Weather control as a market for space?

babbler36 wrote:

>But wouln't those merroirs, as oppoise to SPS, be used for malvolient
>purposes (i.e. terrorists, corrupt gov'ts, etc.)? It bring about the
>image of kids out on a sidewalk with magifying glass, burning ants
>(only on a global scale, and people instead of ants).
>

Rather improbable, I'd say. As I wrote, the focus of your magnifying
glass is very wide, at least some kilometers. So you can't destroy
tanks or buildings. It might be possible to burn large areas of land,
but much less violent than nukes would do. Surely control of those
satellites will be secured well. If terrorists could turn off
satellites (e.g. GPS-satellites), they would have done so by now.

Physical access to those mirrors is limited to space-faring countries.
There are much easier terrorist targets around on earth, if you think
about it. (But I won't make any suggestions about that here!)

In the undesirable case of two space-faring countries making war on
each other, nuclear missiles or other space weapons yet to be designed
will be able to disable those mirrors pretty easy. Think about the EMP
effect on satellites. Those mirrors must be coordinated very precise
and careful to create and maintain a dangerous hot spot.

>Beside, we are still trying to understand the dynamics of global
>cilmate and weather. Messing with something we don't understand fully
>is not the best idea in the world.
>
Like burning rain forests, burning petrol instead of using horses,
using mobile phones, low carb diets, artificial sweeteners, etc.?
Basically you're right, we are not 100% sure if those things are good
or bad in the long run. But we can make some educated guesses and act
upon them.

As long as you keep additional solar input small, harmful effects look
less likely than those possibly created by - say - using artificial
fertilizer.