Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ISS Goes Solar

Posted by samzenpus on from the no-clouds-in-space dept.

SumDog writes "The international space station's newest power source, a set of solar wings, made its debut yesterday. The solar array is part of a new 17.5-ton space station segment that was connected to the orbiting outpost during a spacewalk Monday."

176 comments

  1. It's good to see ... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... solar power finally working its way into our everyday lives.

    1. Re:It's good to see ... by malsdavis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd like to know the realistic reasons why solar power isn't far more prevalent as a source of power generation, particularly on a local/household scale. Why are solar panels still so expensive?

    2. Re:It's good to see ... by bryan1945 · · Score: 2, Informative

      From what I've read (not a whole lot), the basic photo-electric conversion process is just not that efficient. Something about the solar power knocking electrons out of place, creating a current between the displaced electron and the hole it left. The problem is that the electron quickly falls back. I believe current research is focusing on materials that either 1) remove the electron further or 2) somehow keep the electron from falling back as quickly.

      It's 3 AM and I'm doing this from memory, so take it with a grain of salt.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    3. Re:It's good to see ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come to Germany, most houses out in the country have solar panels on their roofs.

    4. Re:It's good to see ... by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      Cost of manufacturing mostly. Unfortunately not everything that ought to be cheap is, or could be.

      I know there has been some very good work done recently by some companies that I know in terms of improving panel efficiency. Right now the amount of roof real estate you have to cover + the cost of installation simply doesn't break down *that* well for the average homeowner with not a great deal of cash to blow.

      Hopefully with improved panel efficiency, people can either power their homes with smaller (and less expensive!) panels, or power even more of their home with the existing roof real estate.

    5. Re:It's good to see ... by z0M6 · · Score: 1

      Why stills so expensive? well, you might have noticed that there is not some intergalactic entity that pulls panels out of it's ass.
      But seriously, the annual price reduction on solar panels are some 5% so you'll get there at some point. However, the market for panels is artificial. The demand is much higher that it should be because the panels are subsided in some markets such as South-Korea. And I can imagine that the requirements for the materials are high as well.

    6. Re:It's good to see ... by Calinous · · Score: 1

      The silicon used in solar panels is expensive. Also, another reason for the cost is installation cost of the panels.
            However, solar panels are subsidised in many places, for several reasons: they produce electricity when demand is highest, in places with clear sky all year long their production is constant (with very slow variations - compared to the tens of minutes a slow changing power plant will allow).
            When the production was very limited, bad silicon from microelectronic companies was used. Now, all the supply of bad silicon don't make a dent into solar panel production

    7. Re:It's good to see ... by SunTzuWarmaster · · Score: 1

      There was a cost breakdown in the local area paper and the conclusion was this: If you buy solar panels for you home, they will pay for themselves in 20 years. Also, to do this, you have to have something like 27K up front (if you loan/lease it will be longer before they pay for themselves). Of course this makes the assumptions that the solar panels never break/fail and that the price of electricity is fairly constant. This is in Florida, where it is sunny most of the day, with torrential downfall for 2 hours/day. Essentially, if you had 27K in you bank account, you would be better to invest it in a moderate-risk stock portfolio and use the returns to pay your power bill.

    8. Re:It's good to see ... by FiniteElementalist · · Score: 1

      It also has the problem of random output that is a function of weather and time of day. For electricity you need to have supply and demand match up pretty much instantaneously, so you still need to hook to the grid and have a bunch of extra generation and transmission ready for if it is cloudy and at nighttime.

      That's not to say it's useless, as it solar output correlates well with peak loads, and can offset the most expensive power generation. Solar thermal is making some solid inroads in the southwest.

      But building infrastructure for electricity is one of the hardest parts, as it tends to have steep capital costs and the rates of return are such that getting into the market is often unprofitible.

    9. Re:It's good to see ... by dino213b · · Score: 2, Interesting

      At the risk of being called a troll, I will bite again.

      The real reason is lack of government support. Large scale public projects can rarely succeed until they receive government subsidies. In other words, 300,000,000 Americans all need to pitch in so that a large project can make it. As a prior proof of this, consider hydroelectric (and irrigation system) dams in America. They were privately funded prior to USACE/Bureau of Reclamations taking over and during that period they all failed - economically speaking. Once the govt. funded them, it was a different story. Despite still experiencing economic failure, they are still around today and churning out the juicy electrons.

      Argument of many people is that solar panels are "inefficient" in terms of production. Same can be said about hydroelectric dams (due to the immense construction and maintenance costs), but, we have hundreds of them in the country and they are producing lots of electricity - so that argument is questionable.

      So, why did dams succeed and solar panels did not? Perhaps it's an order of operation - dams came first, solar panels are coming now. It takes awhile for ideas to permeate through to bureaucracies and it certainly took awhile for the large amount of dams to be built. So, maybe in another 20-30 years. Note that no new major dams have been built since about the 70s. Also note that President Carter had solar panels installed on the White House; however, once Reagan took over the White House (hey, that's a synecdoche) he had them taken down. Why?

      For detailed information about the development of dams in the U.S., please read Richard White's "Organic Machine." It is a fascinating text that puts this idea of large development, government participation, and abstraction of electricity into context. This book will, in my opinion, truly predict the future of the solar panel.

    10. Re:It's good to see ... by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Informative

      So we pay the power company and they profit, then we have to pay higher taxes to fund a project because the power company was not willing to invest their profits into turning the technology into something cheaper? You'd think if the power company could produce cheaper energy they could

      Hydropower is proven to be cheap, even though the initial investment is quite large. And building them is an engineering feat, rather than a technological breakthrough. At the time we built dams we were doing very well with feats of engineering. One reason for fewer dams being built is that most of the ideal locations have dams on them already, and because there is significant environmental impact when you install a dam and for some sites this is unacceptable.

      We still haven't gotten the technology for solar ironed out to be cheap to manufacture. if you could build even an inefficient solar array for $5 a square meter, it would be a major breakthrough.

      btw - good book recommendation

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    11. Re:It's good to see ... by mikael · · Score: 1

      This is in Florida, where it is sunny most of the day, with torrential downfall for 2 hours/day

      Is there any way the rainfall landing on the roof and use the potential energy to drive a turbine to generate electricity?

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    12. Re:It's good to see ... by Gospodin · · Score: 1

      The government can make anything "successful", if you don't mind subsidizing it with tax dollars. What does this prove? Nothing at all.

      The whole strategy of picking specific technologies to subsidize is wrongheaded anyway. If the goal is to produce cleaner power, or reduce dependencies on nonrenewable resources, then the government should tax pollution and nonrenewable use appropriately, and then get out of the way and let the market allocate resources. Governments are good at taxing; markets are good at allocating.

      What's happening now with government subsidies of various "clean energy" programs is that there are dozens of interlocking subsidies, most of which will turn out to be backing the wrong technology. But the people who invested in the wrong one will be tied to their subsidy, so the government will never be able to get rid of it. 50 years from now, long after technology X has proved to be the big winner (I'm picking no favorites), we're still going to be stuck spending billions subsidizing loser technologies A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H.

      --
      ...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
    13. Re:It's good to see ... by Hucko · · Score: 1

      Can anyone verify this? (login of course) Aussies hardly ever have solar panels, but surely we get more sunshine?

