ISS Goes Solar

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."

Well

[rbanffy]

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).

Re:Well

[Jugalator]

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

To give sufficient power for the upcoming components and experiments.

Here's a real link.

[pavon]

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

Odd there's no mention of the computer hack

[Nymz]

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 [slashdot.org] 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.

Nuclear power and spacecraft

[Fuji Kitakyusho]

The required technology:

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

The best source of information.

[GreggBz]

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

You can go here [nasa.gov] 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.

How could they not?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:For once, I read the article, and I see...

[Boilermaker84]

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.

Re:How could they not?

[Oktober Sunset]

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.

A far cooler aspect.

[Lumpy]

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.

Re:Efficiency

[teridon]

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

Re:It's good to see ...

[bryan1945]

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.

Lowering the cost of PV

[chazbet]

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 [samefacts.com]

Re:It's good to see ...

[OrangeTide]

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

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

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.