[ggm]

Would more energy be available for capture from Jupiter's reflectance or direct from the sun? My heart wants to say yes but my head thinks even as a point source, direct solar energy is higher.

If it was other RF or heat, maybe not. I wonder if a Stirling engine could work alternating shade and Jupiter's direct radiation?

I also wondered if lowering a long tail could acquire electrostatic energy greater than its coefficient of drag. As above, cute but .. no.

The proof by example answer is "if it had been viable they'd have done it"

[tmtvl]

The problem with that is there's no atmosphere in space. A vacuum is not very good at dissipating heat.

[eric-hu]

Probably direct from the sun. There's an what-if about using moonlight to start a fire

https://what-if.xkcd.com/145/

> First, here's a general rule of thumb: You can't use lenses and mirrors to make something hotter than the surface of the light source itself. In other words, you can't use sunlight to make something hotter than the surface of the Sun.

...

> The Sun is about 5,000°C, so our rule says you can't focus sunlight with lenses and mirrors to get something any hotter than 5,000°C. The Moon's sunlit surface is a little over 100°C, so you can't focus moonlight to make something hotter than about 100°C.

The cloud tops of Jupiter are estimated to be -280 degrees F.

[ggm]

Yes, my basis for wondering was reflectance to surface area providing more PV energy than capture by the same PV surface from a higher energy point source. About all I've got is less directional, so at lower intensity more available for less tracking effort.