Search Results
ID: vYtt5wsH/pol/508893238#508897879
6/27/2025, 9:49:32 PM
6/16/2025, 7:29:26 AM
>>507557714
Your made up term is close this is normally called a sun synchronous orbit, and it is a thing; its also called earth sun L1 its about 4x farther from us than the moon, its where your balanced between the gravity of the earth and sun. But that orbit is so far away that it costs much much more to launch to it because the same rocket can only send a small fraction of a normal payload. Usually this orbit is only used for specific science missions.
Not that it really matters much, once your at a medium orbit your only in the shade about 4% of the time, and if you get your inclination and timing right it can be 0 because you can do the orbit so its like a sign wave up and down and you can arrange it so that your only in front of the earth when your near the equator and when your behind the earth you are above or below the shadow.
Now if you were retarded you could do a LEO equatorial orbit and that would be 40% shaded.
In orbit you have about 40% more energy because the atmosphere attenuates that much power on earth. Possibly your panels could last longer because no weather, absolutely they could be lighter because no need for glass and frames and shit.
All that said, orbital beamed power is mostly a meme, the power density is 1/4 that of solar anyhow. Even if you presume you have 80% efficient rectification of that power its still vastly more costly than solar + battery. The receiving sites need to be more than a half mile in diameter its not like you can just pick up the power anywhere it would take major infrastructure to receive it.
Possibly useful for military operations where they blow past safety levels or extremely high latitudes where solar power is limited but its not something that will power the world because for most everywhere solar + battery storage would be far cheaper.
And honestly I think orbital mirrors pointing more sunlight at solar fields is more likely but I'm sure the astronomers and wild life folk would flip their shit over that.
Your made up term is close this is normally called a sun synchronous orbit, and it is a thing; its also called earth sun L1 its about 4x farther from us than the moon, its where your balanced between the gravity of the earth and sun. But that orbit is so far away that it costs much much more to launch to it because the same rocket can only send a small fraction of a normal payload. Usually this orbit is only used for specific science missions.
Not that it really matters much, once your at a medium orbit your only in the shade about 4% of the time, and if you get your inclination and timing right it can be 0 because you can do the orbit so its like a sign wave up and down and you can arrange it so that your only in front of the earth when your near the equator and when your behind the earth you are above or below the shadow.
Now if you were retarded you could do a LEO equatorial orbit and that would be 40% shaded.
In orbit you have about 40% more energy because the atmosphere attenuates that much power on earth. Possibly your panels could last longer because no weather, absolutely they could be lighter because no need for glass and frames and shit.
All that said, orbital beamed power is mostly a meme, the power density is 1/4 that of solar anyhow. Even if you presume you have 80% efficient rectification of that power its still vastly more costly than solar + battery. The receiving sites need to be more than a half mile in diameter its not like you can just pick up the power anywhere it would take major infrastructure to receive it.
Possibly useful for military operations where they blow past safety levels or extremely high latitudes where solar power is limited but its not something that will power the world because for most everywhere solar + battery storage would be far cheaper.
And honestly I think orbital mirrors pointing more sunlight at solar fields is more likely but I'm sure the astronomers and wild life folk would flip their shit over that.
Page 1