From @Tade0 writing "projected surface area", they have already accounted for the fraction in sunlight. You can also tell this is what was meant by noting a rectangle of those dimensions is larger than the stated projected area, which you should expect from the pointy bits on the ends.
The weather that destroyed the USS Akron seems rather more important than the power source. I wonder if we can reliably make them go above or around clouds these days? I’ve not noticed clear air turbulence in air travel since I was a kid.
If you have a positive answer on the weather safety, and if the PV is light enough that it could be considered a way of reducing fuel use rather than a Boolean yes/no decision to either fully replace a chemical fuel or not use it at all, it seems worth investigating.
Edit: Just realised, while I’m usually unconvinced by RF beamed power, but with that surface area, and the general form of the inner frame, and it being in the sky so less danger from industrial accidents, this might possibly be a case where it could work.
The weather that destroyed the USS Akron seems rather more important than the power source. I wonder if we can reliably make them go above or around clouds these days? I’ve not noticed clear air turbulence in air travel since I was a kid.
If you have a positive answer on the weather safety, and if the PV is light enough that it could be considered a way of reducing fuel use rather than a Boolean yes/no decision to either fully replace a chemical fuel or not use it at all, it seems worth investigating.
Edit: Just realised, while I’m usually unconvinced by RF beamed power, but with that surface area, and the general form of the inner frame, and it being in the sky so less danger from industrial accidents, this might possibly be a case where it could work.