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    14. Re:It's good to see ... by DigitizeLife · · Score: 1

      Very good information;
      http://www.howstuffworks.com/solar-cell7.htm

      The entire article;
      http://www.howstuffworks.com/solar-cell.htm

    15. Re:It's good to see ... by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

      If you capture all the rain that lands on your roof and devert it to a single drainage point, you could run it through a turbine, but if you do the math, I think you'll find that it's energy output will be very small. When I ran the math for my own home, it took over 100 years to break even on the hardware cost.

      A two-story house would do a little better, but probably not enough better to matter.

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
    16. Re:It's good to see ... by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      The real reason is lack of government support. Large scale public projects can rarely succeed until they receive government subsidies. In other words, 300,000,000 Americans all need to pitch in so that a large project can make it. As a prior proof of this, consider hydroelectric (and irrigation system) dams in America. They were privately funded prior to USACE/Bureau of Reclamations taking over and during that period they all failed - economically speaking. Once the govt. funded them, it was a different story. Despite still experiencing economic failure, they are still around today and churning out the juicy electrons.
      Well that's disheartening. Are you saying hydroelectric is losing money? Then those subsidies contribute to the national debt, and eventually in some form or other we'll have to pay the piper. Or are you saying that it eventually became profitable, but not soon enough for a private company to have made the initial investment?
      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    17. Re:It's good to see ... by u8i9o0 · · Score: 1

      It's easy to find info on the trend in Germany, but here's a link to a radio program I listened to recently.

      I'm less aware of Australia's program, but that was announced in 2004 while for Germany "... in 2000, lawmakers committed the country to at least doubling the percentage of renewable energy in the overall supply by 2010."

      Basically, Germany subsidizes the industry to a much larger degree and has been for a few years longer.

      --
      This is not my sig
    18. Re:It's good to see ... by dino213b · · Score: 1

      Well that's disheartening. Are you saying hydroelectric is losing money? Then those subsidies contribute to the national debt, and eventually in some form or other we'll have to pay the piper. Or are you saying that it eventually became profitable, but not soon enough for a private company to have made the initial investment? Yes, hydroelectric is losing money -- but hasn't always. It's very difficult to isolate money because: for one, how do you quantify state interest when they offer tax breaks to companies? Their incentive is to provide more voting power (amongst things) and thus increase population. Due to the nature of how operating costs are externalized, it comes down to a very complex issue that cannot and should not be oversimplified. However, I am not the only person saying that. Richard White, author of "Organic Machine" is saying that. Evidence is saying that (see environmental lawsuit records - they are intriguing). The government is saying that (see congressional hearings around 1979-81). Private businesses are saying that (see what happens after Reagan demands that localities fund part of dam costs in order for one to be built).

      What happened was that a great idea mutated over time and by time you had Carter in the office, building dams had become big business unconcerned whether or not we (USA) needed more dams in the first place. The intended way of paying back for construction of these dams failed (for example, irrigation farmers unable to pay for it due to a now created glut of their product - due to the improved irrigation: feedback effect) and then a backup plan failed. The biggest issue though revolved around not profitability but usability. As far as wasteful went, in some cases expensive irrigation dams added as little as 1/10th of an inch of ground water to farms that already had plenty of water. (By the way, those farms usually evolved to lake-front properties, missing their original intent by far). In a few other cases, they benefited a handful of individuals (at least one who had senatorial connections). Hydroelectric dams also had problems but in finding customers. For example, Columbia river dams were doomed to failure until the govt. solicited aluminum industry (giving them tax breaks) -- and then, they didn't have enough electricity to support the new industry (so had to import it from Canada).

      Don't believe me? Good - please read case studies of it and see it for yourself. You should never blindly believe what other people are saying, but, examine the evidence yourself.

      It's not just a matter of a large start-up cost. History has shown that it's also a matter of unintended consequences. For example, examine farm water issues in the U.S. You will see something fairly creepy time and time again: "red states," who have traditionally hated big government, demanding big government water subsidies for their farmers. Kind of defeats the whole idea of red standing against "welfare state," don't you think? See Donald Worster's "Dust Bowl" for more information about that. It's definitely worth the read.

    19. Re:It's good to see ... by diablo2007 · · Score: 1

      Its not solely the cost of solar panels that deters widespread use. To implement an alternate power sourse which works in tandem with the local power grid in my area requires the user carry several million dollars of liability insurance in case anything were to go wrong and disrupt the power grid. Legislation needs to take many steps forward before alternate power sources have a chance to have any widespread effect.

      --
      My computer ate my homework and my dog ate my sig.
    20. Re:It's good to see ... by malsdavis · · Score: 1

      More conveniently, you can capture it in a big tank and use it for flushing toilets and watering the garden. We get most of the water for the garden from rainwater. Environmentally friendly (water wastage is in my environmentalists' opinions a much bigger problem than electricity wastage) and saves a few dollars on the water bill.

  2. Wait... by kmac06 · · Score: 5, Funny

    So the one place where greenhouse gas emissions don't matter uses renewable energy? :P

    1. Re:Wait... by rednip · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So the one place where greenhouse gas emissions don't matter uses renewable energy?

      If you think that the price of gas is expensive at the boat dock, you should see the bill for delivering a tankful 200 miles in the sky.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    2. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah! Why don't they just pull that sucker into the nearest Esso station...

      They even could get 3x Air Miles! :P

      D.

    3. Re:Wait... by dwater · · Score: 0

      > > So the one place where greenhouse gas emissions don't matter uses renewable energy?
      >
      > If you think that the price of gas is expensive at the boat dock, you should see the bill for
      > delivering a tankful 200 miles in the sky.

      What does his comment have to do with the price of gas[sic]?

      Max.

      --
      Max.
    4. Re:Wait... by rednip · · Score: 1

      What does his comment have to do with the price of gas[sic]? Solar is much cheaper than delivering fuel, that is why they use it.
      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    5. Re:Wait... by FraterNLST · · Score: 1

      Simple really. The sun is already up there to be used, moving coal, gas or any other type of non-renewable power-producing consumable would cost a fortune. Besides which, i'm not entirely sure that orbit is "one place where emissions don't matter." There havn't exactly been a lot of study on the effect of greenhouse emissions in a stable orbit, so it's an unfounded assumption ;) Regardless of whether or not it's one place where emissions dont matter, it's also one place where solar power is potentially a lot more cost effective. And besides, the state I live in is powered entirely by renewable energy (or at least, it was, prior to hooking up to the national grid this year. Obviously import power is excluded from this statement.) Go hydro! ;)

      --
      Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
    6. Re:Wait... by joek1010 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And you have to send the oxygen too. Its tough to make green house gases without any oxygen rich environment to burn it in.

    7. Re:Wait... by dwater · · Score: 1

      Sure, but his comment is about green house gas emissions, not the price($) of anything.

      It's obvious *why* they use it, but it's still somewhat ironic... ...that is, assuming that using fuel that does produce green house gases (rocket fuel?) would actually not affect contribute to the green house effect.

      Are we sure that it wouldn't? It's a fair assumption, I guess, but I wonder...

      --
      Max.
    8. Re:Wait... by BobPaul · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What does his comment have to do with the price of gas[sic]? [Sic]?? What'd you misquote yourself or something?
    9. Re:Wait... by Original+Replica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure, but his comment is about green house gas emissions, not the price($) of anything.

      The main reason to not want to emit greenhouse gases is the "cost" of global warming. You will notice that people who view that cost as very high: already use solar panels and live "off the grid", and people who think that cost is a joke: drive Hummers with the A/C on and the windows down. NASA, like everyone else, is going with the lowest percieved cost.

