Lights out for London: Giant space mirror to replace street lights by 2050?, page 1

Originally posted by Spookycolt
Not sure why any country would spend that enormous amount of money to light up a city. Its not like its going to help people indoors.

Are they afraid of the dark or something?

I have to call this one as unlikely.

Well, to light London for 50 years it costs the taxpayer £75,000,000 GBP. (15,000 street lights, street lights cost 27p a day to maintain, just over 4,000 a day x 365 x 50. Add about 2 million more for new streetlights in that time.)

The proposed cost of this project, including maintainence is £50,000,000 over a 75 year lifetime. It's actually a money-saver.

edit on 8-2-2013 by sajuek because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 8-2-2013 @ 05:51 AM by winofiend

Originally posted by penninja
This could never happen.

Too many vampires in the Royal family.

No, I've seen underworld, they have like catacombs and stuff to hide in and hold court with the lycans.

I think they are known as paparazzi to normal day walkers.

reply posted on 8-2-2013 @ 05:55 AM by winofiend

reply to post by sajuek

I dunno though, the light would be very dispersed. I doubt it would do away with all artificial light in that area, so it would only cut costs not eradicate them.

the mirror would have to constantly shift position to match the location.

it's bad enough getting a broke street light fixed in most places let alone calling up to complain that the space mirror is stuck.

reply posted on 8-2-2013 @ 07:57 AM by Gridrebel

OP, your first link is for a Russian newspaper, nothing about the topic. From your second link, it was a complete failure when they tried it. It sounds like a good idea but not viable, unfortunately. My emphasis on the gist of failure in below infor.

Abstract. The article analyzes the failure of the Russian project 'Znamya', which is better known as "Space Mirror". When unfolding, the space mirror membrane caught on the antenna that projected over the space station body.

Using TRIZ, the causes of the failure were analyzed and a number of solutions for improving the reliability of the flexible membrane unfolding under weightlessness were proposed.

Introduction. The space mirror that reflects the Sun's rays onto the nightside of our planet is one of the impressive space projects. In 1993, the spaceship "Progress M-15" placed into orbit a 20-meter film mirror (the project "Znamya"). The mirror unfurled and produced a light spot that was equal in strength approximately to one full moon. A huge plash of sunlight glanced over beclouded Europe to be seen only by astronomers on the top of the Alps.

edit on 8-2-2013 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 8-2-2013 @ 08:08 AM by Glassbender777

Just the weight alone would make this project undesirable, and not worth the cost. Not to mention all the fabricating problems that would arise. I just dont see the amount of work needed just to light up a city, worth the risk and cost.

reply posted on 8-2-2013 @ 09:52 AM by sajuek

Originally posted by Gridrebel
OP, your first link is for a Russian newspaper, nothing about the topic. From your second link, it was a complete failure when they tried it. It sounds like a good idea but not viable, unfortunately. My emphasis on the gist of failure in below infor.

Abstract. The article analyzes the failure of the Russian project 'Znamya', which is better known as "Space Mirror". When unfolding, the space mirror membrane caught on the antenna that projected over the space station body.

Using TRIZ, the causes of the failure were analyzed and a number of solutions for improving the reliability of the flexible membrane unfolding under weightlessness were proposed.

Introduction. The space mirror that reflects the Sun's rays onto the nightside of our planet is one of the impressive space projects. In 1993, the spaceship "Progress M-15" placed into orbit a 20-meter film mirror (the project "Znamya"). The mirror unfurled and produced a light spot that was equal in strength approximately to one full moon. A huge plash of sunlight glanced over beclouded Europe to be seen only by astronomers on the top of the Alps.

edit on 8-2-2013 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)

The links URL is fragmented by the brackets. Look at the disambiguation on the wiki page and click on the "Space Mirror" part just at the top.

I never said that a smaller, 20-meter mirror would provide as much intensity. To quote from the wiki page you couldn't find:

"The Znamya 2.5 was a successor to the Znamya 2, which was deployed on 5 February 1999. It had a diameter of 25 m, and was expected to produce a bright spot 7 km in diameter, with luminosity between five and ten full moons"

And I never said that this was full steam ahead, going to happen 100% without a doubt and I didn't even say that it was anyone's plan to even put in action. If you all bothered reading what I actually said, I only said that this was a proposed idea by some scientists to someone I know who is part of the decision making process in the EEED, notice that the title has a question mark? It was proposed as a practical solution to a practical problem and it has scientific theory behind it that it'd be possible, within the specifications of what they need it to do.

I shared it because it was an interesting concept.

Stop putting words in my mouth. Thanks.

edit on 8-2-2013 by sajuek because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 8-2-2013 @ 10:19 AM by Pervius

Those mirrors won't work because they reflect more than just visible light.

Also if a meteor or space junk hits it and alters it's aiming point on Earth....could have dire outcomes.

The tiny island country of Palau volunteered quite a few years ago to become the first place on Earth to have energy beamed from a satellite to one of their islands. The basis was similiar to yours....a "sun beam". The one onto Palau was going to reflect and direct a high energy beam.

Financing fell through because who's liable if that satellite gets nudged and that energy beam cooks everyone in Singapore?.......not plausible.

If you want to decrease Earth's power needs at night for light there's an easier way. Nuke the moon. Setting off nukes on the moon to turn its surface to glass. It would reflect more light to light us up at night. PLUS we'd get a little photosynthesis at night to start cleaning OUR atmosphere and create more Oxygen.

reply posted on 9-2-2013 @ 05:09 AM by woogleuk

This will not happen, the cost will be too great to justify it, but more importantly the negative environmental impact will be astronomical. Wildlife will suffer as a result, so I highly doubt it will be done.

reply to post by penninja

Do you have proof that the British royal family are vampires, or are you just running your mouth of like an uneducated small school child?

edit on 9/2/13 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 9-2-2013 @ 07:42 PM by Gridrebel

reply to post by sajuek

I am not putting words in your mouth and I appreciated you bringing the concept idea to 'light'. I was simply pointing out that it was a failure when it was tried and it did not accomplish what they expected. Don't take it personal.