• mnemonicmonkeys
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    9 months ago

    Keep in mind that atmospheric interference would likely scatter the light enough to be ineffective

    • Flumpkin@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      So you’re saying we should weaponize the James Webb space telescope instead? :D

    • JungleJim
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      But the photons made it through the atmosphere in the first place to be collected by the reflectors. Is there just not enough energy left to make it back out before cooling off?

      • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        That’s the assumption, yes. But if the beams are coherent (like a laser) atmospheric interference would be a lot smaller.

        The real question is whether the light would be coherent, which I lean towards no on.

        • nicoweio@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          It’s not even coherent when the sun emits it. For one, it consists of a large range of wavelengths… And I doubt there’s a way to make light coherent at that order of magnitude.

    • Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      No that’s not true only about 30% of light energy scatters when traveling through the atmosphere to earth and certain wavelengths are almost completely absorbed in the way down. So on the way back up it should be a high portion make it to the satellite I would imagine 80%. Even worse case scenario 200 megawats shinning on a satellite would vaporize it almost instantly.