      --
      We are all just people.
    10. Re:Wait... by dwater · · Score: 1

      I don't use the word gas when referring to a liquid (unless I also use the word 'not').

      --
      Max.
    11. Re:Wait... by Canthros · · Score: 1

      You aren't regarded as a very funny man by your friends, are you?

      Kmac06 made a joke about solar power on the space station by pointing out the irony of renewable power in the one place we can't (presumably) pollute. Pinder followed it up by observing that, indeed, the price of power (I assume they haul up batteries instead of liquid fuel) is very expensive in the ionosphere. This is akin to the Douglas Adams quote comparing the size of space to distance to the nearest pharmacy. An appropriate follow-up might have been to point out that economic incentives are working to reduce our dependency on foreign oil (because, in fact, the price of hauling Earth-generated power into space is precisely one of the reasons for utilizing solar power on the ISS).

      So, really, you missed the point twice on this one. Bravo!

      --
      Canthros
    12. Re:Wait... by dwater · · Score: 1

      > So, really, you missed the point twice on this one. Bravo!

      fair enough, though I have claim that the reference is somewhat obscure...I don't remember the Douglas Adams quote... ...but, yeah, ignorance is no excuse.

      --
      Max.
    13. Re:Wait... by Ucklak · · Score: 0

      I believe rocket fuel is liquid oxygen and not a greenhouse gas. The energy required to get LOX is another matter.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    14. Re:Wait... by BobPaul · · Score: 1

      Ah, you must be a petro kinda guy...

    15. Re:Wait... by Hucko · · Score: 1

      How do these people get in? We need to review the nerd certification.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    16. Re:Wait... by jae471 · · Score: 1
      Oxygen (gas or liquid) is not a fuel. It is only the oxidizer.

      A common fuel ( for the SSME among other things ) is liquid hydrogen, which when combined with LOX (burned) created water, which is a greenhouse gas.

    17. Re:Wait... by siride · · Score: 1

      It's short for Gasoline and is 100% correct in America, just as Petrol is 100% correct in Britain and Benzin is 100% correct in Germany.

    18. Re:Wait... by Canthros · · Score: 1
      It's only in the very general style of DA quote. It's intentionally absurd, is all. Adams:

      Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the drug store, but that's just peanuts to space.
      I believe that's from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but it's been a number of years, so I can't recall if that's from the book or the BBC miniseries. (In particular, I think the place I source that from may have misquoted, or quoted from a localized edition. I could have sworn it was "to the chemist", not "the drug store". Whichever.)

      And, in all seriousness, I would like to compliment you on the graciousness with which you responded there. I don't see that sort of thing much on Slashdot, so it's a pleasant surprise.
      --
      Canthros
    19. Re:Wait... by dwater · · Score: 1

      > I believe that's from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy,

      Yes, I know that one :D

      I remember the original radio show.

      I still missed the reference, but there you go...

      > but it's been a number of years, so I can't recall if that's from the book or the BBC miniseries.
      > (In particular, I think the place I source that from may have misquoted, or quoted from a localized
      > edition. I could have sworn it was "to the chemist", not "the drug store". Whichever.)

      Indeed. Highly unlikely to be 'drug store', I think - and my memory has it as 'to the chemist'. I wasn't aware there were localised versions.

      We (English) don't tend to use either 'drug' (preferring 'medicine') or 'store' (preferring 'shop'). 'Drug' is only used when referring to those that are illegal, or when talking about something's property ('alcohol is a drug', 'nicotine is a drug'). Having said that, it's been almost 10 years since I lived in England, and things change pretty quickly ... and with Hollywood influence, usually towards the US usage.

      >
      > And, in all seriousness, I would like to compliment you on the graciousness with which you responded
      > there. I don't see that sort of thing much on Slashdot, so it's a pleasant surprise.

      Don't worry. You don't see it from me much, either. Thanks though - I did think them a little harsh ;)

      --
      Max.
  3. Off Grid? by QuantumRiff · · Score: 4, Funny

    So when do they get enough Solar Panels to go "Off Grid"?

    <ducks>

    Thank you, I'll be here all week!

    --

    What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    1. Re:Off Grid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Makes me wonder: is the ISS going to sell the extra electricity back to the grid?

    2. Re:Off Grid? by AGMW · · Score: 1
      I'm guessing they don't generate anywhere enough power, and also don't have an "ion" engine attached anywhere, but could they generate enough power to use an Ion engine to help sustain (or even over time "change") their orbit - ie remain where they are or move further out?

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
  4. Ashland, NE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think this will finally put Ashland, NE on the map!

    1. Re:Ashland, NE by modi123 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just in time for a few more people to watch it get flooded for a new state lake.

      BOOOOOOOOOOO (tr)ASHLAND!!!!

  5. Well by rbanffy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Didn't the ISS already run on solar power?

    I mean... Tree-huggers everywhere would have been screaming for years if it did run on nuclear (and, quite probably, we don't have the required technology anyway).

    --
    http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
    1. Re:Well by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, it did, but now it has more power than ever before!

      To give sufficient power for the upcoming components and experiments.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:Well by dedazo · · Score: 1
      Solar panels in near orbit have never been a problem, because for all practical purposes the orbital platform is exactly at the same distance to the sun than the surface of the Earth.

      Interestingly enough, NASA has already unveiled plans for a deep space probe called Juno that will use solar panels exclusively for the first time ever. Apparently they've become so efficient that the enormous distance to the Sun ceases to become a problem. This also bodes well for civilian uses of solar panels, I imagine. Hell, if the NASA budget gives us actually usable, cheap solar panels that get us at least partially off fossil fuels it will have paid for itself many times over.

      I gather that the annoying treehuggers will be very happy about that, though I always have an urge to kill them all when they protest when NASA sends out a lump of plutonium to space because there's a 1:100,000,000 chance that it might cause contamination in the event of an accident. What better use for radioactive material is there than powering a spacecraft?

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    3. Re:Well by ari_j · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's just it ... "goes solar" implies that this is the first set of solar panels on the station, which is patently false. Nothing in the blurb corrects the misstatement, either. That's annoying.

    4. Re:Well by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Nuclear power makes sense in the outer solar system and it is used there for unmanned exploration. It makes little sense in the inner solar system where the Sun's power is easier to harvest. The whole thing is about launch mass. At the distance of Saturn you need about 100 times more in solar panels for the same power so nuclear power becomes competitive.
      --
      Apropriate technology for the third rock: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

    5. Re:Well by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      Didn't the ISS already run on solar power?

      Yes, but what they're doing on this mission is collapsing one set of solar wings, and installing and unfurling a nearly identical set of wings.

      Isn't progress beautiful?

      - RG>
      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    6. Re:Well by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Funny

      Apparently they've become so efficient that the enormous distance to the Sun ceases to become a problem.

            Or at least that's what the manufacturer says. And if you had a $40 M contract you'd say the same. We'll only really find out in 30 years when the guy in charge of the probe suddenly goes "where the hell did my probe go?" one Wednesday morning.

            All your voltage are belong to us.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:Well by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Since we are talking about kilowatts there is no practical nuclear solution. Nuclear "batteries" work by using the photoelectric effect anyway, weigh a bit and you would need a lot of them - and steam power is just a little bit too heavy for space and overkill when you don't need gigawatts.

      Since a few seconds thinking like an engineer or physicist rules this out - how did a nuclear troll who mentions their favourite energy whenever electricity gets mentioned get modded insightful?

