The Space Mirror Mirage: Physics, Economics, and the Glow of Investor Illusion

The latest entry in the pantheon of techno-utopian space fantasies is Reflect Orbital, a startup that proposes to launch 4,000 space mirrors by 2030 to beam sunlight onto solar farms at night, grow crops after dark, and even replace urban streetlights. According to the article from NextBigFuture, the company has already raised $20 million in venture funding and boasts a $1.2 million SBIR grant . Their plan: deploy lightweight Mylar mirrors, each about 54 meters in diameter, into a sun-synchronous orbit around 600 kilometers above Earth, reflecting sunlight onto targeted areas on the ground .

On paper, it sounds like a Bond villain’s dream mixed with Silicon Valley marketing — “solar energy at night, no infrastructure needed.” But a closer look at the physics and economics reveals this as more of a speculative curiosity than a viable energy solution. If anything, it reflects not sunlight but the bright glare of investor enthusiasm for ideas that defy basic arithmetic.

Let’s start with the hard numbers. At that 600 km altitude, each mirror would illuminate a spot roughly 6 kilometers across — an area of about 28 square kilometers . The reflected light intensity from a 54-meter mirror would be just 0.04 watts per square meter, roughly 30,000 times dimmer than midday sunlight and only about twice as bright as a full moon . That’s the first red flag: a single mirror doesn’t even make for decent reading light.

To achieve any useful boost for a solar farm, the company would have to concentrate thousands of mirrors on one spot. The article estimates 5,000 mirrors would yield about 200 W/m², or around 15–20% of normal daylight intensity — barely enough to get photovoltaic panels to function at a fraction of their efficiency . But to sustain that continuously, it would require over 1,000 handoffs per hour, since each mirror would sweep past the target area for only a few minutes. The coordination challenges alone would make air traffic control look like child’s play.

From a physics standpoint, the idea borders on self-parody. The solar flux at Earth’s orbit is about 1,360 W/m², but spreading that energy over a 28 km² patch from a 54-meter reflector results in a faint shimmer, not a sunbeam. To achieve full sunlight intensity on the ground, the company would need mirrors 9 kilometers in diameter — a structural and economic absurdity . The thin films available today can handle maybe 150–200 meters in practical deployment, orders of magnitude smaller than what physics demands.

Even ignoring physics, the economics collapse under their own weight. The article bluntly notes that for a 1 GW solar farm, battery storage outperforms mirrors economically at roughly $0.05/kWh versus $0.10+/kWh for mirrored illumination . And that’s before factoring in launch costs, mirror degradation, and orbital maintenance. To maintain 4,000 active satellites, Reflect Orbital would face continuous replacement cycles and escalating debris risks. The idea that this could compete with terrestrial solutions like batteries or grid interconnection is, frankly, wishful thinking.

Then comes the environmental irony. The company markets its project as a green solution, but as the NextBigFuture readers quickly point out, the unintended consequences would be profound. One commenter warns: “It’s like these people are hellbent on destroying the night sky… every species of animal with circadian rhythms [would] get wrecked” . Another astutely notes the absurdity of trying to fight global warming by increasing the amount of sunlight hitting Earth’s surface: “Spending time and resources in that direction seems insane” .

Indeed, that paradox deserves attention. If one accepts the mainstream climate narrative — that a mere 0.1% change in Earth’s radiation balance drives measurable warming — then adding hundreds of square kilometers of reflected sunlight to the night side of the planet is an environmental experiment of questionable wisdom. The night sky would never be truly dark again, and the project could introduce a new form of light pollution on a planetary scale, something astronomers already battle due to satellite constellations like Starlink.

From a systems perspective, Reflect Orbital suffers from what can only be called the Silicon Valley Space Syndrome: the belief that any physical constraint can be overcome by clever branding and enough venture capital. The startup’s goal to expand from 4,000 mirrors to 250,000 units in the long term is so detached from economic reality that it reads more like a pitch deck fantasy than a technical roadmap . The mirrors might each weigh only 16 kilograms, but launching a quarter million of them, even at a bargain rate of $2,000/kg, implies hundreds of billions in deployment costs. Yet the founders claim they can solve nighttime solar generation with $20 million. That’s not optimism — that’s marketing theater.

