FCC Approves Reflect Orbital's Space Mirror Satellite That Astronomers Hate (pcmag.com) 65
The FCC has approved (PDF) Reflect Orbital's Earendil-1 test satellite, which will use a 60-by-60-foot mirror to reflect sunlight back to Earth after dark. "The reflected light from the satellite is supposed to span an area about 3 miles wide on the ground," reports PCMag. It comes despite objections from astronomers and environmental groups who are concerned that the satellites will unleash intrusive light pollution. From the report: The approval is only for one satellite, dubbed Earendil-1, which is meant to test Reflect Orbital's technology for shining sunlight back to Earth. The satellite will boast a steerable thin-film reflector measuring about 60 feet by 60 feet, with the goal of powering solar farms at night or illuminating disaster-struck areas after dark to help rescue teams. Reflect Orbital envisions operating over 50,000 satellites by 2035, effectively surrounding the Earth with a fleet of mirrors. The proposal has faced stiff pushback from environmental groups and astronomers who are concerned that the satellites will unleash intrusive light pollution. The opposition has been so strong that the FCC received over 1,800 public comments on the application, many of them objecting to Reflect Orbital's plan for Earendil-1.
[...] [T]he FCC approved the satellite, noting the grant is only "for a single demonstration satellite" to test an innovative technology that could advance American leadership in space. "The Communications Act states that it is the policy of the United States to 'encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the public,' and Reflect Orbital's demonstration satellite is an example of a potentially groundbreaking technology that the Commission has found is in the public interest to support," the order says. But on the most controversial aspect of the satellite, the FCC said the concerns around Reflect Orbital's solar reflector are "unrelated to the Commission's role in authorizing use of radiofrequency spectrum, and even if the Commission had authority to review and condition these operations (which it does not), these harms are unlikely to occur.
In addition, the commission said that U.S. courts have blocked the FCC from using "a generalized public interest requirement beyond its statutory authority in regulating communications. Accordingly, the operations of a solar reflector in space would not be reviewed as part of the Bureau's public interest analysis." The regulator also noted that conducting an environmental review for the satellite went beyond its authority. Even if the FCC did have the power, the commission emphasized that the grant is for a single satellite, not 50,000. "The majority of these comments focus on a hypothetical plan to deploy tens of thousands of satellites, and those who argue the single satellite will harm the human environment do not demonstrate with specificity the potential harm will be caused by the single satellite, but rather rely on the same studies as the commenters objecting to a larger constellation," the FCC adds.
[...] [T]he FCC approved the satellite, noting the grant is only "for a single demonstration satellite" to test an innovative technology that could advance American leadership in space. "The Communications Act states that it is the policy of the United States to 'encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the public,' and Reflect Orbital's demonstration satellite is an example of a potentially groundbreaking technology that the Commission has found is in the public interest to support," the order says. But on the most controversial aspect of the satellite, the FCC said the concerns around Reflect Orbital's solar reflector are "unrelated to the Commission's role in authorizing use of radiofrequency spectrum, and even if the Commission had authority to review and condition these operations (which it does not), these harms are unlikely to occur.
In addition, the commission said that U.S. courts have blocked the FCC from using "a generalized public interest requirement beyond its statutory authority in regulating communications. Accordingly, the operations of a solar reflector in space would not be reviewed as part of the Bureau's public interest analysis." The regulator also noted that conducting an environmental review for the satellite went beyond its authority. Even if the FCC did have the power, the commission emphasized that the grant is for a single satellite, not 50,000. "The majority of these comments focus on a hypothetical plan to deploy tens of thousands of satellites, and those who argue the single satellite will harm the human environment do not demonstrate with specificity the potential harm will be caused by the single satellite, but rather rely on the same studies as the commenters objecting to a larger constellation," the FCC adds.
Sunlight on the dark side (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly what Global Warming needs.
Re:Sunlight on the dark side (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything for a buck. The future? Who cares ...