    8. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The amount of power isn't an issue, since they'd just use more RTGs. The main problem is that it's in LEO and will eventually fall back to earth. Nobody would go for plutonium falling back to earth.

    9. Re:Well by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The main problem is that it's in LEO and will eventually fall back to earth. Nobody would go for plutonium falling back to earth.

      It's happened before with good results (Apollo LEM into a deep sea trench) and slightly bad results (Kosmos on not heavily populated land in the middle of Canada).

    10. Re:Well by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      That's quite true, basically, it's a political problem. The likes of Ralph Nader have greatly exaggerated the danger that plutonium poses, and that's a major roadblock. Even though RTGs have been determined to be able to survive something like the Challenger explosion intact without loss of containment, people still don't even like launching them for a deep space mission.

    11. Re:Well by confused+one · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Juno is slated to go into Jupiter orbit. Solar may be useable out to Jupiter. The panels have to increase in size proportional to the distance from the sun squared... The weight increases exponentially. To reach past Jupiter it becomes impossible (practically) to launch that much mass from the ground. If you want 1kW of power at Saturn or maybe the Kuiper belt you have to use nuclear. If Voyager 1 and 2, launched in 1977, were powered by solar, even using these new panels, we would not still be receiving telemetry from it. Voyager 1 is currently is currently 18 times farther from the sun than Jupiter. Voyager 2 is currently 15 times farther from the sun than Jupiter. Both are studying the boundary of our solar system.

      Yeah, I suspect much of the advances in solar technology have come out of NASA's budget. This is the kind of area where NASA and DOE spending feeds back obvious results.

      I get frustrated as well when people protest launching nuclear powered spacecraft. The probability of an accident is extremely small. The probability of that accident affecting populated areas is smaller. The effect would be insignificant barring an explosion at the launch tower; and, that would be contained to the area around the base. If people are going to make the argument against, I wish they would do it with real numbers. If you're going to argue that "it's bad" then show me how bad and show me how that level of "bad" compares to the safety standards...

      I do like this link

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RTG_radiation_m easurement.jpg
    12. Re:Well by quanticle · · Score: 1

      Who said they're collapsing the other wings? The latest mission was to add a second set of panels to the ISS, so that there's enough power for later additions.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    13. Re:Well by bhima · · Score: 1

      It's traditional

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    14. Re:Well by Workaphobia · · Score: 1

      > "The panels have to increase in size proportional to the distance from the sun squared..."

      Check.

      > "The weight increases exponentially."

      Really? I always hate it when people abuse the term "exponential", but given that you're speaking in a scientific context I think you are probably using its intended meaning. So then, I'll ask why does it increase in that way? Why not some form of polynomial growth? Also, when you say weight, do you mean mass? If not, then with respect to what body or system?

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
    15. Re:Well by Workaphobia · · Score: 1

      In response to my own comments above: I can understand the mass increasing exponentially if you're talking about nuclear fuel, as the rules of nuclear decay naturally involve the exponential function, but you were talking about solar panels, where the intensity only drops off polynomially. Did you mean to refer to nuclear fuel instead?

      Also, according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoe lectric_generator), RTGs on previous spacecraft generate somewhere in the neighborhood of under a kilowatt of electrical energy and only a couple kilowatts of heat. Solar as far as I remember produces 1.2 kW in space per square meter, so an unfolding wing of panels easily outpowers it. Except... at the distance of Jupiter (over 4 AU) the drop off in solar intensity would be more than 1/16 so I can see what you mean.

      So I'm not disagreeing, just musing aloud.

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
    16. Re:Well by Workaphobia · · Score: 1

      > "I mean... Tree-huggers everywhere would have been screaming for years if it did run on nuclear"

      Hell, that's nothing. Tree-huggers will scream no matter what you do. I was shocked to learn in my Science Technology and Society class that there were actually assocations of people dedicated to fighting wind power. Wind for God's sake. Apparently it wasn't slick-looking enough for them (ruined their precious landscapes) and was a hazard to birds (true in some cases, but just propaganda with larger 5 MW generators or horizontal blades).

      There's a part of me that thinks they won't be pleased until they've enumerated and denigrated* every conceivable technological solution to society's problems.

      (Sorry if this post reads like a troll, but this just pisses me off.)

      * I tried to convince myself that I would have learned this word without the help of George W. Bush, but in truth I couldn't find its proper spelling without googling for the phrase "denigrating the troops". Sigh.

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
    17. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jmmmm since nobody else already did, I'll have to welcome you: You must be new here.

    18. Re:Well by killpog · · Score: 1

      Voyager.

    19. Re:Well by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      "there's a 1:100,000,000 chance that it might cause contamination"

      So, there is a pretty good chance we will never again see those nasty radioactive pollutants...

      Treehuggers everywhere should be happy for this!

      But, again, if we are talking manned spaceflight reliability, I would say between a 1:100 (shuttle) and a 1:200 (soyuz) chance it goes _very_ wrong. And we know unmanned has a higher tolerance to catastrophic failure.

      --
      http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
    20. Re:Well by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      These days, sarcasm is both insightful and informative ;-) Sorry, but you have to deal with it. I expected a funny mod, but, ok... You never know which way the public will mod you. And no, nuclear fission is not my favorite power source. It's just that saying the ISS is "going solar" implies it went in another direction before. Something it, obviously and conspicuously (its solar panels already made it visible from the surface), didn't.

      --
      http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
    21. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I work at JSC on the ISS program and I agree about being annoyed at the text of the summary. This is actually the 3rd set of solar arrays delivered to the ISS. In fact... the big news yesterday wasn't the deployment of the new solar arrays, but the retraction of the P6 solar arrays!!!

      and for those that are wondering how long the arrays are, they are 115 feet in length... and there are two of those on each set. Eventually there will be 4 sets (8 arrays). 3 sets are up there now, 2 deployed and tracking with the 3rd to be relocated later this year and re-deployed.

      I believe each set produces about 20 kW of useable power after most losses are accounted for, but I'm not positive about that one.

    22. Re:Well by dylan_- · · Score: 1

      I was shocked to learn in my Science Technology and Society class that there were actually assocations of people dedicated to fighting wind power. Wind for God's sake. Apparently it wasn't slick-looking enough for them (ruined their precious landscapes)
      What kind of shithole do you live in that it wouldn't be ruined by the appearance of 180 butt-ugly, 300 foot high towers? Did you ever consider that it might be the people who actually live there who might object to this? Especially when tourism is one of the most important industries in the area? Hmm? No, of course not, you just go into your "blame the tree-huggers" mindset. Aren't you clever?

      (Sorry if this post reads like a troll, but this just pisses me off.)
      Next time, try assuming that the people you disagree with are at least as intelligent as you are.
      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    23. Re:Well by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      *sigh*

      The P6 segment has been installed for a while, but in a temporary location/configuration that doesn't allow room for its solar panels to rotate (and track the sun).

      After the P3/P4 segment was installed (specifically, on the last mission, on which the P5 segment was installed), one of the two wings on the P6 segment was retracted to allow the wings of the P4 segment to rotate.

      If you have read any of the articles on STS-117, you would see that the purpose of this mission is to install the S3/S4 segments, retract the second solar wing on the P6 segment, and get the S3/S4 rotating.

      In a future mission (ISS assembly step 13.1 if memory serves me right), the P6 segment will be moved to its final resting place at the end of the Port truss structure.

