Can satellites decrease global warming?











up vote
5
down vote

favorite
1












An island nation has a lot of coastal territory and has become gravely concerned about the threat of global warming. They've decided to fix this by launching reflective satellites into orbit -- similar to China's man-made moon plan, but instead of reflecting sunlight to Earth at night, they're reflecting sunlight away from Earth during the day.



Is this viable?



I assume it's not actually viable since real-life geoengineering efforts seem to be mostly interested in adding reflective material to the atmosphere. But what's the problem?



Does it take an unreasonable number of satellites? Are the satellites too expensive even when bulk-manufactured? Are the satellites too expensive to launch into orbit? Do the satellites get damaged too quickly by orbital debris? Is there some sort of weird thing where the satellites act as solar sails and the pressure pushes them out of orbit? Or is it just that the satellites fly over countries that would prefer not to suffer eclipse conditions most of the time?










share|improve this question




















  • 1




    Can you limit the number of questions?
    – L.Dutch
    yesterday










  • @L.Dutch I really did mean "direly concerned" in my question. The word "direly" is an adjective meaning "gravely", "dreadfully", or "terribly". It seems the word caused some confusion, so I've now edited it to "gravely".
    – Dan B
    yesterday










  • Sorry, I wrongly took it as a typo
    – L.Dutch
    yesterday






  • 2




    A country which took it upon itself to decrease the amount of sunlight falling on Russia may soon find iself the recipient of many Russian-made explodey objects falling from the sky. Remember that for a very large Eurasian country which possesses a lot of permanently frozen land, global warming may not necessarily be a danger to be avoided, but potentially something to be welcomed.
    – AlexP
    yesterday








  • 1




    @Amarth: They gas which Russia sells to their clients and the kind of gas which may leak out of the permafrost are different. Russia is not extracting natural gas by thawing vast amounts of permafrost.
    – AlexP
    yesterday















up vote
5
down vote

favorite
1












An island nation has a lot of coastal territory and has become gravely concerned about the threat of global warming. They've decided to fix this by launching reflective satellites into orbit -- similar to China's man-made moon plan, but instead of reflecting sunlight to Earth at night, they're reflecting sunlight away from Earth during the day.



Is this viable?



I assume it's not actually viable since real-life geoengineering efforts seem to be mostly interested in adding reflective material to the atmosphere. But what's the problem?



Does it take an unreasonable number of satellites? Are the satellites too expensive even when bulk-manufactured? Are the satellites too expensive to launch into orbit? Do the satellites get damaged too quickly by orbital debris? Is there some sort of weird thing where the satellites act as solar sails and the pressure pushes them out of orbit? Or is it just that the satellites fly over countries that would prefer not to suffer eclipse conditions most of the time?










share|improve this question




















  • 1




    Can you limit the number of questions?
    – L.Dutch
    yesterday










  • @L.Dutch I really did mean "direly concerned" in my question. The word "direly" is an adjective meaning "gravely", "dreadfully", or "terribly". It seems the word caused some confusion, so I've now edited it to "gravely".
    – Dan B
    yesterday










  • Sorry, I wrongly took it as a typo
    – L.Dutch
    yesterday






  • 2




    A country which took it upon itself to decrease the amount of sunlight falling on Russia may soon find iself the recipient of many Russian-made explodey objects falling from the sky. Remember that for a very large Eurasian country which possesses a lot of permanently frozen land, global warming may not necessarily be a danger to be avoided, but potentially something to be welcomed.
    – AlexP
    yesterday








  • 1




    @Amarth: They gas which Russia sells to their clients and the kind of gas which may leak out of the permafrost are different. Russia is not extracting natural gas by thawing vast amounts of permafrost.
    – AlexP
    yesterday













up vote
5
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
5
down vote

favorite
1






1





An island nation has a lot of coastal territory and has become gravely concerned about the threat of global warming. They've decided to fix this by launching reflective satellites into orbit -- similar to China's man-made moon plan, but instead of reflecting sunlight to Earth at night, they're reflecting sunlight away from Earth during the day.



Is this viable?



I assume it's not actually viable since real-life geoengineering efforts seem to be mostly interested in adding reflective material to the atmosphere. But what's the problem?



Does it take an unreasonable number of satellites? Are the satellites too expensive even when bulk-manufactured? Are the satellites too expensive to launch into orbit? Do the satellites get damaged too quickly by orbital debris? Is there some sort of weird thing where the satellites act as solar sails and the pressure pushes them out of orbit? Or is it just that the satellites fly over countries that would prefer not to suffer eclipse conditions most of the time?










share|improve this question















An island nation has a lot of coastal territory and has become gravely concerned about the threat of global warming. They've decided to fix this by launching reflective satellites into orbit -- similar to China's man-made moon plan, but instead of reflecting sunlight to Earth at night, they're reflecting sunlight away from Earth during the day.



Is this viable?



I assume it's not actually viable since real-life geoengineering efforts seem to be mostly interested in adding reflective material to the atmosphere. But what's the problem?



