2 ms·

I agree that would be the smart way to do it, but that would at least double the scope, probably more, since orthogonal area is a cosine function. There's also

I agree that would be the smart way to do it, but that would at least double the scope, probably more, since orthogonal area is a cosine function. There's also oblique reflection to consider.

CydeWeys 7y ago
Why do you assume that the linked paper hasn't already taken this into consideration? They know that they're basically just structured aluminum foil, weighing in at 1 gram each, and completely dumb; why would they be assuming orientation at all? The reasonable thing to do would be to assume random orientation (especially over time, i.e. rotation, and over the orbit).
- beerandt 7y ago
  I actually agree(d) with that reasoning, I also initially assumed random placement. Others on this page suggested them being steerable. But we're both very wrong- I read the whole paper. Some aspects are well thought out and highly technical, while others are glossed over as requirements tbd. Briefly: He does intend to steer/ orient the discs using radiative pressure from a network of control satellites and gps-like navigation "beacons", but overlap is also required to take into account the required oblique angles and transparency of the discs. I'm left being very impressed with the provided technical details of the disk constellation, but even more skeptical overall, mostly due to lack of detail on some major supporting elements. He offers no detail of the required deployment method, or even the scope of the required navigation and control network. He also states each disk will require a gps-like receiver, 2 cameras, some power and processing capability, and a method of communicating with said networks, all while still assuming 1g per disc and no added cost... It's not conceptual level, so much as it's conceptual for maybe one out of dozens of required massively scaled elements. Also, it addresses no risk management / mitigation concerns.

I agree that would be the smart way to do it, but that would at least double the scope, probably more, since orthogonal area is a cosine function. There's also oblique reflection to consider.

CydeWeys 7y ago

Why do you assume that the linked paper hasn't already taken this into consideration? They know that they're basically just structured aluminum foil, weighing in at 1 gram each, and completely dumb; why would they be assuming orientation at all? The reasonable thing to do would be to assume random orientation (especially over time, i.e. rotation, and over the orbit).

beerandt 7y ago
I actually agree(d) with that reasoning, I also initially assumed random placement. Others on this page suggested them being steerable. But we're both very wrong- I read the whole paper. Some aspects are well thought out and highly technical, while others are glossed over as requirements tbd. Briefly: He does intend to steer/ orient the discs using radiative pressure from a network of control satellites and gps-like navigation "beacons", but overlap is also required to take into account the required oblique angles and transparency of the discs. I'm left being very impressed with the provided technical details of the disk constellation, but even more skeptical overall, mostly due to lack of detail on some major supporting elements. He offers no detail of the required deployment method, or even the scope of the required navigation and control network. He also states each disk will require a gps-like receiver, 2 cameras, some power and processing capability, and a method of communicating with said networks, all while still assuming 1g per disc and no added cost... It's not conceptual level, so much as it's conceptual for maybe one out of dozens of required massively scaled elements. Also, it addresses no risk management / mitigation concerns.