      Just because I make sarcastic comments on /. doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    24. Re:Well by Workaphobia · · Score: 1

      > "What kind of shithole do you live in that it wouldn't be ruined by the appearance of 180 butt-ugly, 300 foot high towers?"

      New York. Why would I give a damn about what it looks like outside? I want power, and I value the health of the ecosystem above its damn aesthetics. And I don't understand what is so ugly about a tower. It's just a structure, and it turns. What's the problem?

      > "Did you ever consider that it might be the people who actually live there who might object to this?"

      Yes. I don't care. I'm telling them how they should live their lives because I would prefer that my will^W^W^W^Wwhim be forced upon them.

      > "Especially when tourism is one of the most important industries in the area?"

      I wouldn't mind seeing a windmill. I wouldn't mind seeing the grand canyon either, or better yet, a hydroelectric dam.

      > "Next time, try assuming that the people you disagree with are at least as intelligent as you are."

      I tend not to care whether or not I show them that courtesy so long as I'm not addressing them to their faces. I assumed that the slashdot crowd was composed primarily of people more interested in the technology than the aesthetics of an open plain, and therefore felt no need to put a filter over my rant.

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
    25. Re:Well by dylan_- · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you're too selfish and stupid to warrant any thoughtful response. Maybe when you grow up a bit.

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    26. Re:Well by Workaphobia · · Score: 1

      The standard practice in this situation then, would be for you to not respond at all, ending the conversation as I'm not worth the time. All that disdain should be implied by your silence.

      I'm pretty sure I'm just trolling you at this point. But I am curious what will happen.

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
  6. Make them bigger.... by camperslo · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...a giant shade to reduce global warming

    1. Re:Make them bigger.... by Adambomb · · Score: 1

      I've had it up to HERE with these lousy rickets!

      *bowlegs away*

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    2. Re:Make them bigger.... by Barryke · · Score: 1

      Just imagine the lensing effect of that.

      Aliens closing in would go full reverse trust when they'd see a planet-size cow (hey it should lens something fun, no?) flinging around our sun.

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
  7. What was it running on before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Steam?

    1. Re:What was it running on before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, a really long extension cord. Kept getting tangled on Everest though.

    2. Re:What was it running on before? by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 2, Funny

      Astronauts on the ISS have to train each day on those bicycles. Now you know why...

    3. Re:What was it running on before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Treadmill...

  8. Wow, that's by ls+-la · · Score: 0

    ... out of this world! Someone had to say it.

    1. Re:Wow, that's by Workaphobia · · Score: 1

      That's such an artificial and forced cliche. It's like you're trying to make your own meme... IN SPACE!

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
    2. Re:Wow, that's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No... they didn't.

  9. The previous power source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was a Mexican on an exercycle attached to a generator.

  10. Here's a real link. by pavon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here is a link to a story with a little more content and pictures of the new unfurled solar panels.

  11. Odd there's no mention of the computer hack by Nymz · · Score: 4, Informative

    During the installation, one the navigation computers had a glitch that caused false fire alarms and a loss of gyroscope control, which sent the station spinning out of control. Only thanks to a hack were they able to bypass the Russian functions, and get the gyroscopes working again.

    If the station couldn't align the solar panels toward the sun for each days charge, then it would only be a matter of time before the batteries died, and without power nothing on the station will work, nothing.

    1. Re:Odd there's no mention of the computer hack by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Gyroscopes can't be that important. Hang on - is Christmas Island really that big, it looks a lot like New Zealand?

      Tampopo out.

    2. Re:Odd there's no mention of the computer hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "During the installation, one the navigation computers had a glitch that caused false fire alarms and a loss of gyroscope control, which sent the station spinning out of control. Only thanks to a hack were they able to bypass the Russian functions, and get the gyroscopes working again."

      The station did not go "spinning out of control". If it had, they'd be in dead trouble. But with the computers down, it was unable to maintain attitude. So the autopilot on Atlantis was called on to do the job before the station could even start spinning.

      I suppose "spinning out of control" is more dramatic, though.

  12. Nuclear power and spacecraft by Fuji+Kitakyusho · · Score: 5, Informative

    The required technology:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoel ectric_generator

    1. Re:Nuclear power and spacecraft by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wonder if this image will catch the tree huggers' attention ;)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RTG_radiation_m easurement.jpg

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:Nuclear power and spacecraft by Barryke · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd hugg it. Both. I love hugging bombs and babes.

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
    3. Re:Nuclear power and spacecraft by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      And to think we just gave a ton of those radium watches to a bunch of monkeys and had them run around in hamster wheels. To think of it, they could also give the spin to the station and the same time! Wonder how much it would cost to life bananas up there.....

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    4. Re:Nuclear power and spacecraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But... Chernobyl!

      (It's got radioactivity in it, right? Then it must eventually melt down, catastrophically!)

  13. Good news, everyone! by Yeechang+Lee · · Score: 1

    The international space station's newest power source, a set of solar wings, made its debut yesterday.

    Glad to hear it. That 200-miles-long extension cord was becoming a real hassle!
  14. But, but! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where will they get their power from? It's never day time in space :(

  15. Reflecting?? by Peyna · · Score: 1

    The new solar panels were unfolded like an accordion window blind, their orange and black colors reflecting the sunlight.

    Is it just me, or are solar panels that reflect sunlight not a good thing?

    --
    What?
  16. ISS has always been solar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ISS has always been powered by solar panels. This mission just added the 3rd of 4 pairs of solar panels to the station. Combined with the two pairs already in place, this increases the total power available to about 82kW, I think.

  17. The best source of information. by GreggBz · · Score: 5, Informative

    So why do these stories about NASA, the ISS etc.. so rarely link to nasa.gov?

    You can go here and get much better, more detailed information about the solar panels, the crew, the rest of the mission, watch live video, etc. Your tax dollars pay for it, you should use it.

    It is the most comprehensive site for news in information regarding, imagine this, NASA. The only instance where it's probably not appropriate is when there is some requirement for investigative reporting, otherwise, things like the Boston Globe are likely to give the watered down, science lite AP version of what NASA tells them.

    1. Re:The best source of information. by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

      Due to the previous 6 or 7 years of republican stranglehold over the government and diverting all funds from where the nation needs them to pointless, yet strikingly bloody wars, NASA's had to make some budget cuts. In addition to purses for technological competitions that can solve real-world problems, they've had to downgrade from a DS3 connection to an IDSN line.

    2. Re:The best source of information. by KingArthur10 · · Score: 1

      Well, if you think about it, the bandwidth from Nasa is paid by the citizens being taxed; so, instead of linking to a page in which you are charged per view some way or another, they link you to a page full of ads and you don't pay a dime.......or someone just wants a big check from getting the slashdot crowd visiting and viewing (or in some cases blocking) ads.

      --
      I came, I saw, She conquered.
    3. Re:The best source of information. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      ahhh flashblock. The internet has not been the same since I got it.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:The best source of information. by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      ...activate the International Space Station's Starboard 3 and 4 (S3/S4) truss segment during STS-117's second spacewalk.


      If you are a NASA news follower then that sentence fragment might mean something to you... otherwise it is nice to have someone rewrite the story for casual consumption, though they should have also provided a link to the nasa.gov source, oh wait... right there at the bottom of the story... a link to nasa.gov, for more information ;-p

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    5. Re:The best source of information. by Workaphobia · · Score: 1

      Flashblock, you say? I should look into some of these plugins for firefox, but I'm just too lazy. Anyway if it does what the name implies, I already have it on some of my browsers, where I just don't bother installing the damn plugin.