Does it take an unreasonable number of satellites? Are the satellites too expensive even when bulk-manufactured? Are the satellites too expensive to launch into orbit? Do the satellites get damaged too quickly by orbital debris? Is there some sort of weird thing where the satellites act as solar sails and the pressure pushes them out of orbit? Or is it just that the satellites fly over countries that would prefer not to suffer eclipse conditions most of the time?







climate-change satellites






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday

























asked yesterday









Dan B

1,479513




1,479513








  • 1




    Can you limit the number of questions?
    – L.Dutch
    yesterday










  • @L.Dutch I really did mean "direly concerned" in my question. The word "direly" is an adjective meaning "gravely", "dreadfully", or "terribly". It seems the word caused some confusion, so I've now edited it to "gravely".
    – Dan B
    yesterday










  • Sorry, I wrongly took it as a typo
    – L.Dutch
    yesterday






  • 2




    A country which took it upon itself to decrease the amount of sunlight falling on Russia may soon find iself the recipient of many Russian-made explodey objects falling from the sky. Remember that for a very large Eurasian country which possesses a lot of permanently frozen land, global warming may not necessarily be a danger to be avoided, but potentially something to be welcomed.
    – AlexP
    yesterday








  • 1




    @Amarth: They gas which Russia sells to their clients and the kind of gas which may leak out of the permafrost are different. Russia is not extracting natural gas by thawing vast amounts of permafrost.
    – AlexP
    yesterday














  • 1




    Can you limit the number of questions?
    – L.Dutch
    yesterday










  • @L.Dutch I really did mean "direly concerned" in my question. The word "direly" is an adjective meaning "gravely", "dreadfully", or "terribly". It seems the word caused some confusion, so I've now edited it to "gravely".
    – Dan B
    yesterday










  • Sorry, I wrongly took it as a typo
    – L.Dutch
    yesterday






  • 2




    A country which took it upon itself to decrease the amount of sunlight falling on Russia may soon find iself the recipient of many Russian-made explodey objects falling from the sky. Remember that for a very large Eurasian country which possesses a lot of permanently frozen land, global warming may not necessarily be a danger to be avoided, but potentially something to be welcomed.
    – AlexP
    yesterday








  • 1




    @Amarth: They gas which Russia sells to their clients and the kind of gas which may leak out of the permafrost are different. Russia is not extracting natural gas by thawing vast amounts of permafrost.
    – AlexP
    yesterday








1




1




Can you limit the number of questions?
– L.Dutch
yesterday




Can you limit the number of questions?
– L.Dutch
yesterday












@L.Dutch I really did mean "direly concerned" in my question. The word "direly" is an adjective meaning "gravely", "dreadfully", or "terribly". It seems the word caused some confusion, so I've now edited it to "gravely".
– Dan B
yesterday




@L.Dutch I really did mean "direly concerned" in my question. The word "direly" is an adjective meaning "gravely", "dreadfully", or "terribly". It seems the word caused some confusion, so I've now edited it to "gravely".
– Dan B
yesterday












Sorry, I wrongly took it as a typo
– L.Dutch
yesterday




Sorry, I wrongly took it as a typo
– L.Dutch
yesterday




2




2




A country which took it upon itself to decrease the amount of sunlight falling on Russia may soon find iself the recipient of many Russian-made explodey objects falling from the sky. Remember that for a very large Eurasian country which possesses a lot of permanently frozen land, global warming may not necessarily be a danger to be avoided, but potentially something to be welcomed.
– AlexP
yesterday






A country which took it upon itself to decrease the amount of sunlight falling on Russia may soon find iself the recipient of many Russian-made explodey objects falling from the sky. Remember that for a very large Eurasian country which possesses a lot of permanently frozen land, global warming may not necessarily be a danger to be avoided, but potentially something to be welcomed.
– AlexP
yesterday






1




1




@Amarth: They gas which Russia sells to their clients and the kind of gas which may leak out of the permafrost are different. Russia is not extracting natural gas by thawing vast amounts of permafrost.
– AlexP
yesterday




@Amarth: They gas which Russia sells to their clients and the kind of gas which may leak out of the permafrost are different. Russia is not extracting natural gas by thawing vast amounts of permafrost.
– AlexP
yesterday










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
12
down vote



accepted










Could we do this?



Yes, we could. It's been proposed before in a number of forms. Most calculations agree that this sunshade would need to reduce solar insolation by anywhere from 2-10%. If we take an optimistic figure - the lower bound of 2% - then we could achieve this by putting a shade 4.5 million square kilometers in area at the Sun-Earth Lagrange point, $L_1$. Alternatively, we could send 16 trillion tiny satellites there, or put a 1 million square kilometer lens at $L_1$.



What are the problems?



This might be technically feasible. However, there are some barriers to it.




  • Given current launch costs, these plans would require perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars.


  • $L_1$ isn't stable; we'd need to continuously adjust the orbit of every object we place there. This costs money, too.

  • You'd probably have to get the agreement of most countries before undertaking a project that would affect literally the entire planet.


Physics says that yes, this can work. But it would require orbital readjustment, a large amount of money, and international agreements.



Other notes



As jamesqf noted, this plan would not reverse effects of global warming like ocean acidification. These are directly related to the concentration of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, and we would need to reduce levels of those if we wanted to avoid certain catastrophic effects.



Additionally, it wouldn't be great to put the satellite(s) in orbit; they have to go to $L_1$. Why? Satellites spend half of their time on the daytime side of Earth and half of their time on the nighttime side of Earth. This means they would only be blocking sunlight for half of their orbits. Putting them at $L_1$ is much more effective.