Missing the point (Score:1)
This is missing the point. The mirror in space when scaled up to a much larger size can be used to affect the weather.
For example, increasing air temperature to deflect winter storms or summer storms / cyclones
Re: (Score:2)
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQeXiur38xA)Crimes of the hot space mirror [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Depends, is the amount of solar it generates at night going to offset more heating than it causes?
Re: (Score:2)
Closest I could find to the nub of the problem. Whether this is going to work would depend on very accurate weather AND climate modeling and I don't think we are anywhere close at this time. Due to butterfly effects, the prediction problem is probably unsolvable, so I think that means we would need a control system with extra capability that is constantly compensating for prior interventions. It reminds me of the fly-by-wire problem for aircraft with negative dynamic stability. Not even theoretically possib
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, no naturally it was modded down. There are some real luddites around here.
Re:Sunlight on the dark side (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
My Poe's Law detector just exploded.
I'll be charitable, and assume you know the difference between a dark surface and a surface that happens to be in the dark.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be charitable, and assume you know the difference between a dark surface and a surface that happens to be in the dark.
I have a physics degree and I was aiming for a +1, Funny. I guess since we're joking about global warming, it counts as "dark" humour.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a physics degree and I was aiming for a +1, Funny. I guess since we're joking about global warming, it counts as "dark" humour.
Lol! I have a physics degree also (a few, actually) and yeah, you made me laugh. Hope you get your +1 Funny.
copyright trolls to the rescue! (Score:4, Interesting)
Our only saviour could be the Tolkien Foundation who's been very active suing everyone who dares to refer to any of JRR's works. And copyright has been given such a strength that the FCC has no chances, they may at most pay the extortionists.
Re: (Score:2)
Quick google says Tolkien co. allows fanfiction, but not if the authors are trying to sell it at a profit. That a fanfiction author did self-publish his fanfiction book, then sued Amazon and Tolkien for ripping off his plot, and lost the suit because he didn't have rights to publish in the first place.
Isn't that what you'd expect? Is there more going on?
Re:copyright trolls to the rescue! (Score:5, Interesting)
Oooo (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean "disproven"? Are you saying that mirrors don't reflect, that it won't be cost effective, or what?
Re: (Score:2)
Little late for that. Like 35 years late.
Someone watching bond movies (Score:4, Insightful)
Barely more than moonlight... (Score:5, Interesting)
If we assume a best case scenario, that is all sunlight is captured by the 60 x 60 feet reflector and then send down to earth in a 3 mile diameter circle this would correspond to a light intensity of approximately 0.02 W / m2 or 2 Lux.
This is barely brighter than the light from a full moon. Probably not even enough for any color vision. So in which scenario does that help? And that already entails that a full satellite is only dedicated to you. Someone with more economical knowledge than me might want to give an estimate what the hourly rate of a satellite of that size might be.
The whole idea then goes brr by assuming thousands of satellites (1000 Lux would be bright office lighting) which is still not enough for any photovoltaic usage. So this is only an investment vehicle for people that dream without basic math.
Try this (Score:1)
If we assume a best case scenario, that is all sunlight is captured by the 60 x 60 feet reflector and then send down to earth in a 3 mile diameter circle this would correspond to a light intensity of approximately 0.02 W / m2 or 2 Lux.
This is barely brighter than the light from a full moon. Probably not even enough for any color vision. So in which scenario does that help? And that already entails that a full satellite is only dedicated to you.
Try this: go outside away from the city during a full moon.
I think you'll be surprised.
In the middle ages, when it was too hot during the day, farmers used to till and plant fields at night under the full moon. It allowed them to get more work done during the planting season.
Also try this: go outside between the hours of 2:00 PM and 7:00 PM in Spain right now (July).
I think you'll be surprised.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Surprised how full of light a clear sky is at night. And hence the landscape.
Can't be so hard to grasp.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You did not talk about anything like that.