The broader issue here is not merely the implausibility of the project but the recurring pattern of investor credulity. Concepts like space-based solar reflection have circulated for decades, from Soviet-era experiments to China’s 2018 proposal to light up Chengdu at eight times the brightness of the full moon . Each time, they generate headlines, attract funding, and quietly fade once the math catches up. Yet the persistence of such schemes underscores how little due diligence some investors perform when “climate tech” is attached to a press release.

In the end, Reflect Orbital is a perfect case study in how technological enthusiasm can outpace thermodynamic reality. The company’s physics doesn’t check out; its economics don’t close; and its environmental logic contradicts its stated goals. If built, it would likely contribute more to orbital clutter and light pollution than to the world’s energy supply. But as an investment story, it shines brightly — at least until investors realize that the illumination on offer is about as useful as moonlight for growing crops.

Reflect Orbital’s plan to light up the night sky might succeed — just not in the way it intends. It will illuminate the widening gap between technological imagination and physical possibility, and the even wider gap between venture capital dreams and economic sense. Like a mirror catching sunlight, it dazzles briefly — before fading into the cold dark of space.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
5 21 votes
Article Rating
61 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Neil Pryke
October 23, 2025 10:40 pm

Please keep this article away from Ed Miliband…it would be a wet dream to him…

Ian_e
Reply to  Neil Pryke
October 24, 2025 5:14 am

Yep: just like waking him up with a bucket of cold water.

Bryan A
October 23, 2025 10:43 pm

This Pi in the Sky solution could only work in Sci Fi models.
First, to keep the mirrors trained on a single location would require them to be in Geostationary Equatorial orbits.
Closer orbits like geo-positioning satellites would require hundreds of thousands of large mirrors to focus and refocus their reflected light on the same spot every time, every orbit with dedicated satellite trains for every solar farm behind served.
Realistically every mirror array might need to be the same apparent size as the sun to reflect sufficient light and make the solar panels work, effectively lighting the area like midday 24 hours a day.
This would have devastating effects on both Plants and Animals that depend on circadian Day/Night rhythms to function properly.
Unfortunately you can’t place a stationary satellite above a solar farm at 50°N nor can you have a geostationary satellite mirror reflecting sunlight when it’s in Earth’s Shadow…at night.

Reply to  Bryan A
October 24, 2025 12:39 am

Youve hit the nail on the head regarding other life on the planet, there would be adverse effects on humans as well, in fact it could lead to a mass extinction. Nocturnal animals as well as diurnal animals would be affected for opposite reasons. There would have to be a ring of mirrors in geostationary orbit each reflecting light to the mirror on the night side.

Tom Johnson
Reply to  Bryan A
October 24, 2025 4:22 am

This seems like something dreamed up in a middle school science class when the teacher was out ill, and the physed teacher was substituting.

George Thompson
Reply to  Tom Johnson
October 24, 2025 8:52 am

You’re too optomistic-thie is one of those ideas that is so dumb, so ignorant that-as has been said by others-only an intellectual would believe it.

Bryan A
October 23, 2025 10:55 pm

Ya know what? Solar might become more profitable if they stored the cheap daytime energy in large Mega-battery packs then used those Batteries to power large Stadium Lighting at the solar farms and generate electricity at night when energy pricing is high due to peak pricing

Michael Flynn
Reply to  Bryan A
October 23, 2025 11:10 pm

Or you could create jobs by employing the unemployed to operate pedal powered (or hand cranked) generators to power the Stadium Lighting at night, and save the cost of batteries.

On second thought, just put all the unemployed, the idle, the bored, convicts, objectionable children, and the like, on treadmills producing power 24/7!

No slacking allowed – mild electric shocks applied if output flags.Svante Arrhenius claimed electricity made people smarter, so my idea has scientific support, doesn’t it? It’s smart to avoid a shock by speeding up, after all.

Bryan A
Reply to  Michael Flynn
October 24, 2025 5:50 am

As the Rocketeer said “I Like It” 😉

I'm not a robot
Reply to  Michael Flynn
October 24, 2025 9:15 am

I believe that most climate catastrophists lack very basic understanding of “energy”. On proper units, certainly (KW-hr vs, KW), but even more importantly on what I’ll call the “magnitude”.

Pedaling a bicycle (equipped with a power meter) is an eye-opening experience. Most would not BELIEVE how much pedaling it would take to heat a cup of water to boiling, or how much pedaling-equivalent there is in a gallon of gasoline.