As a final thing to keep in mind: Placing these objects at $L_1$ won't cause an eclipse or any similar effect. The umbra will not reach Earth. Instead, the satellites will simply decrease the overall amount of sunlight we get, rather than completely blocking any particular area.






share|improve this answer



















  • 2




    It would work as far as the warming is concerned. However, it does nothing to address other problems, such as ocean acidification, that are associated with large increases in atmospheric CO2.
    – jamesqf
    yesterday










  • I had wondered if launching to Earth orbit would be cheaper than launching to the L1 point, but it sounds like this is not so.
    – Dan B
    yesterday










  • Don't want to be this guy, but just like killing all mosquitoes, this kind of answer to a problem can have unknown consequences maybe far worse than the problem itself.
    – bob dylan
    yesterday






  • 1




    Minor, pedantic note: "effects of global warming like ocean acidification" is incorrect. Global warming and ocean acidification are both effects, and greenhouse gases are the cause.
    – MJ713
    yesterday












  • Yeah, no. Broadly speaking we can say that killing off/altering processes that take greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere...increases greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, self-reinforcing. The answer doesn't bring up the cost to the atmosphere of building & launching such masses =) Being as people won't agree to be nice to the world we clearly need a Hunger Games.
    – Giu Piete
    yesterday


















up vote
3
down vote













Just to throw some numbers out, the space shuttle could deliver a 65,000 pound payload into space. To do this, it used 2.8 million pounds of fuel.



Sources:





  • NASA Space Shuttle FAQ: 1,607,185 pounds of fuel in the External Tank and internal.


  • Cool Cosmos: 1.1 million pounds in each rocket booster (two); 65,000 pound payload.


Space X's Falcon 9 produces an estimated 250 thousand kilograms of carbon dioxide per launch and has a payload of 13,000 kg. Using the energy content of kerosene, that's about four billion BTUs per launch.



So 13 Mg of reflectives would have to more than counteract four billion BTUs plus the greenhouse effects of 250 Mg of carbon dioxide. Plus of course the amortized carbon cost from building and operating the Falcon 9 (e.g. moving it from its landing area to its launch pad).



One proposal would use 16 Tg of reflectives. That's more than a million Falcon 9 launches.



This would be much more feasible if the reflectives were built in space and moved into position by solar sail.



Some will point out that we could instead burn hydrogen. Of course, that produces water vapor, another greenhouse gas. It's less of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but hydrogen is also less energy dense than kerosene.






share|improve this answer





















  • +1, yay numbers! Doing some more math on this,it seems there are 1M kilograms in a kiloton. So one million Falcon 9 launches would be 250K kilotons. World emissions in 2015 were 36M kilotons, so one million Falcon 9 launches would be a bit less than 1% of world yearly carbon emissions...
    – Dan B
    23 hours ago




















up vote
1
down vote













Just use glitter!!



There are some real world proposals to use a cloud of glitter as a mirror



https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4553




In the proposed Orbiting Rainbows system, the small cloud of glitter-like grains would be trapped and manipulated with multiple laser beams. The trapping happens because of pressure from the laser light -- specifically, the momentum of photons translates into two forces: one that pushes particles away, and another that pushes the particles toward the axis of the light beam. The pressure of the laser light coming from different directions shapes the cloud and pushes the small grains to align in the same direction. In a space telescope, the tenuous cloud would be formed by millions of grains, each possibly as small as fractions of a millimeter in diameter




It only stands to reason if you can use it to capture images, you can also use it to reflect unwanted sunlight. Then it's just a matter of scale.



Another big advantage is, think if it gets hit with orbital debris or meteorites. So what it punches a hole in a cloud of glitter. Adjust the lasers a bit, no hole.



A Bonus Idea



As a bonus idea, it would be worth while to convert the sunlight into electricity. In this example it would take more advanced "glitter" but the biggest stumbling block would be transmitting the power, not actually generating it.



But this way, not only are you "shading" the planet and reducing the temperature, your also supplying a large amount of (essentially free) solar electricity. Which would also be beneficial to any climate change scenario as it would cut down on the use of power generation on the planet (fossil fuels, nuclear waste etc..)



Cheers!






share|improve this answer






























    up vote
    -1
    down vote













    **Satellite Design **



    If you wanted to use satellites to decrease climate change, then you would either need lots of very large, reflective, and heat absorbent satellites. Another way that you could use satellites is by having them use some kind of filter or collection device within the atmosphere that would gather up pollutants like carbon dioxide for the satellite to then retrieve and find some way to dispose of.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    ThatCamal is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.


















      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "579"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f132728%2fcan-satellites-decrease-global-warming%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      12
      down vote



      accepted










      Could we do this?



      Yes, we could. It's been proposed before in a number of forms. Most calculations agree that this sunshade would need to reduce solar insolation by anywhere from 2-10%. If we take an optimistic figure - the lower bound of 2% - then we could achieve this by putting a shade 4.5 million square kilometers in area at the Sun-Earth Lagrange point, $L_1$. Alternatively, we could send 16 trillion tiny satellites there, or put a 1 million square kilometer lens at $L_1$.



      What are the problems?



      This might be technically feasible. However, there are some barriers to it.




      • Given current launch costs, these plans would require perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars.


      • $L_1$ isn't stable; we'd need to continuously adjust the orbit of every object we place there. This costs money, too.

      • You'd probably have to get the agreement of most countries before undertaking a project that would affect literally the entire planet.


