• Smuuthbrane@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    9 months ago

    Uh… losses from transmitting through the atmosphere a second time?

    Damn. I wonder what its operational range would be.

    • einfach_orangensaft@feddit.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      this thing is big enough to alter the average reflective index of a whole state if it swings around its mirrors

      the focus spot in theorie could be set to any range, just as u go more far the precision of each mirror angle will be the limiting factor amongst atmospheric losses distortions.

      • Fermion@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Even if the actuators had enough precision, which they almost certainly do not, there’s no way the mirrors are flat enough to keep the light collimated that far out. The angular spread would make the intensity much lower at orbital altitudes.

        • Smuuthbrane@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          True, however even if you get nearly 400MW of energy focused roughly, that’s going to be well outside the operating parameters of satellites. The only thing that would save them would be the fact that they’re moving at orbital speed and would only be subject to that beam for milliseconds.

    • NoLifeKing@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Its not that much of a problem, we periodically shoot lasers to the moon and receive it back without much problem. If it’s not enough to melt the thing it would be enough to overheat it and destroy the electronics.

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        You can shoot a strong laser and use a super sensitive receiver to a very specific frequency

        That argument doesn’t hold up

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        You can shoot a strong laser and use a super sensitive receiver to a very specific frequency

        That argument doesn’t hold up