2 ms·
Let's see. It seems to me the obvious approach would be a very large number of solar sails manufactured in space. Eric Drexler wrote a thesis about that in the
by abecedarius 9y ago
Let's see. It seems to me the obvious approach would be a very large number of solar sails manufactured in space. Eric Drexler wrote a thesis about that in the 70s, for transport instead of shading: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/16234 https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/16234
The general idea was to make lightweight thin films by metal vapour deposition onto wax (or something, iirc), followed by heating the wax to remove it. These films can be far thinner than what could survive launch from Earth and unfolding.
I'm not gonna reread it now, but say 50nm thick (which is above the knee of the opacity curve) times the cross-sectional area of the Earth gets you about 6 million cubic meters -- you wouldn't make one giant shade, but a lot of small ones; there's overhead for each one's control/power/cooling. Aluminum masses 2700kg/m^3, so we need to manufacture 17 million tons of solar sails (+ the overhead) somewhere up in space, I guess at a convenient asteroid that supplies the materials? And then navigate them to the Lagrange point, but solar sails are great for that.
Easy for me to say, but this sounds doable in this century if we wanted to enough. If you just want to reduce insolation by a few percent, then scale down the requirements to a few percent.
Added: I found the R. Angel paper the OP referenced, with the sunshade design: http://www.pnas.org/content/103/46/17184.full http://www.pnas.org/content/103/46/17184.full -- also a thin-film swarm, though not as thin, launched from Earth, and 20 million tons for 1.8% reduction.
Also, my sketch above left out stationkeeping overhead, which I was vaguely thinking could be small: rocking back and forth to alternately spiral out and in from your orbit. But that's wrong, it's not even in orbit. I'm not sure how well you can do.