      Physics says that yes, this can work. But it would require orbital readjustment, a large amount of money, and international agreements.



      Other notes



      As jamesqf noted, this plan would not reverse effects of global warming like ocean acidification. These are directly related to the concentration of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, and we would need to reduce levels of those if we wanted to avoid certain catastrophic effects.



      Additionally, it wouldn't be great to put the satellite(s) in orbit; they have to go to $L_1$. Why? Satellites spend half of their time on the daytime side of Earth and half of their time on the nighttime side of Earth. This means they would only be blocking sunlight for half of their orbits. Putting them at $L_1$ is much more effective.



      As a final thing to keep in mind: Placing these objects at $L_1$ won't cause an eclipse or any similar effect. The umbra will not reach Earth. Instead, the satellites will simply decrease the overall amount of sunlight we get, rather than completely blocking any particular area.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 2




        It would work as far as the warming is concerned. However, it does nothing to address other problems, such as ocean acidification, that are associated with large increases in atmospheric CO2.
        – jamesqf
        yesterday










      • I had wondered if launching to Earth orbit would be cheaper than launching to the L1 point, but it sounds like this is not so.
        – Dan B
        yesterday










      • Don't want to be this guy, but just like killing all mosquitoes, this kind of answer to a problem can have unknown consequences maybe far worse than the problem itself.
        – bob dylan
        yesterday






      • 1




        Minor, pedantic note: "effects of global warming like ocean acidification" is incorrect. Global warming and ocean acidification are both effects, and greenhouse gases are the cause.
        – MJ713
        yesterday












      • Yeah, no. Broadly speaking we can say that killing off/altering processes that take greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere...increases greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, self-reinforcing. The answer doesn't bring up the cost to the atmosphere of building & launching such masses =) Being as people won't agree to be nice to the world we clearly need a Hunger Games.
        – Giu Piete
        yesterday















      up vote
      12
      down vote



      accepted










      Could we do this?



      Yes, we could. It's been proposed before in a number of forms. Most calculations agree that this sunshade would need to reduce solar insolation by anywhere from 2-10%. If we take an optimistic figure - the lower bound of 2% - then we could achieve this by putting a shade 4.5 million square kilometers in area at the Sun-Earth Lagrange point, $L_1$. Alternatively, we could send 16 trillion tiny satellites there, or put a 1 million square kilometer lens at $L_1$.



      What are the problems?



      This might be technically feasible. However, there are some barriers to it.




      • Given current launch costs, these plans would require perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars.


      • $L_1$ isn't stable; we'd need to continuously adjust the orbit of every object we place there. This costs money, too.

      • You'd probably have to get the agreement of most countries before undertaking a project that would affect literally the entire planet.


      Physics says that yes, this can work. But it would require orbital readjustment, a large amount of money, and international agreements.



      Other notes



      As jamesqf noted, this plan would not reverse effects of global warming like ocean acidification. These are directly related to the concentration of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, and we would need to reduce levels of those if we wanted to avoid certain catastrophic effects.



      Additionally, it wouldn't be great to put the satellite(s) in orbit; they have to go to $L_1$. Why? Satellites spend half of their time on the daytime side of Earth and half of their time on the nighttime side of Earth. This means they would only be blocking sunlight for half of their orbits. Putting them at $L_1$ is much more effective.



      As a final thing to keep in mind: Placing these objects at $L_1$ won't cause an eclipse or any similar effect. The umbra will not reach Earth. Instead, the satellites will simply decrease the overall amount of sunlight we get, rather than completely blocking any particular area.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 2




        It would work as far as the warming is concerned. However, it does nothing to address other problems, such as ocean acidification, that are associated with large increases in atmospheric CO2.
        – jamesqf
        yesterday










      • I had wondered if launching to Earth orbit would be cheaper than launching to the L1 point, but it sounds like this is not so.
        – Dan B
        yesterday










      • Don't want to be this guy, but just like killing all mosquitoes, this kind of answer to a problem can have unknown consequences maybe far worse than the problem itself.
        – bob dylan
        yesterday






      • 1




        Minor, pedantic note: "effects of global warming like ocean acidification" is incorrect. Global warming and ocean acidification are both effects, and greenhouse gases are the cause.
        – MJ713
        yesterday












      • Yeah, no. Broadly speaking we can say that killing off/altering processes that take greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere...increases greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, self-reinforcing. The answer doesn't bring up the cost to the atmosphere of building & launching such masses =) Being as people won't agree to be nice to the world we clearly need a Hunger Games.
        – Giu Piete
        yesterday













      up vote
      12
      down vote



      accepted







      up vote
      12
      down vote



      accepted






      Could we do this?



      Yes, we could. It's been proposed before in a number of forms. Most calculations agree that this sunshade would need to reduce solar insolation by anywhere from 2-10%. If we take an optimistic figure - the lower bound of 2% - then we could achieve this by putting a shade 4.5 million square kilometers in area at the Sun-Earth Lagrange point, $L_1$. Alternatively, we could send 16 trillion tiny satellites there, or put a 1 million square kilometer lens at $L_1$.



      What are the problems?



      This might be technically feasible. However, there are some barriers to it.




      • Given current launch costs, these plans would require perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars.


      • $L_1$ isn't stable; we'd need to continuously adjust the orbit of every object we place there. This costs money, too.