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
    6. Re:The best source of information. by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Your tax dollars pay for it, you should use it. Actually I don't think they do. If the space shuttle were funded by the Australian government:
      1. The Space Shuttle Atlantis would be called the Space Shuttle Steve
      2. The Space Shuttle Steve would be painted green and red and sponsored by Bunnings. At frequent intervals during the televised launch, the sponsor would remind us that the Steve was built entirely of parts bought at Bunnings
      3. The Space Shuttle Steve would be refurbished between each mission by Jamie Drury and the crew from Backyard Blitz. The crew of the Space Shuttle Steve would be led onboard blindfolded by Jamie, and would have to feign surprise and delight at the wonderful job done.
      4. The Steve would be towed to the launch pad by the new model Holden Crewman.
  18. How could they not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Even if somebody had developed a PV material which completely absorbed sunlight it would lead to a rapid loss in efficiency due to the heat buildup: solar panels work best on cold sunny days.

    1. Re:How could they not? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      You are aware its a bit ummm nippy in space aren't you?
      Best take a jacket with you if you go outside.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:How could they not? by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 3, Informative

      space may be cold, but with no atmosphere to conduct the heat, it is only lost by radiation, so if a body is a good absorber of solar radiation, the temperature get quite high before outgoing radiation matches the incoming solar radiation.

      --
      What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
    3. Re:How could they not? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      And then the side in the shadow can act as a pretty damn good radiator.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    4. Re:How could they not? by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Put a raw hamburger on the hot side, and a not yet cold milkshake mixture on the cold side, and viola! ISS drive through lunch!

      BTW- I will be patenting this idea. Should I call it McOrbit or Orbit King?

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    5. Re:How could they not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      viola
      What do stringed instruments have to do with this? Voila, a crappy pun and a spelling nazi! Good for me!
  19. Lame news from your government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there were any real engineers in Management in NASA anymore that would be a space station orbiting mars. But there aren't, so we get a trillion dollar white elephant that the military can't even mount weapons on while Google gives us better pictures of earth than NASA for a fraction of the cost.

    Way to go, Congress. Little cowards.

  20. For once, I read the article, and I see... by throatmonster · · Score: 1

    "Engineers don't think the intense heat could burn through the graphite structure underneath it and jeopardize the spacecraft.

    But it could damage the shuttle, requiring repairs after landing..." ...near the end of the article. WTF?

    --
    All pass beyond reach of medicine. None pass beyond the reach of love.
    1. Re:For once, I read the article, and I see... by Boilermaker84 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The blanket doesn't pose a risk of catastrophic failure to the vehicle (i.e. no repeat of Columbia), but the Mission Management Team is trying to minimize any damage to the OMS pod that would delay processing for the next mission. If they leave the blanket as is (without stapling it back in place, which is what they plan to do), there is a risk of doing damage to the pod that would delay processing for Atlantis's next mission in December.

  21. What a waste by corifornia · · Score: 0, Funny

    Solar energy is a complete waste. What the hell are you going to do with the space station now at night?

    --
    crap.
    1. Re:What a waste by BobPaul · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just use the earth tether like they did before they got the solar panels, duh!

    2. Re:What a waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! FUCK YOU! Stop linking my website! That's not even public, you fucking hacker! Take that down!

  22. NASA = Dumb asses by corifornia · · Score: 0

    Its dark in space, good luck with solar energy.

    --
    crap.
    1. Re:NASA = Dumb asses by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Funny

      lol yeah, at least on earth you can get a good 12 hours out of solar panels. But what can you do with just 45 minutes? :-)

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:NASA = Dumb asses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      99.9995% of the sky is dark, but the 0.0005% portion that the sun covers is blindingly bright.

    3. Re:NASA = Dumb asses by FSWKU · · Score: 1

      For people like that, I wish we had mod options for "Sarcasm" and (more likely in the OP's case) "-1: Dumbass"

      --
      "So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
    4. Re:NASA = Dumb asses by corifornia · · Score: 0

      Sarcasm generally equals funny.

      --
      crap.
  23. Re: So what you're really trying to say is.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    In Soviet Russian orbit, you stabilize gyroscopes!

  24. Oh, so they only just went solar? by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

    That's either the most expensive tank of gas in the world or a really fucking long extension cord.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  25. ouch by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    17.5 tons. I'm thinking about increased amount of propellant needed to keep the ISS in the correct orbit with this new "power source". Yes we can give you more power, but now we need to spend twice as much fuel to keep you in orbit, so your total flight time is decreased by 8 years...

    That's the beauty of physics, everything is connected. And I'm not even a physicist.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:ouch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree, you're not a physicist. The mass of the array doesn't at all influence the amount of fuel necessary to keep it in orbit. What matters is its cross sectional area.

    2. Re:ouch by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hmmm ok, I'll grant you that (from what I remember from high school) the "g" part of a sattelite in orbit gets canceled out. However I think that the basic laws of motion - specifically F=ma still apply when it comes time to turn on the engine and give the station more velocity to bump it back up into a higher orbit. If m increases and the "a" that I need to increase the velocity is the same, I need more "F", which means a longer burn, which means more fuel.

            I agree that mass has nothing to do with orbit decay, but is the above right? If not, why not?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:ouch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not right because mass equals inertia - that is to say more energy is needed to compensate for orbital decay, but the orbit will also decay less. So in short, the cross section is what actually matters.
      By the way, the ISS needs frequent visits to replenish its fuel supply, otherwise it would tumble down to earth. Orbital decay

    4. Re:ouch by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      When you increase something's mass there's a corresponding increase in its momentum. This means that you have to apply a larger impulse to it in order to change its momentum. So yeah, you're right.

      --
      SRSLY.
    5. Re:ouch by AGMW · · Score: 1
      As I posted previously (er ... "DUP") ... Do they generate enough power now to be able to usefully use it in an Ion engine to help keep the ISS on station (or indeed move it further out)?

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    6. Re:ouch by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      It's not right because mass equals inertia - that is to say more energy is needed to compensate for orbital decay, but the orbit will also decay less.

            You're thinking about decay.

            I'm thinking about the energy required to correct the orbit.

            Those are two separate things. One has nothing to do with mass (decay), but the other (correcting the orbit) certainly does. Remember that the quantity of fuel on board is limited. So if you have to do a longer burn every couple years to bump the station back up, it's going to shorten your total flight time - you'll run out of fuel faster.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:ouch by Forseti · · Score: 1

      You're thinking about decay.

      I'm thinking about the energy required to correct the orbit.

      Remember that the quantity of fuel on board is limited. So if you have to do a longer burn every couple years to bump the station back up, it's going to shorten your total flight time - you'll run out of fuel faster.

      Gee, did you even bother to think a little about what the GP said before you replied? If your orbit decays less, you need to correct it less/less often and therefore the extra fuel needs balance out. Besides which, since the fuel can and does get replenished regularly, there if no fixed total flight time, so no big deal.

      --
      Delay is preferable to error. (Thomas Jefferson)
    8. Re:ouch by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      If your orbit decays less,

            And why, pray tell, would the orbit decay less, if I increased the cross sectional area by adding solar panels.