Bryan A
Reply to  I'm not a robot
October 24, 2025 7:02 pm

There was a YouTube video on that. How many bicyclists would it take to power a shower…I believe it was 78 for a ten minute shower.

Reply to  Michael Flynn
October 24, 2025 9:26 am

Mousy Dung famously yoked people to plows during his Great Leap Forward. Lefties still yearn for those good ol days.

Reply to  Bryan A
October 24, 2025 3:39 am

Do as the Spanish did. Simply hook up a diesel generator to your export meter at night.

Reply to  It doesnot add up
October 24, 2025 5:45 am

Even better, don’t bother with the diesel. Just use regular mains power, route it back through your export meter, and pay a quarter of what you get for the export. Perpetual motion. Retire having saved the planet!

Reply to  michel
October 24, 2025 5:48 am

Even better, don’t bother with the diesel. Noisy, expensive and polluting. Just use regular mains power, route it back through your export meter, and pay a quarter of what you get for the export. Perpetual motion. Retire having saved the planet!

Michael Flynn
Reply to  michel
October 24, 2025 3:49 pm

A person slightly known to me did just that, but delayed the export by using a large battery composed of cheap surplus deep cycle units, housed in an unused barn. Bought cheap electricity at night, sold it back at a large profit during the day. Worked wonderfully well, until the beaurocrats reduced “feed-in tariffs”.

I think he sold the batteries at a profit (for use or scrap lead I don’t know).

jgc
October 24, 2025 12:20 am

May be it does make sense. The same sense than paying 6.4 million for a duct-taped banana or gold prices for tinned Merda d’artista. The art market is known to be a money laundering scheme, I wonder if the venture capital and start-up business might be the same.

Mr.
Reply to  jgc
October 24, 2025 2:45 am

I suspect you’ve hit the nail on the head with this one.

Bryan A
Reply to  Mr.
October 24, 2025 5:53 am

Especially with the Virtue Capitalists

October 24, 2025 12:32 am

I am sure that those associated with the Vera Rubin observatory would really appreciate being able to look out across Chile at night, because they certainly couldn’t do any observing of the night sky. There are other observatories as well.

KevinM
Reply to  JohnC
October 24, 2025 8:38 am

AS a scifi fan I should love space and observatories etc, but really what value have earth-based observatories delivered in the past 25 years? I like pictures of stars, but… what else? The big dream of scifi was always finding aliens but understanding the speed of light and the implausibility of warp drive or hyperspace or wormholes killed that proposition for math-minded humans.

jvcstone
Reply to  KevinM
October 24, 2025 10:39 am

“The big dream of scifi was always finding aliens” Not to worry, they will be arriving soon to oversee the big once in a while human do over.

Reply to  KevinM
October 25, 2025 12:11 pm

You are, I hope, not serious about the value of ground-based observatories?

decnine
October 24, 2025 12:37 am

Meanwhile, in UK, environmentalists bemoan light pollution at night and its adverse effects on nocturnal animals…

Bruce Cobb
October 24, 2025 1:07 am

This is just one more in a seemingly endless stream of retarded grifting geoengineering schemes. And did these dimwits ever consider the effect clouds would have on their contraptions?

billbedford
October 24, 2025 1:17 am

Hey, but space mirrors are just the first small step towards Orbital Rings and even Dyson Spheres…

Reply to  billbedford
October 24, 2025 3:40 am

That’s why he has ball designs for some of his vacuums…

Denis
Reply to  It doesnot add up
October 24, 2025 4:45 am

That is a different Dyson.

Bryan A
Reply to  Denis
October 24, 2025 5:55 am

Different Dyson, same Sphere of Influence

George Thompson
Reply to  Bryan A
October 24, 2025 8:55 am

Oh, man-that is a really, really bad play on words. Nicely done.

Reply to  Denis
October 24, 2025 9:48 am

This concept is mostly aligned with vacuum cleaner Dyson . . . you can hear the great sucking sound . . . for careless speculator cash.