      • You'd probably have to get the agreement of most countries before undertaking a project that would affect literally the entire planet.


      Physics says that yes, this can work. But it would require orbital readjustment, a large amount of money, and international agreements.



      Other notes



      As jamesqf noted, this plan would not reverse effects of global warming like ocean acidification. These are directly related to the concentration of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, and we would need to reduce levels of those if we wanted to avoid certain catastrophic effects.



      Additionally, it wouldn't be great to put the satellite(s) in orbit; they have to go to $L_1$. Why? Satellites spend half of their time on the daytime side of Earth and half of their time on the nighttime side of Earth. This means they would only be blocking sunlight for half of their orbits. Putting them at $L_1$ is much more effective.



      As a final thing to keep in mind: Placing these objects at $L_1$ won't cause an eclipse or any similar effect. The umbra will not reach Earth. Instead, the satellites will simply decrease the overall amount of sunlight we get, rather than completely blocking any particular area.






      share|improve this answer














      Could we do this?



      Yes, we could. It's been proposed before in a number of forms. Most calculations agree that this sunshade would need to reduce solar insolation by anywhere from 2-10%. If we take an optimistic figure - the lower bound of 2% - then we could achieve this by putting a shade 4.5 million square kilometers in area at the Sun-Earth Lagrange point, $L_1$. Alternatively, we could send 16 trillion tiny satellites there, or put a 1 million square kilometer lens at $L_1$.



      What are the problems?



      This might be technically feasible. However, there are some barriers to it.




      • Given current launch costs, these plans would require perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars.


      • $L_1$ isn't stable; we'd need to continuously adjust the orbit of every object we place there. This costs money, too.

      • You'd probably have to get the agreement of most countries before undertaking a project that would affect literally the entire planet.


      Physics says that yes, this can work. But it would require orbital readjustment, a large amount of money, and international agreements.



      Other notes



      As jamesqf noted, this plan would not reverse effects of global warming like ocean acidification. These are directly related to the concentration of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, and we would need to reduce levels of those if we wanted to avoid certain catastrophic effects.



      Additionally, it wouldn't be great to put the satellite(s) in orbit; they have to go to $L_1$. Why? Satellites spend half of their time on the daytime side of Earth and half of their time on the nighttime side of Earth. This means they would only be blocking sunlight for half of their orbits. Putting them at $L_1$ is much more effective.



      As a final thing to keep in mind: Placing these objects at $L_1$ won't cause an eclipse or any similar effect. The umbra will not reach Earth. Instead, the satellites will simply decrease the overall amount of sunlight we get, rather than completely blocking any particular area.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited yesterday

























      answered yesterday









      HDE 226868

      63.2k12216410




      63.2k12216410








      • 2




        It would work as far as the warming is concerned. However, it does nothing to address other problems, such as ocean acidification, that are associated with large increases in atmospheric CO2.
        – jamesqf
        yesterday










      • I had wondered if launching to Earth orbit would be cheaper than launching to the L1 point, but it sounds like this is not so.
        – Dan B
        yesterday










      • Don't want to be this guy, but just like killing all mosquitoes, this kind of answer to a problem can have unknown consequences maybe far worse than the problem itself.
        – bob dylan
        yesterday






      • 1




        Minor, pedantic note: "effects of global warming like ocean acidification" is incorrect. Global warming and ocean acidification are both effects, and greenhouse gases are the cause.
        – MJ713
        yesterday












      • Yeah, no. Broadly speaking we can say that killing off/altering processes that take greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere...increases greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, self-reinforcing. The answer doesn't bring up the cost to the atmosphere of building & launching such masses =) Being as people won't agree to be nice to the world we clearly need a Hunger Games.
        – Giu Piete
        yesterday














      • 2




        It would work as far as the warming is concerned. However, it does nothing to address other problems, such as ocean acidification, that are associated with large increases in atmospheric CO2.
        – jamesqf
        yesterday










      • I had wondered if launching to Earth orbit would be cheaper than launching to the L1 point, but it sounds like this is not so.
        – Dan B
        yesterday










      • Don't want to be this guy, but just like killing all mosquitoes, this kind of answer to a problem can have unknown consequences maybe far worse than the problem itself.
        – bob dylan
        yesterday






      • 1




        Minor, pedantic note: "effects of global warming like ocean acidification" is incorrect. Global warming and ocean acidification are both effects, and greenhouse gases are the cause.
        – MJ713
        yesterday












      • Yeah, no. Broadly speaking we can say that killing off/altering processes that take greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere...increases greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, self-reinforcing. The answer doesn't bring up the cost to the atmosphere of building & launching such masses =) Being as people won't agree to be nice to the world we clearly need a Hunger Games.
        – Giu Piete
        yesterday








      2




      2




      It would work as far as the warming is concerned. However, it does nothing to address other problems, such as ocean acidification, that are associated with large increases in atmospheric CO2.
      – jamesqf
      yesterday




      It would work as far as the warming is concerned. However, it does nothing to address other problems, such as ocean acidification, that are associated with large increases in atmospheric CO2.
      – jamesqf
      yesterday












      I had wondered if launching to Earth orbit would be cheaper than launching to the L1 point, but it sounds like this is not so.
      – Dan B
      yesterday




