would put it at around 10x regular sunlight. Then just build a larger collecting region while keeping the incoming energy at 10x sunlight per metre.
Also beams can be focused from multiple collectors into a single area on earth. That way each of those collectors individually has a beam of only a few times the energy of normal sunlight. So even if one of the satellites is compromised, it can't cause any damage on it's own. It can then be promptly destroyed or retargetted correctly. Though of course that'd still be concerning if all the collectors were turned into a weapon.
There is a way easier option. Just install more solar panels and energy storage on the ground. It's not rocket science (literally).
@@to_loww Currently, yes. Once we have cheap launch costs or industry in space, placing the solar collectors up there will be the better option. This is all mainly an engineering and political limitation rather than an scientific limitation. While stuff like solar roadways is a scientific limitation cause its stupid, placing solar panels in space gets you more efficient energy (space doesn't really have weather, clouds, useful land, day/night cycles, etc). So once we get the tech and will to make such a thing for cheap, it will be done and it'll be more affordable than covering the planet in solar panels. Unless you're suggesting that we'll never get to a point where we can or need to do that. Which would be quite disappointing.
The problem of alternating periods of excess supply and no supply of a vital resource was figured out over 10,000 years ago and it was a simple and straight forward solution that didn't involve satellites: storage.
Do these guys also sell those magic mirrors which turn your mobile phone screen into a projector?
Wait, are you suggesting that we shine phone screens on solar panels at night? I’m in! 😂
The diversion of investments from nuclear to "green" has been a disaster for the human species.
As an amateur astronomer I am so annoyed at all these companies tossing junk into orbit. Let's also not forget the "accidents" where Chinese and Russian satellites that had "accidents" that have increased the amount of junk in space. Compounded by so many countries planning to put up their internet satellite constellations.
Don't worry, they won't get past the first prototype before they go bankrupt.
@@EEVblog But if the point is to live on fools' money, then bankruptcy isn't a problem. Take the money and run.
As an amateur astronaut I agree
Soviet Russia tried this before it's dissolution. First try was a success. I have to define what success was for their first try. They deployed a big reflector on a satellite where able to stay on target while the satellite moved. But on the second satellite (second try), a bigger reflector, an antenna ripped the reflector while it was unfolding. After that they scrap the idea as too expensive.
Imagine amount of fossil fuel needed to deploy single cubesat with mirrors. Better to supply that to fossil fuel power plant. Energy gain will be higher.
Imagine still refering to gasoline as the same propaganda term coined in the 90s.
Besides „Dave's solar power math“, I don't know how attitude control or mirror alignment would work effectively for such a system, with a 12U cubesat ... and also, up to 20 year lifespan? Within this budget? 🤣No way!🤣
Solar freaking laser beams
They simply forgot to take into consideration that the power captured will not scale up. They probably calculated with 1000W per square meter for the 5km spot. Thought maybe they hope to reflect down light to the same spot from multiple locations at once but how many sats do they really hope to release? You would need a massive number of them to compensate for the loss in power/sqrm.
total bullcrap
use nuclear reactor best energy source
I'm pretty sure they did their calculations very thoroughly. Their financial gains calculations that is.
There's more energy output in their hyperventilating techbro pitch than will ever be produced by this farcical scam.
They know it doesn't work. All they're look for are headlines in blogs and news. That's the real revenue they are after. Moreover, having the opportunity to use in their CVs the words CEO or CTO or co-founder... come on, how do you expect the new spacex, or whatever will be the next vaporware-techno-bro-multi-billion dollar company, will find their next CEO?
Icarus is unique. Its miraculous silver skin will inhale the sun's light and breathe it gently upon the Earth's surface.
Just reminded of the old SimCity game. The space reflector power system similar to this that would occasionally trip a natural disaster where the beam would move and catch everything around the ground station on fire. If this actually worked the way they wanted it to that might be a concern.
They should get their academic titles revoked if they continue to claim it pays off. Unbelievable.