3 ms·
If you run the numbers you'll see that this is not a viable option. It's too expensive to get enough payload in space, the earth can't afford it. I mean if you
by 6nf 7y ago
If you run the numbers you'll see that this is not a viable option. It's too expensive to get enough payload in space, the earth can't afford it.
I mean if you're making mirrors, why do we need to put them in space at great cost? Just put them on earth. The cost of the actual mirrors is basically zero compared to to the cost of putting that mirror in orbit. The earth mirrors might be slightly less efficient but you can just make up for that with more mirrors.
- Diederich 7y agoI'm not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusions here, but I'd like to discuss this a little more if that's ok with you. > It's too expensive to get enough payload in space Full disclosure: I'm a pretty big SpaceX fan. At first glance, SpaceX is currently charging about $1000USD/kg to LEO. It's widely believed that SpaceX's internal cost is a fairly small fraction of that; let's assume it's $500USD/kg to LEO. The Big One will be Starship + Superheavy, assuming it flies. That stack will be entirely reusable, so its base cost (ignoring build amortization of the build) will be fuel + operational expenses. Musk said that he hopes that Starship + Superheavy will be able to deliver 120 metric tons to low earth orbit for 4x the price of a 747 flight, or about $2 million USD, which yields a cost of less than $20USD/kg to LEO. A lot of speculation there, and $20/kg is still a lot more expensive than mirrors on the ground...maybe. How much more effective would mirrors be stationed at Lagrange Point 1? I suspect your overall conclusion is correct though.