      I had wondered if launching to Earth orbit would be cheaper than launching to the L1 point, but it sounds like this is not so.
      – Dan B
      yesterday












      Don't want to be this guy, but just like killing all mosquitoes, this kind of answer to a problem can have unknown consequences maybe far worse than the problem itself.
      – bob dylan
      yesterday




      Don't want to be this guy, but just like killing all mosquitoes, this kind of answer to a problem can have unknown consequences maybe far worse than the problem itself.
      – bob dylan
      yesterday




      1




      1




      Minor, pedantic note: "effects of global warming like ocean acidification" is incorrect. Global warming and ocean acidification are both effects, and greenhouse gases are the cause.
      – MJ713
      yesterday






      Minor, pedantic note: "effects of global warming like ocean acidification" is incorrect. Global warming and ocean acidification are both effects, and greenhouse gases are the cause.
      – MJ713
      yesterday














      Yeah, no. Broadly speaking we can say that killing off/altering processes that take greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere...increases greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, self-reinforcing. The answer doesn't bring up the cost to the atmosphere of building & launching such masses =) Being as people won't agree to be nice to the world we clearly need a Hunger Games.
      – Giu Piete
      yesterday




      Yeah, no. Broadly speaking we can say that killing off/altering processes that take greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere...increases greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, self-reinforcing. The answer doesn't bring up the cost to the atmosphere of building & launching such masses =) Being as people won't agree to be nice to the world we clearly need a Hunger Games.
      – Giu Piete
      yesterday










      up vote
      3
      down vote













      Just to throw some numbers out, the space shuttle could deliver a 65,000 pound payload into space. To do this, it used 2.8 million pounds of fuel.



      Sources:





      • NASA Space Shuttle FAQ: 1,607,185 pounds of fuel in the External Tank and internal.


      • Cool Cosmos: 1.1 million pounds in each rocket booster (two); 65,000 pound payload.


      Space X's Falcon 9 produces an estimated 250 thousand kilograms of carbon dioxide per launch and has a payload of 13,000 kg. Using the energy content of kerosene, that's about four billion BTUs per launch.



      So 13 Mg of reflectives would have to more than counteract four billion BTUs plus the greenhouse effects of 250 Mg of carbon dioxide. Plus of course the amortized carbon cost from building and operating the Falcon 9 (e.g. moving it from its landing area to its launch pad).



      One proposal would use 16 Tg of reflectives. That's more than a million Falcon 9 launches.



      This would be much more feasible if the reflectives were built in space and moved into position by solar sail.



      Some will point out that we could instead burn hydrogen. Of course, that produces water vapor, another greenhouse gas. It's less of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but hydrogen is also less energy dense than kerosene.






      share|improve this answer





















      • +1, yay numbers! Doing some more math on this,it seems there are 1M kilograms in a kiloton. So one million Falcon 9 launches would be 250K kilotons. World emissions in 2015 were 36M kilotons, so one million Falcon 9 launches would be a bit less than 1% of world yearly carbon emissions...
        – Dan B
        23 hours ago

















      up vote
      3
      down vote













      Just to throw some numbers out, the space shuttle could deliver a 65,000 pound payload into space. To do this, it used 2.8 million pounds of fuel.



      Sources:





      • NASA Space Shuttle FAQ: 1,607,185 pounds of fuel in the External Tank and internal.


      • Cool Cosmos: 1.1 million pounds in each rocket booster (two); 65,000 pound payload.


      Space X's Falcon 9 produces an estimated 250 thousand kilograms of carbon dioxide per launch and has a payload of 13,000 kg. Using the energy content of kerosene, that's about four billion BTUs per launch.



      So 13 Mg of reflectives would have to more than counteract four billion BTUs plus the greenhouse effects of 250 Mg of carbon dioxide. Plus of course the amortized carbon cost from building and operating the Falcon 9 (e.g. moving it from its landing area to its launch pad).



      One proposal would use 16 Tg of reflectives. That's more than a million Falcon 9 launches.



      This would be much more feasible if the reflectives were built in space and moved into position by solar sail.



      Some will point out that we could instead burn hydrogen. Of course, that produces water vapor, another greenhouse gas. It's less of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but hydrogen is also less energy dense than kerosene.






      share|improve this answer





















      • +1, yay numbers! Doing some more math on this,it seems there are 1M kilograms in a kiloton. So one million Falcon 9 launches would be 250K kilotons. World emissions in 2015 were 36M kilotons, so one million Falcon 9 launches would be a bit less than 1% of world yearly carbon emissions...
        – Dan B
        23 hours ago















      up vote
      3
      down vote










      up vote
      3
      down vote









      Just to throw some numbers out, the space shuttle could deliver a 65,000 pound payload into space. To do this, it used 2.8 million pounds of fuel.



      Sources:





      • NASA Space Shuttle FAQ: 1,607,185 pounds of fuel in the External Tank and internal.


      • Cool Cosmos: 1.1 million pounds in each rocket booster (two); 65,000 pound payload.


      Space X's Falcon 9 produces an estimated 250 thousand kilograms of carbon dioxide per launch and has a payload of 13,000 kg. Using the energy content of kerosene, that's about four billion BTUs per launch.



      So 13 Mg of reflectives would have to more than counteract four billion BTUs plus the greenhouse effects of 250 Mg of carbon dioxide. Plus of course the amortized carbon cost from building and operating the Falcon 9 (e.g. moving it from its landing area to its launch pad).