MarkW
Reply to  billbedford
October 24, 2025 8:34 am

Not around the earth. Both of those need to be orbiting the sun.

abolition man
October 24, 2025 4:09 am

Like fusion and inexpensive Unreliable Energy, which are always just a generation or two away; this technology seems a perfect scheme to part the gullible from their money! Even with huge leaps in scientific theory and application, this has to be 6 or 7 generations down the road; probably more. I doubt many investors are willing to wait 150 years, or more, for any return; but if your willing, I’ll get to work!

DCE
October 24, 2025 4:18 am

Yeah, lets use a system that interferes with the diurnal cycle and will cause all kinds of problems for nocturnal species.

Reply to  DCE
October 24, 2025 4:55 am

And diurnal species, including humans as it would disrupt circadian cycles.

John XB
October 24, 2025 4:27 am

Entirely feasible… once they’ve built the space elevators to carry the mirrors and construction workers to place them in orbit, and removed the atmosphere below them which might attenuate the reflected energy.

However once fusion reactors are up and running – soon now – space mirrors won’t be necessary.

Mark Hladik
October 24, 2025 4:35 am

Isn’t mylar something derived from … … … … … … … petroleum?

Denis
October 24, 2025 4:40 am

Look at Reflection Orbital more positively. While there is no information regarding his annual pay, typical pay for CEOs in developmental jobs runs around $2 million per year. The company already has enough cash to keep Ben Novak compensated at that level for 10 years! Is that not his objective?

Reply to  Denis
October 25, 2025 10:10 am

Bragging about and making fantasy into cash flow is why these guys and Hollywood stars are paid the big bucks. Without their persuasive efforts the fantasy becomes a flop.

KevinM
October 24, 2025 8:14 am

Oh. I thought the article was going to trash the geoengineering idea of space tinfoil to block light. IF global warming were as big a threat as the Malthusians sometimes claim, THEN coal power plus radio controlled space mirrors would be a workable plan.

Reply to  KevinM
October 25, 2025 10:12 am

Yeah…sending more radiation down to the surface seems to be something that would exacerbate what most climageddonists are saying the problem is….

October 24, 2025 8:16 am

Haha I can already imagine the following call to customer service for an orbiting mirror:

“it’s broken, fix it!”
“F_Y_! !!! Get lost, or we’ll file for Chapter 11.”

Ah what fun that would be…I forgot who made a spoof of that mirror thing back in the days, Futurama or Family Guy?…

Ed Zuiderwijk
October 24, 2025 8:18 am

Another investment scheme for people who can’t count.

KevinM
October 24, 2025 8:19 am

Says NASA: “Approximately 30% to 50% of the solar energy that reaches the Earth’s atmosphere is lost before it reaches the surface. This loss occurs through reflection, absorption, and scattering by atmospheric conditions such as clouds, aerosols, and atmospheric gases. Specifically, about 29% of the solar energy is reflected back into space, while 23% is absorbed in the atmosphere by water vapor, dust, and ozone”

NotChickenLittle
October 24, 2025 8:31 am

If physics, math, and reality meant anything at all to the “greenies” wanting “renewable” and “sustainable” energy, this would be just a pipe dream that no one would fantasize about for more than maybe 10 minutes.

But because they live in a fantasy world they entertain stupidities like this and even spend good money on them – especially if it’s OPM (Other People’s Money).

Randle Dewees
October 24, 2025 8:34 am

This is depressingly routine nonsense. The thing that irks me is they got a SBIR award, that’s $1.25 million Taxpayer money wasted!

Reflect Orbital announced 6/2025 they have received a phase II SBIR from the Air Force (AFRL) for (insert BS justification). Phase II means they must have been awarded a phase I in the previous admin.

I’ve conducted several SBIR campaigns. It is, in a sense, free money. If there is a technology or capability need it is a way to try to develop it. The problem is it rarely is worth the effort on the part of the Principal Investigator (me), but it is as the saying goes, money on the table. 80 percent of the call respondents write repetitive BS proposals looking for some free money – these are blatant “SBIR Mills”. Most of the others are crackpots – I put RO in this category. But some dingbat in AFRL – an individual mind you – is taken with the concept and has pushed this nonsense through the phase II review/award process. BTW, the dingbat may not be the PI, it might be a general or high up bureaucrat.

AFRL – Air Force Research Lab – Basically Wright/Pat and Kirtland AFB but look it up if you want to see the details.

