Researcher dreams up $2.5 trillion "space sunshade"

With all these batteries exploding vehicles running around, we aren't too surprised that researchers at the University of Arizona are getting fired up about stopping global warming, but dropping $2.5 trillion on such a project might just cool the whole idea down a bit. Nevertheless, astronomer Roger Angel thinks that launching a "constellation made of trillions of small, free-flying spacecraft parts a million miles above Earth" could form a long, cylindrical cloud to reflect "about 10 percent" of the sun's rays away from our planet. The lightweight flyers hanging around in the L-1 orbit would be crafted from "transparent film pierced with small holes," utilizing "MEMS" technology mirrors as tiny sails that hold them in line while drifting about. The idea gets even zanier when referring to shooting the "20 million ton structure" into space; it's been suggested that "20 electromagnetic launchers" running on hydroelectricity could launch a stack of flyers "every five minutes for ten years" to complete the project, and while he feels that even the massive sunshade is no substitute for "developing renewable energy," that's still a huge chunk of coin to drop on something so, um, outlandish.

[Via Primidi]

[Big Ed @ Nov 5th 2006 9:38PM]

Meh, it's still cheaper than the Iraq war.

[DerekPowell @ Nov 5th 2006 9:46PM]

While that's completely wrong, $2.5 trillion is less than the amount of debt bush has racked up during his time in office. But really what's $2.5 trillion to save the planet? The world's not coming to an end, it's just ringing up a really steep pricetag.

[Kyle Interra @ Nov 5th 2006 9:51PM]

I really doubt deflecting "about 10 percent" of the Sun's rays is going to save the planet for very long.

[Mike @ Nov 5th 2006 9:50PM]

Futurama FTW?

[Osman @ Nov 5th 2006 9:53PM]

exactly what i was thinking, what happens when a tiny rock hits it

[Paul @ Nov 5th 2006 10:22PM]

Man... the above poster read my mind, this is totally a hand off to futurama, hehe, just hope to god it doesn't end up turning to focus the rays onto the earth....

[Osman @ Nov 5th 2006 9:54PM]

my comment was supposed to be towards what mike said

[Snark @ Nov 5th 2006 9:55PM]

This is as doable as a Dyson Sphere.

[Brian @ Nov 5th 2006 10:01PM]

"one billion, million, fafillion, shabolubalu million illion yillion...yen"
can't we just wait until nuclear winter...

[Beno @ Nov 5th 2006 10:10PM]

Here ya go mike:

This'll be cheaper

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Fcezh2-jO8

[Reginald @ Nov 5th 2006 10:11PM]

Well, it's not really that expensive if you apply Edison/Engadget mathematics. It would really cost the govt. much less, but they would have to apply for an Amazon.com credit card though.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/05/xbox-360-hd-dvd-pre-order-costs-99-if-you-do-some-funny-math/

[Andrew C @ Nov 5th 2006 10:33PM]

Or you know, seeing as the USA has Gas Mileage Requirements lower than that of China, USA could just up their requirements a little bit.

Also, just add taxes to all forms of CO2 releasing energy in the US. Sure the economy will have a little adjustment period, where jobs are lost and growth is slow, but it will go away. After a few years, the high energy prices would just change our preferences and definitely result in more research in other areas and mass production of alternatives sources of energy. Once the whole return to scale thing starts to kick in, alternative energy prices might not be THAT far off from fossil fuel prices.

Or maybe not who knows. All I know is that USA is the worlds most polluting country and if anyone should be taking the biggest steps, it should definitely be us. I can't see other developing countries taking the initiative until developed countries who pollute more do so themselves. I thought it was ridiculous that USA used the lack of limitations on China and India as an excuse not to join Kyoto. I mean c'mon, they release less CO2 than we do.

Just my thoughts. $2.5 trillion space umbrella or a changing of bad habits, doesn't seem that hard to me.

[thunderleg @ Nov 5th 2006 10:35PM]

That's a great idea and all, but why not focus on the cause of the problem instead?

Oh, right. The economy, stupid!

We're boned.

[wikki waa @ Nov 6th 2006 1:09AM]

ohh snap, it bites us on the ass once again!

[Charles R Hamilton @ Nov 6th 2006 9:02AM]

"That's a great idea and all, but why not focus on the cause of the problem instead?"