      One proposal would use 16 Tg of reflectives. That's more than a million Falcon 9 launches.



      This would be much more feasible if the reflectives were built in space and moved into position by solar sail.



      Some will point out that we could instead burn hydrogen. Of course, that produces water vapor, another greenhouse gas. It's less of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but hydrogen is also less energy dense than kerosene.






      share|improve this answer












      Just to throw some numbers out, the space shuttle could deliver a 65,000 pound payload into space. To do this, it used 2.8 million pounds of fuel.



      Sources:





      • NASA Space Shuttle FAQ: 1,607,185 pounds of fuel in the External Tank and internal.


      • Cool Cosmos: 1.1 million pounds in each rocket booster (two); 65,000 pound payload.


      Space X's Falcon 9 produces an estimated 250 thousand kilograms of carbon dioxide per launch and has a payload of 13,000 kg. Using the energy content of kerosene, that's about four billion BTUs per launch.



      So 13 Mg of reflectives would have to more than counteract four billion BTUs plus the greenhouse effects of 250 Mg of carbon dioxide. Plus of course the amortized carbon cost from building and operating the Falcon 9 (e.g. moving it from its landing area to its launch pad).



      One proposal would use 16 Tg of reflectives. That's more than a million Falcon 9 launches.



      This would be much more feasible if the reflectives were built in space and moved into position by solar sail.



      Some will point out that we could instead burn hydrogen. Of course, that produces water vapor, another greenhouse gas. It's less of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but hydrogen is also less energy dense than kerosene.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered yesterday









      Brythan

      20k74282




      20k74282












      • +1, yay numbers! Doing some more math on this,it seems there are 1M kilograms in a kiloton. So one million Falcon 9 launches would be 250K kilotons. World emissions in 2015 were 36M kilotons, so one million Falcon 9 launches would be a bit less than 1% of world yearly carbon emissions...
        – Dan B
        23 hours ago




















      • +1, yay numbers! Doing some more math on this,it seems there are 1M kilograms in a kiloton. So one million Falcon 9 launches would be 250K kilotons. World emissions in 2015 were 36M kilotons, so one million Falcon 9 launches would be a bit less than 1% of world yearly carbon emissions...
        – Dan B
        23 hours ago


















      +1, yay numbers! Doing some more math on this,it seems there are 1M kilograms in a kiloton. So one million Falcon 9 launches would be 250K kilotons. World emissions in 2015 were 36M kilotons, so one million Falcon 9 launches would be a bit less than 1% of world yearly carbon emissions...
      – Dan B
      23 hours ago






      +1, yay numbers! Doing some more math on this,it seems there are 1M kilograms in a kiloton. So one million Falcon 9 launches would be 250K kilotons. World emissions in 2015 were 36M kilotons, so one million Falcon 9 launches would be a bit less than 1% of world yearly carbon emissions...
      – Dan B
      23 hours ago












      up vote
      1
      down vote













      Just use glitter!!



      There are some real world proposals to use a cloud of glitter as a mirror



      https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4553




      In the proposed Orbiting Rainbows system, the small cloud of glitter-like grains would be trapped and manipulated with multiple laser beams. The trapping happens because of pressure from the laser light -- specifically, the momentum of photons translates into two forces: one that pushes particles away, and another that pushes the particles toward the axis of the light beam. The pressure of the laser light coming from different directions shapes the cloud and pushes the small grains to align in the same direction. In a space telescope, the tenuous cloud would be formed by millions of grains, each possibly as small as fractions of a millimeter in diameter




      It only stands to reason if you can use it to capture images, you can also use it to reflect unwanted sunlight. Then it's just a matter of scale.



      Another big advantage is, think if it gets hit with orbital debris or meteorites. So what it punches a hole in a cloud of glitter. Adjust the lasers a bit, no hole.



      A Bonus Idea



      As a bonus idea, it would be worth while to convert the sunlight into electricity. In this example it would take more advanced "glitter" but the biggest stumbling block would be transmitting the power, not actually generating it.



      But this way, not only are you "shading" the planet and reducing the temperature, your also supplying a large amount of (essentially free) solar electricity. Which would also be beneficial to any climate change scenario as it would cut down on the use of power generation on the planet (fossil fuels, nuclear waste etc..)



      Cheers!






      share|improve this answer



























        up vote
        1
        down vote













        Just use glitter!!



        There are some real world proposals to use a cloud of glitter as a mirror



        https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4553




        In the proposed Orbiting Rainbows system, the small cloud of glitter-like grains would be trapped and manipulated with multiple laser beams. The trapping happens because of pressure from the laser light -- specifically, the momentum of photons translates into two forces: one that pushes particles away, and another that pushes the particles toward the axis of the light beam. The pressure of the laser light coming from different directions shapes the cloud and pushes the small grains to align in the same direction. In a space telescope, the tenuous cloud would be formed by millions of grains, each possibly as small as fractions of a millimeter in diameter




        It only stands to reason if you can use it to capture images, you can also use it to reflect unwanted sunlight. Then it's just a matter of scale.



        Another big advantage is, think if it gets hit with orbital debris or meteorites. So what it punches a hole in a cloud of glitter. Adjust the lasers a bit, no hole.