You challenged your parents point of "surprised".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Try this (Score:2)
And the full moon is quite bright. I think this is what he's referring too. People in a city don't realise just how bright.
I'm certainly not advising for this mirror thing, though. And most certainly not thousands of them...
Barely enough for..dual-use? (Score:2)
Perhaps we're not thinking dual-use enough.
Perhaps there is an application for a barely more than moonlight mod within a schedule that demands action now.
Some military-looking "rescue" teams deployed on a moonless night along the Southern border to execute sub-sonic suppressor tests with a new satellite-powered night vision enhancement? You don't say..
Re: (Score:2)
The military implications are obvious. Think Ukraine. If you suspect the enemy is trying to infiltrate on a dark night along several kilometers of frontline, you light up the scene while launching a bunch of low-cost FPV drones, and those infiltrators are about to have a bad day.
You *can* spot infiltrators in the dark with IR cameras, but it requires much more expensive drones and isn't usually as effective, hence the preference for night operations. Plus, there's IR camouflage, with varying degrees of su
Re: (Score:3)
This is a small prototype, not a full-scale mirror.
Also, ignoring that, pretending light brighter than the full moon is useless is... silly? For generating power, sure, but for illumination, it absolutely is not.
Re:Barely more than moonlight... (Score:4, Interesting)
So in which scenario does that help
With 50k satellites it can become an effective space weapon. Assume about 250ish miles orbital altitude. also assume the satellites you target with this weapon are at about the same altitude. That makes for roughly 140 miles average between satellites in the cluster and target, but much of the time there will be multiple satellites closer than this. Even low amounts of light coming from unexpected angles can blind sensors like surveillance cameras, but at shorter distances if the mirror has appropriate focal length and multiple mirrors can be used, it can dramatically increase the heat experienced by the satellite but far more importantly it can push the heat from unexpected directions. Satellites often employ heat shielding to stop the direct heat from the sun from baking the satellite and also have heat pumps to push it out the dark side. By heating that avoids the heat shield, or better yet, raises the radiator to a high temperature, the satellite bakes and self destructs. The focused energy does itself not need to come close to baking the satellite on its own. The use case is very compelling for destroying enemy satellites while getting funding and permission by pretending to solve a civilian purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone with more economical knowledge than me might want to give an estimate what the hourly rate of a satellite of that size might be.
"... the company would charge about $5,000 an hour for the light of one mirror if a customer signed an annual contract for at least 1,000 hours. " -- NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/10/climate/fcc-space-mirror.html) One time events and emergencies would be more expensive.
That would be for the production mirrors, much bigger than this prototype. "The largest mirrors are planned to be nearly 180 feet wide, reflecting as much light as 100 full moons." (Ibid.)
It's not stated that the production target wo
Re: (Score:2)
The largest mirrors are planned to be nearly 180 feet wide, reflecting as much light as 100 full moons.
Your NYT link is paywalled, and I don't have a subscription to confirm this quote or its context. But it's enough to do some back-of-the-envelope calculations.
A 180-ft wide (about 28 m radius) mirror at, say, 500 km away from the ground target, would subtend a solid angle of about (pi x 28^2 / 500,000^2) = about 10^-8 steradians. One quarter of that if we assume the mirror is about 1,000 km away.
The moon, on average, subtends about 6.4 x 10^-5 steradians. The moon's albedo is about 0.12. Let's be generous a
Re: (Score:1)
Four times that if we assume the mirrors are 1000 km away instead of 500.
I wonder... to what extent can the mirrors be tuned? It seems rather inefficient to use space mirors to target a 3 mile circle. I asked Gemini and it disagrees with your assertions, however I can't paste the formulas into a slashdot comment. The key assertion that would disagree with your back of the envelope measurements however is easier to quote:
Because the mirror is so much closer, its required light intensity (Im) only needs to be roughly 0.000169% of the Moon's actual light intensity to appear just a
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you asked Gemini. That would help us understand the answer it gave you.