            Remember, I have been told mass has nothing to do with orbital decay. So mass and increased inertia does NOT cause the station to decay less. If you're going to use an argument, at least be consistent. Inertia is a function of mass. Mass has nothing to do with orbital decay. Thus the orbital decay is the same, or MORE (since adding solar panels increases cross sectional area). Either way, you use more fuel.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  26. Re: So what you're really trying to say is.. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Touché! That was cute, even for this tired old joke hehe. Well done sir.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  27. A far cooler aspect. by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Check when the ISS will be overhead and illuminated by the sun. You can with a pair of good binoculars and SEE the ISS as a shape now instead of a dot of light with the Panels Deployed.

    Incredibly cool to be able to see something in space and visually identify it.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:A far cooler aspect. by bartron · · Score: 1

      I know what you mean. The other day I looked up into the night sky and all I saw were pinpoints of light. Then, with the aid of binoculars I was finally able to identify the moon. To think that you can only now, look into space and identify things.

    2. Re:A far cooler aspect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Me thinks you are talking out of your rear aperature

      Its damn hard to image ISS _details_ (even with the shuttle attached) with an 8inch (200mm) telescope let alone a pair of binoculars. I've seen the ISS (with and without attached shuttle) naked eye, thru binoculars (7x50), and an 8 inch Meade LX-90 using a 12mm eyepiece (many times naked eye, many times with the binoculars and a few with the scope). Binoculars (that you can hand hold) are going to show you a blob - a blob which (in my opinion) got more orange when they added the large set of panels in December of 2006 (STS116) - haven't had the opportunity to view the ISS since STS117 added yet another set. I've had brief glimpses of the ISS this spring with the 200mm / 12mm comobo (about 170x magnification) - with a __lot__ of imagination I might have seen more than a blob. You certainly can image a very low level of ISS detail with an 8 inch scope but you need zero cloud cover and perfect seeing, a very well collimated set of optics, well developed tracking experience, and a bit of luck. The ability to image details increases if you capture multiple images and post process the data - thats how most non-professional ISS images you see on the web are produced.

      For anyone who finds this interesting you can visit heavens-above.com to get accurate info on when you can see the ISS (and other satellites) over your location - naked eye ISS viewing is perfectly doable however, only folks with a reasonably large aperature scope (8 inches or more for us non-professional astromomers) and excellent viewing conditions and tracking experience are going to see anything beyond a colored blob.

    3. Re:A far cooler aspect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? I saw the freaking cosmonauts dock with Mir, with my bare eyes, in like the early 90's.

    4. Re:A far cooler aspect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I identify things in space all the time. There's this big hot ball of gass about a hundred million miles away that's pretty easy to spot in the daytime. When, I see it, I like to call it the Sun.

    5. Re:A far cooler aspect. by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 1

      When, I see it, I like to call it the Sun.

      Most of us here know it as the Evil Yellow Face. We hates it, we does!

      --
      Soylent Green is peoplicious!
    6. Re:A far cooler aspect. by lazy+genes · · Score: 0

      I have been watching it fly over for the past week.It was reflecting more light and it did seem to have a shape to it.It was really clear out tonight and there was no moon so its really hard to judge .But it seemed brighter than usual.

    7. Re:A far cooler aspect. by NeoTron · · Score: 1

      Please have a look at this : http://pictures.ed-morana.com/ISSTransits/ to see examples of someone catching ISS transits, both lunar and solar. They're quite impressive.

    8. Re:A far cooler aspect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      me thinks it's your ass that is getting talked out of.

      did you even read anything? do you even havea clue as to what the subject matter is? the solar panle sails are incredibly large. INCREDIBLY LARGE, like space shuttle is a turd compared to it. maybe if you had a clue you might know what he was talking about.

      Nasa mentioned this a decade ago that when the ISS was finished you would be able to discern it as a H in the sky from the ground with a standard set of binocs.

    9. Re:A far cooler aspect. by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      "Incredibly cool to be able to see something in space and visually identify it."

      Sadly, what that means to me is that the ISS is in a stupidly, worthlessly low orbit which will cause it all-too-soon to fall from the sky as space junk, or require constant orbital booster shots.

      L5 would have made so much more sense, but then the inadequacies of the POS shuttle would have been even more evident.

      --
      -Styopa
    10. Re:A far cooler aspect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, L5 would've been so useful. And it's so much different from LEO. After all, we have so many spacecraft that can go there quickly enough for manned flight, and just such a fantastic number of launch vehicles capable of lifting massive components to an L5 transfer orbit. Only the Shuttle is too much of a POS to make it past LEO. We'll ignore the inadequacies of Soyuz, Proton, and heck, every other vehicle currently available. Nope; it's all the Shuttle's fault.

      Lagrange points are overrated. They may someday be useful as fuel depots, or perhaps as waypoints between geocentric and heliocentric orbits. (The unstable Lagrange points are probably better for that than L4 or L5, though, and of course a spacecraft at those points will need regular thruster firings to stationkeep.) But for basic research about travel in space, they are not really that much better than low Earth orbit, and a hell of a lot more expensive. It comes down to one basic question: how long are you willing to wait to get started? Until the perfect solution is gift-wrapped and provided to you, with no effort in the preceding decades? You will be waiting throughout eternity.

      Be bitter about the sight of the biggest spacecraft ever built by man, if you feel you must. It's not perfect. If that keeps you from finding any enjoyment whatsoever in seeing it pass overhead, then that's your loss.

    11. Re:A far cooler aspect. by zummit · · Score: 1

      Lumpy is a mountain climber.

  28. I'd better add by dbIII · · Score: 1
    Newer nuclear "batteries" use the Seebeck effect as distinct from the photoelectric effect as used in nuclear systems in satellites that spend time in low orbits such as the Kosmos series (no panels can be used if you touch the atmosphere at high speed once per orbit to get nice close photos). However, you are still talking about watts for a relatively heavy unit as distinct from kilowatts required and more easily obtained from solar panels if you are just going to be in an earth orbit where you don't have to worry about it getting dark for long or air resistance.

    These things are for probes that go where it is dark. A big space station has other considerations that would make them impractical.

  29. Heh... by the_skywise · · Score: 1

    Dummy, what do you think they were basing the technology for the space elevator on!?

    The same technology they used on the extension cord they dropped from the station and had plugged into the reactor at NASA in Houston.

    Gosh, if Slashdotters would just RTFA's they'd have known this years ago! :)

    1. Re:Heh... by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Dummy, what do you think they were basing the technology for the space elevator on!?

      The same technology they used on the extension cord they dropped from the station and had plugged into the reactor at NASA in Houston.

      Gosh, if Slashdotters would just RTFA's they'd have known this years ago! :) Wow, and I thought it was lame when giant mecha ran on extension cords!
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  30. Tax by adrian727 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Did they pay fuel tax yet?

    1. Re:Tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, we need something to pay for the potholes those things leave in the sky through heightened stresses.

    2. Re:Tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, do you think they will go and arrest them?

    3. Re:Tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure it's an off-road vehicle. Does it burn purple hydrazine?

  31. Wernstrom!!! by dgbrownnt · · Score: 1

    Been there, done that...

  32. Efficiency by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    Does anyone have any idea how efficient the solar panels are? According to the STS-117 Fact Sheet (1.8 Mb PDF) on the NASA Space Shuttle page the panels generate 60 kilowatts and are 240 feet long. But that doesn't tell us the width of the panels, only the length, so I can't figure out the kilowatts per unit area. Does anyone have more details?

    1. Re:Efficiency by teridon · · Score: 2, Informative

      All of the solar arrays on ISS are about the same.

