You might even need adaptive mirrors to deal with atmospheric distortion. Also, they would have to move relatively quickly and very precisely (read: an impossible combination) to track satellites in low orbit. Plus, you could only hit satellites that crossed overhead at a relatively high angle.
But yeah, one solar tower plant did a stunt where they reflected an image made of sunlight at the ISS and an astronaut took a picture. They didn’t melt.
where they reflected an image made of sunlight at the ISS and an astronaut took a picture
got a link to said picture? it may make for a good meme template.
I saw that the chinese did that kind of ‘pixel art’ with there own near identical solar thermal plant
I’m no optical physicist, but based on empirical evidence of not melting due to light arriving from a huge ball of thermonuclear fire 8 light minutes away (and sure it’s not exactly focused), I propose a hypotesis that light-based energy transfer in atmosphere is very lossy and not feasible as a weapon.
So, the light from the sun is very spread out. This is why it doesn’t hurt you. When you take almost all of the light from a large area and focus it to a point, it starts to add up fast.
You can test this with a leaf and a magnifying glass. The mirrors in this scenario are acting as a giant lens.
The biggest question is whether the mirror array is large enough to redirect enough energy to make it though the atmosphere.
It would likely be probable if the facility was specifically designed to do this.
Why do people claim the inverse square law applies? The light has already travelled 147 million km, another 500km from the earth back to the satellite is mathematically insignificant, it’s a rounding error.
It holds if the light spreads wider than the target. So also for directed light sources at large enough distances. Even a perfect mirror must spread the light in the same angle as it is incoming. Hence the beam would at least 3 km wide at the satellite. Therefore the satellite can only recieve a Illumination of ~65W/m^2 which is a few percent of the normal sun brightness of 1300 W/m^2 in space.
Another way to look at it, the mirrors cant make the sun seem brighter only larger. From the tower you see a large solid angle around you the mirror, therefore, it can seem like you are at the surface of the sun. However, fro. the position of a satellite, the power plant only takes a small solid angle, so it seems like a “smaller” sun.
Assuming 400 MW and 1 kW/m^2 (at surface) solar power, it has an area of 400000 m^2, so a solid angle of 4.5e-6 sr from 300km while the sun has 70e-6 sr. So ten times smaller, therefore weaker. Note however here i did not account for attenuation in the atmosphere
No i am talking about all the mirrors as one surface, no matter they are really one or consist of small pieces
For the 65 W/m^2 i already used the size of the whole system, so all 10000 mirrors.
The sun has a angular diameter of 32 arcmin. (see here) Hence, the rays hitting one point of the one mirror, have come from different angles, namly filling a circle with this angular diameter. By reflection, the directions of the rays changes. But rays hitting the same spot on the mirror which were misaligned before by 32 arcmin are also misaglined by 32 arcmin after the mirror, independent of its shape. Therefore, the rays emerging from the power plant diverege by at least 32 arcmin. This is not a problem for operation, as this leads to a size of 4.6 m at an estimated maximum distance of 500 m between tower and mirrors. When the mirrors point at a satellite however, a distance of 300 km leads to a beam diameter of 2.8 km calculation
Even an ideal mirror can only project a point source onto a point. It is impossible to focus the rays of an extended source onto one point.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etendue if you want to know details. With conservation of etendue you can also calculate this in a similar way.
You seem to be neglecting that the lights already traveled 147 million km from the Sun, your math is wrong. You need to account for the distance from the sun to earth, plus to the satellite. Of course the math looks better on your end when you forget the most important detail. Come on lmfao.
Yes i am, because it is unimportant if the light comes from the sun or the moon or a 3km large satellite (assuming they would have the same radiance). It would be important if the power plant were ten times larger, the satellite would be closer or larger. However in this case the limit to the power is is the etendue of the light at the satellite. The maximum power is the etendue at the satellite times radiant flux of the sun.
If you want a fun and interesting read which does explain a related “problem”, there is a relevant xkcd
I could explain it to you in at least five different ways in detail, three of them i have already done in short here in the comments. However, you never argued directly against my point. You don’t talk to me seriosly but laugh about it.
This is not what a serious disussion looks like
like. If you want an explaination, i would be motiviated to take the time and explain it in detail.
Note that i listened to your point, considered it and argued why it plays no role. You have not considered my explainations.
You might even need adaptive mirrors to deal with atmospheric distortion. Also, they would have to move relatively quickly and very precisely (read: an impossible combination) to track satellites in low orbit. Plus, you could only hit satellites that crossed overhead at a relatively high angle.