        A Bonus Idea



        As a bonus idea, it would be worth while to convert the sunlight into electricity. In this example it would take more advanced "glitter" but the biggest stumbling block would be transmitting the power, not actually generating it.



        But this way, not only are you "shading" the planet and reducing the temperature, your also supplying a large amount of (essentially free) solar electricity. Which would also be beneficial to any climate change scenario as it would cut down on the use of power generation on the planet (fossil fuels, nuclear waste etc..)



        Cheers!






        share|improve this answer

























          up vote
          1
          down vote










          up vote
          1
          down vote









          Just use glitter!!



          There are some real world proposals to use a cloud of glitter as a mirror



          https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4553




          In the proposed Orbiting Rainbows system, the small cloud of glitter-like grains would be trapped and manipulated with multiple laser beams. The trapping happens because of pressure from the laser light -- specifically, the momentum of photons translates into two forces: one that pushes particles away, and another that pushes the particles toward the axis of the light beam. The pressure of the laser light coming from different directions shapes the cloud and pushes the small grains to align in the same direction. In a space telescope, the tenuous cloud would be formed by millions of grains, each possibly as small as fractions of a millimeter in diameter




          It only stands to reason if you can use it to capture images, you can also use it to reflect unwanted sunlight. Then it's just a matter of scale.



          Another big advantage is, think if it gets hit with orbital debris or meteorites. So what it punches a hole in a cloud of glitter. Adjust the lasers a bit, no hole.



          A Bonus Idea



          As a bonus idea, it would be worth while to convert the sunlight into electricity. In this example it would take more advanced "glitter" but the biggest stumbling block would be transmitting the power, not actually generating it.



          But this way, not only are you "shading" the planet and reducing the temperature, your also supplying a large amount of (essentially free) solar electricity. Which would also be beneficial to any climate change scenario as it would cut down on the use of power generation on the planet (fossil fuels, nuclear waste etc..)



          Cheers!






          share|improve this answer














          Just use glitter!!



          There are some real world proposals to use a cloud of glitter as a mirror



          https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4553




          In the proposed Orbiting Rainbows system, the small cloud of glitter-like grains would be trapped and manipulated with multiple laser beams. The trapping happens because of pressure from the laser light -- specifically, the momentum of photons translates into two forces: one that pushes particles away, and another that pushes the particles toward the axis of the light beam. The pressure of the laser light coming from different directions shapes the cloud and pushes the small grains to align in the same direction. In a space telescope, the tenuous cloud would be formed by millions of grains, each possibly as small as fractions of a millimeter in diameter




          It only stands to reason if you can use it to capture images, you can also use it to reflect unwanted sunlight. Then it's just a matter of scale.



          Another big advantage is, think if it gets hit with orbital debris or meteorites. So what it punches a hole in a cloud of glitter. Adjust the lasers a bit, no hole.



          A Bonus Idea



          As a bonus idea, it would be worth while to convert the sunlight into electricity. In this example it would take more advanced "glitter" but the biggest stumbling block would be transmitting the power, not actually generating it.



          But this way, not only are you "shading" the planet and reducing the temperature, your also supplying a large amount of (essentially free) solar electricity. Which would also be beneficial to any climate change scenario as it would cut down on the use of power generation on the planet (fossil fuels, nuclear waste etc..)



          Cheers!







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited yesterday

























          answered yesterday









          ArtisticPhoenix

          1,911316




          1,911316






















              up vote
              -1
              down vote













              **Satellite Design **



              If you wanted to use satellites to decrease climate change, then you would either need lots of very large, reflective, and heat absorbent satellites. Another way that you could use satellites is by having them use some kind of filter or collection device within the atmosphere that would gather up pollutants like carbon dioxide for the satellite to then retrieve and find some way to dispose of.






              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              ThatCamal is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                up vote
                -1
                down vote













                **Satellite Design **



                If you wanted to use satellites to decrease climate change, then you would either need lots of very large, reflective, and heat absorbent satellites. Another way that you could use satellites is by having them use some kind of filter or collection device within the atmosphere that would gather up pollutants like carbon dioxide for the satellite to then retrieve and find some way to dispose of.






                share|improve this answer








                New contributor




                ThatCamal is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                  up vote
                  -1
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  -1
                  down vote









                  **Satellite Design **



                  If you wanted to use satellites to decrease climate change, then you would either need lots of very large, reflective, and heat absorbent satellites. Another way that you could use satellites is by having them use some kind of filter or collection device within the atmosphere that would gather up pollutants like carbon dioxide for the satellite to then retrieve and find some way to dispose of.






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  ThatCamal is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  **Satellite Design **



                  If you wanted to use satellites to decrease climate change, then you would either need lots of very large, reflective, and heat absorbent satellites. Another way that you could use satellites is by having them use some kind of filter or collection device within the atmosphere that would gather up pollutants like carbon dioxide for the satellite to then retrieve and find some way to dispose of.







                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  ThatCamal is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer






                  New contributor




                  ThatCamal is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered yesterday









                  ThatCamal

                  948




                  948




                  New contributor




                  ThatCamal is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  ThatCamal is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  ThatCamal is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                      Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                      Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f132728%2fcan-satellites-decrease-global-warming%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Plaza Victoria

                      In PowerPoint, is there a keyboard shortcut for bulleted / numbered list?

                      How to put 3 figures in Latex with 2 figures side by side and 1 below these side by side images but in...