If you get away from the politics of global warming, you might realize that the sun is the problem. (if there is a problem). Not to worry though, the sun has its own thermostat, and the globe hasn't been warming since '98, a fact backed up by real science, not political science.

[Nick @ Nov 5th 2006 10:48PM]

No, not while my greatest nemesis still provides our customers with free light, heat and energy. I call this enemy...the sun. Imagine it, Smithers: electrical lights and heaters running all day long!

[Chris Chance @ Nov 5th 2006 10:52PM]

No the reason the US didnt join kyoto is because it was BULLSH*T....

The end result of kyoto is the same as the start... the difference? The US and Russia and some big producers would have to pay the smaller countrys for use of their CO2 credits... wow ya that solves greenhouse problems...

Kyoto should have been "all countrys must reduce co2 emmissions by 10% by xxxx, NO EXCHANGING, NO SALES, NO TRANSFERS"

But it wasnt, it was a credit based systems where the low emission countrys got to make profit off the more advanced countrys and no actual improvement to the greenhouse situation occured....

How about this idea to reduce CO2 emissions... PLANT SOME DAMN TREES! Perhaps its time the US and other countrys started also having CO2 scrubbers and larger protected forests and preserves to convert co2 ...

Countrys especially the US need to start serious putting the pressure behind moving to an renewable energy/hydrogen based ecosystem... its not that their arent systems its that they are taking too long to implement .... wave and ocean based energy systems are aplenty just not deployed, photovoltaic and solar sterling are both ready but are not subsidized enough for mass consumer usage... and then theirs wind and geothermal power... all are valid useful and potentially vast energy sources. But their deployment keeps getting hampered...

Hybrid vehicles are not the way to go, if we're serious about getting ourself out of the rutt we are in, we need to move to hydrogen and full electric vehicles, if our infrastructure was based off of renewable energy, we could easily have our own household hydrogen electrolysis machines to generate hydrogen for our cars if not fully electric cars as well.

The technology is their, yes its cost prohibitive right now but the fact is its doable.. we just need a government thats more concerned with our well being and has a strong view of our countrys independence from outside oil industrys etc ... when will that happen... god knows ... but hell freezing over sounds like it'll come first.

I mean how come technology like SDE isnt being highly sought after? http://www.sde.co.il/ 2 cents per kilowatt from entirely renewable energy source? And thats just one of about a thousand potential energy solutions that we need our governments to throw their weight behind and not just research but actually implement on large scales.

[A-ron @ Nov 5th 2006 11:42PM]

I'm sure you've noticed, but Exxon is well on its way to a $40 BILLION profit this year. THAT is the single largest roadblock to the future you're recommending. And until congressional votes can't be bought by lobbists (sp?), those with the dollars will control the fate of the country, and thus, the world.

[Chris Chance @ Nov 5th 2006 10:57PM]

BTW 2.5 trillion over 10 years isnt bad... thats 250billion a year... as of this year the Kyoto Pact (even without some major players) has reached nearly 60 BILLION DOLLARS in trading Greenhouse credits.... and thats just money shifting between countrys for the appearance of effort... so bring in the big countrys and pushing the total to 250billion a year over 10 years... or finance it out over the course of 20 years and its even more realistic....

Just because 2.5 trillion for the entire project seems astronomical it really isnt when you put it in context like that.

BTW... if space debree hit the panels if you notice they say there are... trillions of individual pieces that would be launched... so if 1 gets taken out theirs still trillions in the general effort and since they are planning the electro magnetic launch they could track the loss and relaunch a replacement as soon as it became needed.

[mike @ Nov 5th 2006 11:10PM]

doesn't matter how much it costs... we're talking about the survival of the planet... let's do it.

[Sam @ Nov 5th 2006 11:20PM]

Wasn't blocking out the sun a bad idea in The Matrix?

[Murc @ Nov 5th 2006 11:23PM]

Thats a boat load of money...escpecially since it sounds like there refering to this as a "temporary" defense.

If the tax payers of the world are to shell out 2.5 trillion...this thing better last hundreds of years.