      The dimensions of each panel (total 4 panels per truss) are 111.6 ft x 15.2 ft. Behold ASCII art skillz! (cut, because /.'s fucking lameness filter)

      Source: "Photovoltaic Power for Space Station Freedom" by Baraona, C.R. in "Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, 1990., Conference Record of the Twenty First IEEE"

      --
      I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
  33. Someone already thought of this by mijelh · · Score: 1

    http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id= dn11993
    They explain the possibility of creating a solar shield by spraying sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere.
    If the models are correct, it would lower temperatures to around early 20th-century levels, though rainfall abnormalities would persist.

  34. Just had to do it.... by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    "Yes, it did, but now it has more power than ever before!"

    This station is now the ultimate power in the universe.

    Shhhh... huhhhhhh

    (yes I know he didn't say it but it gives a rather, dramatic, flair, don't you think?)

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  35. Great! The ISS now has solar panels... by DiamondGeezer · · Score: 1

    Now remind me again...what is the ISS for?

    --
    Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
    1. Re:Great! The ISS now has solar panels... by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      Pork for the space-industrial complex. Well, at least it's shiny.

    2. Re:Great! The ISS now has solar panels... by naelp · · Score: 1

      To keep Russian Rocket Engineers from going off to North Korea and making missiles. World's most expensive jobs program!

  36. Obligatory Star Wars by TempeTerra · · Score: 1

    That's no moon... That's a space station!

    Tired jokes aside, I agree with you that it's very cool to see such things with the naked eye.

    --
    .evom ton seod gis eht
  37. In related news by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

    The ISS is currently suffering a major computer glitch. All three Russian computer systems have crashed, the American systems rely on the Russian ones to work, and all of this could ultimately lead to the life support systems shutting down, loss of attitude control, and a complete evacuation of the ISS until such time a flight to replace the faulty systems can be made. Too many Google News links to provide, so move the mouse and go clicky click for more.

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    1. Re:In related news by rapidweather · · Score: 1

      Here's one of the stories that is available.

      --
      Rapidweather's Linux Screenshots.
  38. Lowering the cost of PV by chazbet · · Score: 2, Informative
    Interesting article here talks about how the costs for silicon for solar panels are higher than they need to be, because although it doesn't have to be as pure as semiconductor silicon, there's no process for making it at that lower grade of purity.

    "The problem for the PV customers for silicon is that they are a fast grower sandwiched between two mature sectors growing roughly in line with the economy. Bulk silicon is used in old-economy alloys and sealants; and while demand for semiconductors grows rapidly in value, their extra capability is crammed onto roughly the same physical volume of raw material. . .People are of course working on finding a specific route to medium-grade silicon at $20 or so a kilo. Whoever gets there first will make a fortune and save the planet like Superman, so it's an attractive opportunity. " http://www.samefacts.com/archives/climate_change_/ 2007/06/to_repairing_used_planet_99928.php

  39. Solar Power is a Pipe Dream by haakondahl · · Score: 1

    Idiots. What will the ISS do on a cloudy day? Didn't think of that, did they?

    --
    Don't trust anyone under thirty.
  40. Re:What was it running on before? Linux! by yanw · · Score: 1

    Linux!
    But does it run Steam....?

  41. Who didn't wear their anti-static wrist band? by totallydude · · Score: 1

    From SpaceflightNow.com .....
    On Monday, the Atlantis astronauts attached a new 36,000-pound solar array truss segment featuring two new solar blankets capable of generating some 20 kilowatts of additional useable power. On Tuesday, a computer crash occurred that ultimately left the Russian segment with a single guidance computer and a single command-and-control machine. That, in and of itself, was not crippling.

    But Wednesday morning, as the Atlantis astronauts were beginning work to retract a different solar array wing, "we lost both of those computers," Suffredini said. "Currently we're in that configuration. The guidance, navigation and control computers and command-and-control computers in the service module are not functioning. Our Russian colleagues tried a number of techniques to try to recover the computers and were not successful."

  42. Who's running the Russian space program? by jpellino · · Score: 1

    Fozzie Bear? "We're out of gas, oil, water and the battery's dead."

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  43. Works for me by OriginalArlen · · Score: 1

    We turn our water heater off for 60% of the year; we've some cheap (GBP 5000) panels on the roof that give nice hot water even when the skies are cloudy (they take their energy from IR, not visible light) and they even carry on working when the grid's out (we live in the middle of a forest, and trees grow branches specially to drop on the lines several times a year.) In fact as luck would have it we had a power cut at 8:15am this morning, just as I was getting up, and lo! I was still able to wash in hot water.

    We'll give it another year or two for the newer more efficient PV panels to hit the market, and any grants & subsidies to turn up, then I think we'll be generating power too. We've thought about a wind turbine (it's also on top of a hill & sited close enough to the Bristol Channel that we get good strong winds quite a lot) but are leaving that one for now on grounds of cost, hassle and noise. Now if only I could bring myself to down my systems overnight...

    Where the UK is doing especially badly is public transport outside major urban areas - trying to get to the site of my office would take 4 hours or so by bus (there's two per day in our village...) so unless I move nearer the office, I pretty much have to drive 50-60 miles/day. And I don't want to move, as I don't trust my employer (*any* employer) not to saxx0r me at the drop of a hat, most likely a few days after I sign a 6 month tenancy agreement. (There's SFA work for an infosec specialist in Gloucestershire unless you're security cleared, and I wouldn't want to work for the gov't or defence corps anyway.

    --

    Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    1. Re:Works for me by Carnivore · · Score: 1

      You should be careful with PV panels. If your house is shaded by trees, even a small, sharp shadow on part of a panel will drastically reduce its output. Make sure that you consult a good PV installer/dealer/someone who really knows his shit before you buy a ton of panels and inverters and stuff.

      As for wind, you'll have to put the turbine well above the tops of the trees to get out of the turbulent airflow. Also, the bigger the turbine, the slower the blades turn, and the less noise is generated. Bigger turbines start generating in slower wind speeds, too.

      Good luck! I hope to have a super energy efficient/power generating house someday, too.

  44. Oh boy, basic rocket science... by Hucko · · Score: 1

    nooo... oxygen is the oxidiser. Hydrogen is the fuel.

    --
    Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
  45. Re:why not more prevalent by CodeShark · · Score: 1
    Profit vs. Cost

    It takes the same amount of silicon substrate and a whole lot of really cutting edge technology to make a super-efficient solar sell --like they use in the ISS-- that are literally worth their weight in gold-- which then outputs power at about a 3:1 factor over the cheap "thin film" chips. The cost of a thin film solar array to fully power one house is only about double the cost of buying electricity from the power company for 10 years.


    So it isn't economically viable especially considering that same level of technology can be used to make the latest Pentium/AMD/micro chips -- that sell for a whole lot more and where there is and always will be a demand for the latest greatest silicon chips...

    The true breakthrough in solar power will be a system that converts a large of the low-grade heat which gets to a house to useful power without requiring the risk of exposure to toxic or exotic chemicals or a huge investemnt by the homeowner in order to be profitable.

    --
    ...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
  46. Re: So what you're really trying to say is.. by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

    ***Golf Clap***

    AC wins teh internet!

    --
    I drank what? -- Socrates
  47. hindsight's a bitch, eh? by darkvizier · · Score: 1

    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/1 4/130203

  48. If you're going to write about science, at least.. by BarnabyWilde · · Score: 1

    ...GET IT RIGHT!!!

    They didn't just GO solar, they've BEEN solar.

    Jeez.....