[ericd]

I wonder how much reaction mass we’d need every year to keep something stationed at a Lagrange point to block 1% of earth’s light, for combatting global warming. 1% of earth’s light would be a heck of a solar sail.

Looks like 1% would be 13.3 watts per meter, cross section of earth yields ~5.4x10^14 watts. Assuming perfect reflective, multiplying by 2/c gives 3.6x10^6 N. So like half of the thrust of one of Saturn V’s engines? So… a lot of reaction mass, or some really powerful ion engines and a ton of power. So maybe not the most practical idea.

[cletus]

It's true that the L1 Lagrange point is unstable so would need some station-keeping. It's an issue but it's a solvable issue. For one thying you have a bunch of energy to spend. For another, the solar wind itself can be used to provide momentum going out if what you have there is sufficiently light.

But there's another option: statites [1]. Statites are solar power collectors that have an incredibly thin sail to the point that they don't need to orbit the Sun at all. This means you have a bunch more options for positioning. Clearly the Earth will continue to revolve around the Sun but a sufficient swarm of statites on the EArth's orbital plane could have the same net effect as, say, driving beneath a bunch of stationary umbrellas.

Or statites can themselves do station-keeping at L1. They can angle themselves to provide momentum in a bunch of directions. Or they can orbit the L1 point similar to how JWST orbits L2. Their ability to use the solar wind for directional momentum could satisfy station keeping needs.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statite

[ericd]

Oh very cool.

Besides the unstable nature of L1, my main concern was actually mitigating the light pressure of the light being blocked, in order to not be blown earthward, but I guess that’s not really considering that these things could manipulate their solar sails/shades like the statites you’re mentioning.