Having a mirror sit there doesn't seem more advanced than having life
support and equipment to do experiments with. Note also that part of
the reason launch costs are so high is that the payloads currently
worth launching are either people or very expensive one-of-a-kind high-
tech satellites, so the tolerance for failure is very low. Loosening
the requirements could give some cost savings.
On Apr 22, 5:56 am, Ken Caldeira
>
http://globalecology.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeir...
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>
>
kcalde...@ciw.edu; kcalde...@stanford.eduhttp://
dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
> <
andrew.lock...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > When Angel's idea was discussed on discovery channel, the idea was to use
> > small and relatively fragile mirrors, which is fraught with problems.
> > Conversely, the thin, flexible films required for this technique are
> > readily available, such as in the aptly-named 'space blankets' used for
> > keeping disaster victims warm. The material used for crisp packets (potato
> > chips) also have the necessary properties. Both are far stronger than would
> > be needed for such an application. I'm unsure as to how thin and light such
> > a material could be made.
>
> > Making a large 'star' out of long strips of such a material should be
> > relatively easy. Small weights, similar to an electrical wire, could be
> > fixed to the perimeter to keep the material taught as it spins. The
> > techniques for spinning-up satellites are well established, and even a low
> > torque should result in a good unfurl given time. Whether the resulting
> > structure will 'drift' or 'wrinkle' remains to be determined.
>
> > I've always maintained a deep loathing for space-based geoengineering, as
> > I've regarded it as an impractical fantasy. However, when you consider how
> > lightweight and permanent such a structure could be, it doesn't seem quite
> > so silly anymore. In the short term, wrapping deserts and glaciers would
> > obviously be cheaper, but the maintenance, degradation and environmental
> > impacts would all be significant. I think it would be worth considering how
> > big a single star could be made.
>
> > I understand that it's possible to create small-scale experiments and
> > piggyback them on existing missions. Would this be one worth testing?
>
> > A
>
> > 2009/4/22 Alvia Gaskill <
agask...@nc.rr.com>
> Early_JBritInterplanetSoc1989.pdf
> 2766KViewDownload