Reply to  Randle Dewees
October 24, 2025 10:22 am

Knowing the way these things work, I can state it is almost certain the Reflect Orbital Phase I and Phase II SBIR proposals and resulting awards emphasized developing advanced technology, such as in-space deployment of large Mylar mirrors and/or “novel means” for steering of large lightweight mirrors in space to a specific ground target point, perhaps even techniques for managing rapid “handoffs” between LEO satellites . . . and de-emphasized or didn’t even mention trying to provide extra sunlight illumination to any area on the ground (ALARM BELLS!). Also, odds are greater than 70% that RO had “cultured” a contact who was favorable to them (for whatever reason, wink) prior to them submitting their first proposal.

Randle Dewees
Reply to  ToldYouSo
October 24, 2025 1:15 pm

TYS, you are being logical. I did skim the RO press release aaaannnnd, I think it wasn’t that – I think it does emphasize the light and energy aspects. I don’t remember if the PR had the SBIR award number noted, it might be worthwhile seeing what the AF thinks they are funding.

Reply to  Randle Dewees
October 24, 2025 4:48 pm

Well, I just visited the official government website that has the searchable database of awards of SBIR contracts: https://www.sbir.gov/awards . I entered the company name of “Reflect Orbital”, and applied the search filters of “SBIR”, Phase I (then subsequently “Phase II”), and dates of “2023”, “2024” and “2025”. I also selected search filter settings on this website for these possible awarding agencies:
— DoD: all related sub-agencies (Air Force, Army, Navy, DARPA, MDA, Space Development Agency, Strategic Capabilities Office, etc.
— Dept. of Energy: ARPA-E
— DHS: all related sub-agencies
— NASA
— NSF
— SBA

In both search runs, I was rewarded with “No results found.”

Perhaps “Reflect Orbital” is not this company’s legal name?

Having a SBIR award/contract number might help (by entering it as a “keyword”), but interestingly this cited website does not have a specific box for directly entering an award/contract number . . . go figure.

P.S. It’s a rare case where a company’s PR accurately reflects the US Government’s dry wording. 😉

Randle Dewees
Reply to  ToldYouSo
October 25, 2025 4:27 pm

Interesting,
I’ll give it a go later.

Reply to  Randle Dewees
October 25, 2025 12:16 pm

The Phase II approval was a result of a ‘general’, you can be sure. Physics is inexorable, but can be ignored obviously.

F. Leghorn
October 24, 2025 9:20 am

I guess changing the laws of physics isn’t on the table anymore

October 24, 2025 9:37 am

From the above article:

“Let’s start with the hard numbers. At that 600 km altitude, each mirror would illuminate a spot roughly 6 kilometers across — an area of about 28 square kilometers . The reflected light intensity from a 54-meter mirror would be just 0.04 watts per square meter, roughly 30,000 times dimmer than midday sunlight and only about twice as bright as a full moon. . . . To achieve any useful boost for a solar farm, the company would have to concentrate thousands of mirrors on one spot. The article estimates 5,000 mirrors would yield about 200 W/m², or around 15–20% of normal daylight intensity . . . The solar flux at Earth’s orbit is about 1,360 W/m² . . .”

While these points are well made, they gloss over many important, unstated assumptions, as follows:

1) The orbits of the satellites are not defined, and could range from equatorial to polar. Assuming the minimum orbital energy case of a circular orbit, the orbital period would be about 97 minutes and the satellite ground speed would be about 6.9 km/s. Therefore, each mirror would have to be steerable at pretty fast gimbal rates and in two directions (E-W and N-S) if each was to maintain constant illumination on a fixed ground point during its line-of-sight passage from horizon to horizon.

2) The article’s statement that a 54-meter (diameter) mirror would illuminate a spot roughly 6,000 meters in diameter indicates that the mirror is nowhere close to being flat, let alone being of a light-concentrating design. Also, the diameter ratio of 0.054 km/6 km would indicate a maximum theoretical sunlight intensity illumination on the ground of about ((0.054/6)^2)*1,360 = 0.11 W/m^2, so the article’s statement of the mirror-produced illumination being “just 0.04 W/m^2” must imply there is an albedo-plus-sky absorption factor about 0.07 W/m^2, or about 64% . . . seems a bit high to me (but see Item 3 below for an addition consideration).

