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."

37 of 176 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    4. 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
  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 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.

    3. 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.
  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?
  4. 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 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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
  5. Make them bigger.... by camperslo · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...a giant shade to reduce global warming

  6. 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...

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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..
  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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?
  13. Re: So what you're really trying to say is.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    In Soviet Russian orbit, you stabilize gyroscopes!

  14. Re:What a waste by BobPaul · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  15. 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.
  16. 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 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.

  17. 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.

  18. Tax by adrian727 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Did they pay fuel tax yet?

  19. 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.
  20. 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
  21. 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