US lowly humans barely effect the planet, global warming is apart of this planets very nature...This planet has 2 cycles, which it keeps repeating, and thats global warming and ice age. the earth heats up to the point of no more ice, which triggers an "ice age" in which the whole earth goes into a very long winter (thousands of years), once the ice age hits its peak, the earth then begins global warming...which take thousands and thousands of years, and that whole process will just keep on repeating until our sun dies out (which is in a few billion years), we will be long long gone by then.
However, I do think that we are speeding up the warming process...but the solution isn't to build this and continue about are ways...its to do what we are doing...which is recognizing that theres a problem, and in the comming decades build a civilization that no longer pumps huge amounts of green house gasses into our atmosphere.
I'm not saying oil or coal is bad...I just think we can use it less of it, and make it cleaner burning.

[doboy091 @ Nov 11th 2006 4:04PM]

hey kid if we allow global warming or an ice age to occur while us humans are on the earth most of us are gunna die from climate problems and flooding and other natural disaster shit. We need 2 use technology to make an artificial enviorment that will last while we still live on this planet. The changes will take thousands of years and we r speeding it up but if we allow the earth's cycles to happen we wont live except a few thousand years, more or less. Ya'll who disagree with me can suck my dick. Peace, I HOLLA.DIPSET.

[csnoke @ Nov 5th 2006 11:25PM]

I'm pretty sure these "scientists" have watched a few too many episodes of The Simpsons.

Mr. Burns did this to Springfield in episode 128, the first half of the "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" season ending cliff-hanger.

[mmenchu @ Nov 5th 2006 11:27PM]

This idea only ameliorates the situation, but doesn't fix a anything. In fact I'd argue the false sense of improvement makes things worse.

So say we deploy this project and some number of decades down the road things are so bad down here ... so we just add another layer, that's it? Keeping adding layers and layers? Is there any evidence that suggests the amount of light will be enough for plants to clean all the CO2? What about the small percentage of solar energy driven devices? Will they be forced to turn to traditional energy sources and make things even worse? I think this idea is just going to help us dig our own grave deeper and deeper.

Solving the heat issue is nice, but attacking the side effect - as opposed to the real issue - is pointless.

[Mr. B @ Nov 5th 2006 11:35PM]

...hard to believe that I would cost $2,500,000,000,000 to launch some translucent tarp into space.

[pvilleSE @ Nov 5th 2006 11:49PM]

Lets just tax those that can afford to waist money on new huge SUVs and obviously don't care about the environment. Of course keeping farmers in mind since they actually need to use big trucks. Just use that tax to pay for what ever solution we have to use to reflect the sun rays so the rest of us can walk to work without dieing from heat stroke.

[Shawn McClelland @ Nov 5th 2006 11:50PM]

While we are at it. Lets make these "shades" adjustable. That way we can let more light through in the winter, less in the summer. Granted every area on the planet would want different amounts at different times, but of course the US would control it. Maybe we could charge other countries for the sun!

[John Doe @ Nov 6th 2006 12:06AM]

Yah right. This is right up there with using a nuke to stop hurricanes. Bad idea. The ecosystems on this planet aren't designed to be tweaked by man. a 10% shift could have all kinds of unknown results on earth's weather up to and not limited to kicking off another ice age. Here is an original idea. Lets NOT take the lazy man�s approach to fixing global warming. How about we fix it by not putting so much shit in the air. Yah I know it�s a radical idea but it might just work.

[Charles R Hamilton @ Nov 6th 2006 9:03AM]

@JohnDoe
"The ecosystems on this planet aren't designed to be tweaked by man."

Thats because we don't have the ability to affect the earth to that great a degree. You have unwittingly made my case, which is man made global warming is a myth, a political tool for leftists.

[Luke @ Nov 6th 2006 12:09AM]

I could have sworn I saw this on Futurama

[David @ Nov 6th 2006 12:48AM]

This guy should be fired. Or launched into space.

[CM @ Nov 6th 2006 1:43AM]

Why don't we just paint all the asphalt white? :)

[netdroid9 @ Nov 6th 2006 2:17AM]

Hmm... That might be a good idea, actually. How much heat is retained through asphalt? It gets pretty hot in summer, and you've gotta remember that there is a shitload of it all over the place. It might not do much, but it is food for thought.

[Oddmanout @ Nov 6th 2006 2:19AM]

"Why don't we just paint all the asphalt white? :)"

Because outgassing from the paint would make the air quality even worse. Nice try though...