3) Since (a) the mirror satellite will always be in motion with respect its intended ground target point, per Item 1, and most importantly (b) the Earth subtends a total angle of 169 degrees in the sky at an altitude of 600 km, the mirror can NEVER be face-on to a ground target. The mirror will always be slanted w.r.t. the ground point and there will be associated “cosine” (E-W and N-S geometric) losses in the total area of reflected sunlight onto the target. Perhaps this factor has been accounted for in the low average illumination being stated to be 0.04 W/m^2, as discussed in Item 2. Also note that this geometry effect means that the ground illumination will essentially always be an (irregular) and time varying oval spot, not circular.

4) As to the statement “The article estimates 5,000 mirrors would yield about 200 W/m², or around 15–20% of normal daylight intensity“, while the first part is consistent with the claim of 0.04 W^2 illumination (at ground level per my Items 2 and 3), the second part about “15-20% of normal daylight intensity” appears to be based on solar insolation at TOA (1,360 W/m^2), not at ground level.

5) Without any statements as to the design of an onboard propulsion system and its capability for providing total delta-V for each satellite, its impossible to say what the orbital lifetime of these theoretical mirror satellites might be because there is a relatively high amount of atmospheric drag (especially that created by a 58 m diameter surface) at 600 km altitude as compared to, say, a 36,000 km GEO satellite altitude. If foregoing the complexity and cost of having onboard propulsion, I guesstimate the orbital life to be less than 2 years.

Despite these comments, the above article is excellent in its message to careless investors and those considering such: caveat emptor!

Randle Dewees
Reply to  ToldYouSo
October 24, 2025 10:25 am

Yes, aside from the ridiculous piss-ant scale, the problems are numerous, complex, and exceedingly difficult. Any attempt on RO’s part to explain these issues would kill all investment interest. IMO, it’s a callous tech scam.

Reply to  ToldYouSo
October 25, 2025 9:24 am

Follow-up comment:

From the above article:
“The night sky would never be truly dark again, . . .”

Well, that needs a bit of clarification. In my above post I mentioned under Item 3 that at 600 km altitude the Earth subtends an angle of 169°, not quite that of the 180° for a full hemisphere from the observer’s point-of-view. Therefore, at midnight anywhere on Earth (when the Sun is at its peak elevation in the sky on the opposite hemisphere), any given mirror satellite will only be able to reflect sunlight during its transit across a very thin circular band of angular width (180-169)/2 = 5.5°. All other satellites will either not have a view of the Sun or be unable to view the Earth’s dark side.

Also, under these geometric conditions, any satellite within that narrow band must necessarily have its mirror at a very high angle of incidence to incoming sunlight, thus meaning that its projected area of reflection will be reduced by cosine(5.5°) = 99.5%, or more!

So, it terms of this concept providing any significant illumination/light pollution during most of the hours around midnight, with mirror satellites being at only 600 km altitude, FORGET IT.

Bob
October 24, 2025 12:40 pm

I don’t know what to say, this is so stupid.

KevinM
October 24, 2025 1:14 pm

Mythbusters Archimedes’ heat ray episode comes to mind

“In the MythBusters episode titled “Archimedes Death Ray Revisited,” the team revisits the myth of Archimedes’ heat ray, which involves using mirrors to focus sunlight to set a wooden ship on fire.”

Yeah someone in the US military might have had a bright idea they can’t let go of.

Michael Flynn
Reply to  KevinM
October 24, 2025 4:07 pm

Archimedes’ heat ray, which involves using mirrors to focus sunlight to set a wooden ship on fire.”

I believe the Ivanpah solar project more or less did that, but heated a “boiler” to blinding white heat, incinerated birds, and wasted a couple of billion dollars following someone’s dream.

Actually, a Farnsworth-Hirschhorn fuzor demonstrates atomic fusion using electrostatic containment. You can build one yourself reasonably cheaply, but it will cost you more to run than the useable energy output it produces.

That will take lots of trillions of dollars, and every time you think “I’ve got it!”, you discover you haven’t.

I live in hope, anyway.

October 25, 2025 9:30 am

What’s next?
Space ducts to blow the Solar wind onto idled pinwheels on Earth?

Julius Sanks
October 25, 2025 3:58 pm

The sun-synchronous orbital space is already pretty full. Weather and other earth-observation. I wonder what satellites they think should be de-orbited to make room for their silly mirrors.