Large reflector cross-sections also mean a much higher collision risk from micrometeorites and non-trackable orbital debris. Using typical rates https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S027311772030644X at 625km altitude (the orbit RO proposes to use), such reflectors could expect hundreds of micrometeorite and debris impacts each year, quickly degrading the reflector and creating more diffuse and larger beams.
There are already solutions right here on Earth to many of the problems “sunlight as a service” purports to solve. This approach is simply a reckless and inefficient use of Earth orbit, a precious and finite resource.
This list of facts was developed by me and a bunch of very concerned astronomers. If you're a journalist interested in writing a news article about this, please look up my university email and contact me, and I'll be happy to chat.
What can you do? The FCC never opened up a comment period on RO's filing for launch, so there's no official way to protest. They may open it up later? Absolutely no info on that.
DarkSky International is working on a petition to be delivered to RO's misguided investors, I will share that as soon as its public.
Most important: tell people about all the downsides of "sunlight as a service." The world needs to know how incredibly bad this idea is.
Batteries! We need batteries, not space mirrors.
This article by two astronomers details many of the points I just talked about and more ways that Reflect Orbital's plan will never be feasible, just detrimental: now in The Conversation Australia, perfect timing: https://theconversation.com/a-us-startup-plans-to-deliver-sunlight-on-demand-after-dark-can-it-work-and-would-we-want-it-to-264323
Adding to this Reflect Orbital thread: @startswithabang@mastodon.social wrote a thorough analysis of all the ways that Reflect Orbital is a terrible idea. Have a read! https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/true-cost-solar-power-night-reflect-orbital/
Have I mentioned how much I like Nicole Mortillaro? Great article, includes quotes from @JohnBarentine@scicomm.xyz (there were various good reasons why she didn't interview me for this one, but fortunately a lot of other astronomers besides me are really worried about Reflect Orbital's thoughtless plan)
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/reflect-orbital-space-mirror-9.6947427
Reflect Orbital is stupid and will cause countless problems with no measurable benefits.
New article from Smithsonian Magazine about how stupid Reflect Orbital's plans are: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/giant-mirrors-in-space-could-bring-sunlight-after-dark-one-startup-says-and-astronomers-are-concerned-180987781/
Features interviews with me and several of my excellent astronomer colleagues on the American Astronomical Society Committee for the Protection of Astronomy and the Space Environment! Looks like Reflect Orbital has followed SpaceX's lead and stopped responding to journalist inquiries.
I have doubts about whether or not change.org petitions actually do anything. But if you need to do something small right now against space mirrors, a DarkSky International member set up a petition here: https://www.change.org/p/stop-space-mirrors
DarkSky International just posted their position letter on Reflect Orbital. It is direct and to the point:
"Based on current scientific evidence, DarkSky does not see a viable pathway for such systems to align with responsible lighting principles or with our mission to protect natural darkness. These systems would introduce significant ecological, human health, safety, and astronomical risks at a global scale."
Read their letter and add your name here:
https://darksky.org/news/organizational-statement-reflect-orbital/
Prof. Sam Lawler