There are only two reason people would stop using oil the way they currently do. One, it runs out. Two, if for some reason people can't make any money selling it, thus they STOP selling it. And as a previous poster mentioned, there's a LOT of money in it. Money enough to make it ludicrously easy for any true capitalist to ignore the fact they are slowly killing every living thing on the planet.

I just hope the environment can withstand having all the human accessible oil (and coal too I suppose) burnt up and diffused into the atmosphere and still be able to recover once we move to cleaner energy sources (which we actually could do at any time...). Because I really think that is how it will finally stop...divine intervention not withstanding...

But here's a question, how much progress could we make in researching, designing, implementing and proliferating alternative energy sources/technologies if THOSE endeavors were givin 2.5 trillion in funding and subsidies...?

[Tobject @ Nov 6th 2006 3:01AM]

The amount of electricily needed to produce this thing will raise C02 and heat up the planet. so 10% decrease will compensate exactly damage dome by production ;-)
and cosidering production cost is usually 10x grater than initially projected
Hey maybe we just teraform Mars/Venus.Moon for the same price? Just pack excess greenhouse gasses and send it to Mars

[CB @ Nov 6th 2006 7:39AM]

That link to 'Inconvenient truth' what a pile of self promoting sheete worthy of satire on the Simpsons, quick cuts of disasters all of which have nothing to do with global warming, 'scary' soundtrack ('but Marge it must be true, listen to the music')shots of 'before and 'afters' both of them natural cycles started thousand of years ago, The snows of Kilimanjaro have been melting long before we started pumping out C02 and it's caused by local conditions anyway not ONE island in the world is ACTUALLY going under because of sea rise, because they haven't risen.
I believe all this increased greenhouse effect claptrap will be the turning point in the mistrust of science/politics when it's soon proved to be what it is, guestimates driven by political agenda,
Doubling world c02 will NOT produce any measurable temp increases, it relies on unproven positive feedbacks which the climatoligists are taking WILD guesses at, these wild guesses are promoted as fact and anyone who points this out it demonised as a oil whore and sees their research grant go west.

[Sat @ Nov 6th 2006 12:31PM]

All you americans who really believe this crap your president and shit is saying are really pathetic... The global warming IS a fact, not some stupid hoax. America IS the one polluting the most (even more than China... which most people see as the big polluter of the future.)

Kyoto DOES work, it's not based on selling/buying polluting permits, that's something that has been implemented in the EU because they believe working together is a better idea. Thus the total depolluting costs less and is as efficient. Remember, the objective is not to have each country pollute less but to globally have less pollution.

So if say, France can depollute at a lesser cost than Germany, it's normal for Germany to pay France to depollute for them. It's the basics of environmental economics and the Coase theorem with multiple polluting agents.

There's even something better that's possible with Kyoto; you can go in another country (often the poor countries) and build up technology there to depollute and add this depollution to your countries quotas thus making it better for everyone at a lower total cost.

Now with all this, I'm not saying I'm the biggest Greenpeace guy around and that I drive my electric grassmower to work but still, at least I admit there's a problem and I'm proud my country's participating in the GLOBAL effort to try and fix it. Someone should start spending less money on searching for WMD's in Iraq and start giving a shit about the future of the planet instead of the damn oil wich is supposed to be "freeing" the Iraki people.

[Ethan Chaleff @ Nov 6th 2006 7:56AM]

Aside from the impracticality of this whole thing, and the minimal effect it would have on global warming, You should probably look up something called global dimming, the obscuring of the sun by pollution, that has serious consequences, in addition to cooling the world. Currently there are in fact two forces that we are contribution to global temperature change, global dimming and global warming. By dimming the sunlight through pollution we are causing drought and a host of other problems. By expelling CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, we are warming the planet. Global dimming has masked anywhere from a third to two thirds of global warming's impact. However, as we clean the air without curbing greenhouse gasses we are could see an unprecendted spike in temperatures.

[craig @ Nov 6th 2006 9:20AM]

2.5 million earth shades cooler the versace

[Scott @ Nov 6th 2006 10:04AM]

Up next, Professor Farnsworth...

That's not going to stop the pollution problem causing it. It'll only prolong the issue. Spending $2.5 trillion on alternative fuel sources (unhindered by big oil) would be well spent.