But yeah, one solar tower plant did a stunt where they reflected an image made of sunlight at the ISS and an astronaut took a picture. They didn’t melt.
got a link to said picture? it may make for a good meme template. I saw that the chinese did that kind of ‘pixel art’ with there own near identical solar thermal plant
I’m no optical physicist, but based on empirical evidence of not melting due to light arriving from a huge ball of thermonuclear fire 8 light minutes away (and sure it’s not exactly focused), I propose a hypotesis that light-based energy transfer in atmosphere is very lossy and not feasible as a weapon.
Which is perfect for this community, of course.
So, the light from the sun is very spread out. This is why it doesn’t hurt you. When you take almost all of the light from a large area and focus it to a point, it starts to add up fast.
You can test this with a leaf and a magnifying glass. The mirrors in this scenario are acting as a giant lens.
The biggest question is whether the mirror array is large enough to redirect enough energy to make it though the atmosphere.
It would likely be probable if the facility was specifically designed to do this.
.
Why do people claim the inverse square law applies? The light has already travelled 147 million km, another 500km from the earth back to the satellite is mathematically insignificant, it’s a rounding error.
It holds if the light spreads wider than the target. So also for directed light sources at large enough distances. Even a perfect mirror must spread the light in the same angle as it is incoming. Hence the beam would at least 3 km wide at the satellite. Therefore the satellite can only recieve a Illumination of ~65W/m^2 which is a few percent of the normal sun brightness of 1300 W/m^2 in space.
Another way to look at it, the mirrors cant make the sun seem brighter only larger. From the tower you see a large solid angle around you the mirror, therefore, it can seem like you are at the surface of the sun. However, fro. the position of a satellite, the power plant only takes a small solid angle, so it seems like a “smaller” sun. Assuming 400 MW and 1 kW/m^2 (at surface) solar power, it has an area of 400000 m^2, so a solid angle of 4.5e-6 sr from 300km while the sun has 70e-6 sr. So ten times smaller, therefore weaker. Note however here i did not account for attenuation in the atmosphere
Sure that’s one mirror. But we are talking. Thousands and thousands upon thousands of them.
10,000x65= 65,000 which is now ~60x the Sun passing by it.
And why are you saying it would be 3km wide? I’d like to see the math please.
No i am talking about all the mirrors as one surface, no matter they are really one or consist of small pieces
For the 65 W/m^2 i already used the size of the whole system, so all 10000 mirrors.
The sun has a angular diameter of 32 arcmin. (see here) Hence, the rays hitting one point of the one mirror, have come from different angles, namly filling a circle with this angular diameter. By reflection, the directions of the rays changes. But rays hitting the same spot on the mirror which were misaligned before by 32 arcmin are also misaglined by 32 arcmin after the mirror, independent of its shape. Therefore, the rays emerging from the power plant diverege by at least 32 arcmin. This is not a problem for operation, as this leads to a size of 4.6 m at an estimated maximum distance of 500 m between tower and mirrors. When the mirrors point at a satellite however, a distance of 300 km leads to a beam diameter of 2.8 km calculation
Even an ideal mirror can only project a point source onto a point. It is impossible to focus the rays of an extended source onto one point. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etendue if you want to know details. With conservation of etendue you can also calculate this in a similar way.
You seem to be neglecting that the lights already traveled 147 million km from the Sun, your math is wrong. You need to account for the distance from the sun to earth, plus to the satellite. Of course the math looks better on your end when you forget the most important detail. Come on lmfao.
Yes i am, because it is unimportant if the light comes from the sun or the moon or a 3km large satellite (assuming they would have the same radiance). It would be important if the power plant were ten times larger, the satellite would be closer or larger. However in this case the limit to the power is is the etendue of the light at the satellite. The maximum power is the etendue at the satellite times radiant flux of the sun.
If you want a fun and interesting read which does explain a related “problem”, there is a relevant xkcd
I could explain it to you in at least five different ways in detail, three of them i have already done in short here in the comments. However, you never argued directly against my point. You don’t talk to me seriosly but laugh about it.
This is not what a serious disussion looks like like. If you want an explaination, i would be motiviated to take the time and explain it in detail.
Note that i listened to your point, considered it and argued why it plays no role. You have not considered my explainations.
Atmospheric attenuation of light is a real thing and the intensity of solar radiation is less on the surface.
https://pace.oceansciences.org/images/Solar_spectrum_en_v5.jpg