With some simplifying assumptions, all that matters is the solid-angular subtense of the mirror or the moon, and the albedo (the percentage of light reflected from the object.) The closeness of an object affects its solid-angular subtense.
The light flux from the sun (photons per metre squared) is essentially the same at low earth-orbit and the full moon, because the full moon is not much further away from the sun than t
Re: (Score:2)
Oops:
The light flux from the sun (photons per metre squared per second)
That's better.
Re: (Score:3)
Presumably that's why they envision having 50,000 of them. One alone won't do much, dozens or even hundreds of them all reflecting at the same spot...
Re: (Score:1)
I think this is a test but I think it's all about advertising.
Wouldn't it be great to look up into the night sky and see "Coke is It!" glimmering up there. No, no it wouldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a demonstration. 60 feet is pretty modest, the Russians did 20 m in the 90s and planned 60 m. These guys are aiming for 180 ft (~60 m). Even that is fairly modest by what you could potentially do. The US has 100 m dish antennas in orbit.
Again (Score:5, Informative)
Russians tried this in the 1990s. Seriously underwhelming, and not likely to be much better this time around.
Re: (Score:2)
But this time it is done by proper capitalists!
Re: (Score:2)
But this time it is done by proper capitalists!!!
Re: (Score:2)
But this time it is done by proper capitalists!!!
It'll have pretty much the same outcome. 8^)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably what Putin's July 4th call to dear leader was about.
How Much Power? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that they should do this experiment. Launch it test it. And, within a year, burn it up on re-entry.
Knowing the results of this experiment are good.
The idea of putting 50,000 of these to power a massive PV array and heat the Earth is a dog shit idea. It's bad on too many levels.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially given how easy it is to just drop down more PV on land.
Testbed for solar sail. (Score:2)
It's more interesting as a test for a solar sail.
The way it fails will be the interesting part.
This could disrupt our food production (Score:2)
Did nobody do the math at FCC? (Score:2)
Re: Did nobody do the math at FCC? (Score:1)
It's a test.
In your attempt to look smart, you didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In response to your question 'Did nobody do the math at FCC?", the summary says that FCC specifically pointed out that their authority was only over the RF communications of the satellite. They had no authority to analyze or critique reflected light or to calculate whether it's a useful investment. FCC is the communications commission.
Second, obviously the final product, if it were to be implemented, would not be a single 60 foot mirror. Pointing out that a single small mirror produces an amount of power t
Math? (Score:2)
A 60feet versus 60 feet mirror which illuminates a 3miles versus 3miles solar field: will produce zero electricity.
tards (Score:1)
I love that america is so arrogant as to think it can just redirect the sun and predict the results. I bet there's not even one in ten of you who's even aware of the actual range of potential consequences to this, and that that number is ZERO at the FCC.
The portmanteau would be "fucksministration" - "no fucks given administration"
One satellite! Just one! (Score:2)
We all know this company intends to launch just one satellite. That's all this is. This approval is for one, and one is the only one that company will launch. Their business plan is based on only one satellite so there won't be more than one.
I wish the FCC would stop being gaslighting fucks.
Not always a competition. (Score:2)
The FCC approved the satellite, ... to test an innovative technology that could advance American leadership in space.
I hate how this Administration always frames things like this. At least they didn't throw in "freedom" or "patriot".
Re: (Score:2)
It's even funnier when you know that the Russians did the same thing in the 90s.
FCC Approves??? (Score:2)
If this is all about the mirror business then why should the FCC have such a prominent role in it's approval?
If this was a communications satellite then the FCC would have a partial role in it's approval, but testing this mirror idea has nothing to do with communications and that is the middle C in FCC.
And then there is the ignoring of the poor results when the Russians tried the same thing in the 90's. Does anyone (with more than two brain cells to rub together) really think something approved of by the c
Stupid (Score:2)
Can any of these VC people do math? (Score:2)
If you go with the reflector instead of the solar cells in orbit, you could spread that power out over a few