[Charlie @ Nov 6th 2006 11:33AM]

MEMS =Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEMS

[sparticle @ Nov 6th 2006 12:05PM]

Putting the money toward renewable resources (such as wind power) would make far more sense. It seems much wiser to replace the source of the problem than try to solve it with another expensive solution.

That being said, it's still a pretty effin' cool gadget. :-)

[some person @ Nov 6th 2006 4:11PM]

yeahhh.... i'd rather not, who know when/if that crashes into easrth, somehow *watches that episode of futurama*

[Gadgego @ Nov 6th 2006 6:05PM]

Hello? Is anyone out there thinking? Reducing the sun's rays by 10% also means significantly reducing the temperature. This could *easily* do more harm than good, not to mention that $2.5T could be spent better elsewhere. Outlandish doesn't begin to describe it.

[Brent @ Nov 6th 2006 6:12PM]

There's nothing better than the morning coffee, pie in the sky gadgets and political commentary from a bunch of geeks.

I don't have the education or research background to make any real statements about manbearpig global warming, but I will agree with the guy that said something about leftist types drumming up the fear to make us all hate the GOPs best friend, BIG oil. The fact is most of the people yelling the loudest are the ones like me, short on education and research for real answers.

DO NOT interpret that to be a plug for big oil, or the GOP. I think paying for energy, or rather CHARGING for energy is absolutely immoral. To say that someone at EXXON owns the sun and the energy that it's deposited on this planet is ludicrous. I understand there's a lot of work necessary to harness that energy in oil, and thus my reason for the necessary move away from fossil fuel.

Every home should buy its (one time cost) hydrolosis station that will provide lifelong free(ish) energy. It's time to end the reign of the robber barons.

Strangely it's all the automotive industry's fault, and yet they're the ones not making out. How much of the thousands of dollars that you pay to insurance companies (forcibly, remember it's illegal to drive without it) would you have to continue to pay if cars drove themselves and there were no accidents, like, ever? And of course, if they'd just redesign cars to run on water then I don't think we'd see >$2/gal petro anymore.

All of that said, how is anyone here NOT all for sending up $2.5T worth of sunshades? How awesome is this?

[DJDoc @ Nov 7th 2006 12:16AM]

"Wasn't blocking out the sun a bad idea in The Matrix?"


NO KIDDING. THIS IDEA IS ABSOLUTELY STUPID. WORDS FALL SHORT.
WHOEVER CAME UP WITH IT IS A MORON. HOW SHORT-SIGHTED CAN A SCIENTIST POSSIBLY BE???

Blocking 10% of the renewable energy that the planet receives is the solution? That's STUPID.

10% less energy for plants & photosynthesis.

10% less energy for solar power.

10% less energy driving winds.

Alteration in weather patterns (regions that normally are moderate will become cold, regions that are normall cold will be colder. Places that used to never get snow, now get snow)... "Solar shield winter".

10% less energy to the oceans. The current biologically rich zone in the shallow range of all bodies of water now becomes even thinner.

unforeseen problems... will this cloud attract (electromagnetically, magnetically, or gravitationally) an additional cloud of dust or particulate matter that will make it block more than 10%? What is going to be the behavior of a cloud of TRILLIONS of small, charged, metallic mirrors.


MASSIVE PERMANENT SUNSHADE? ASININE ON ITS FACE.

HOW CAN A RATIONAL MAN EVEN THINK THIS WAY?

[Z @ Nov 7th 2006 3:38AM]

Two and one half ter-ill-ee-on dollars!

Dr. Evil would be so proud!

[Robx @ Nov 7th 2006 3:58AM]

Stunning stupid idea !!!

Not only about the cost of realizing the mission. Putting all those rockets to fly ( which of course will cause more global warming), how many of them will fail to drop the charge on place, just remember Mars missions. No comments about other possible errors.
There are other solutions to fight the global warming, With that amount of money, a lot of solutions are coming to my mind, but some people already mentioned them.

So anyone can be a scientist now days... just have a "bright" idea to save humanity and publish it...

[Stevie @ Nov 7th 2006 5:13PM]

Someones been watching to much Samauri Pizza Cats
they did the same thing in a show, but they launched a Giant bird into Space that used Gigantic Jappanese style hand held fans to block out the sun and then use a massive magnifying glass to try and burn the Pizza cats on earth
lol, this is lame

thanks for the laugh and the memries