Timeline for Why does the ISS not use the most efficient solar panels available?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://space.stackexchange.com/ with https://space.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Sep 14, 2015 at 10:34 | vote | accept | Hobbes | ||
| Jul 1, 2015 at 11:19 | answer | added | Aron | timeline score: 11 | |
| Jul 1, 2015 at 4:04 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackSpaceExp/status/616095041728184320 | ||
| Jun 30, 2015 at 15:45 | comment | added | geoffc | @TildalWave So I asked it as a separate question. I am betting they did NOT upgrade them. But what do I know? :) | |
| Jun 30, 2015 at 15:42 | comment | added | TildalWave | @geoffc Dunno, but I'd bet on them being upgraded with each new SAW delivered to the ISS. It wouldn't be the first time that solar panels would be upgraded during the design, last such example I know of was DSCOVR. | |
| Jun 30, 2015 at 15:39 | comment | added | geoffc | @TildalWave The way Space Agencies work, do you think that the 4 arrays are different or all 4 are identical, even as there was a 10 year span between launching 1st/last. | |
| Jun 30, 2015 at 15:25 | comment | added | TildalWave | @geoffc That 1990 seems true enough, I found some research into cell separation and surface charging dating as far back as 1991. I didn't find when the first SAW was manufactured, and I assume somewhere between 1991 and 2000 and not before (such tests can be done on a boilerplate), but 14% efficiency (or 11.4% as I calculate for the first SAW delivered in 2000, with later ones delivered till 2009 possibly more efficient) was back in those days pretty much state of the art. | |
| Jun 30, 2015 at 13:27 | comment | added | geoffc | Also, recall that the first array was launched in 2000. Which means the design was probably frozen in the mid 90's. So consider only available space rated arrays in the mid to late 1990's. Todays arrays would of course be more efficient. | |
| Jun 30, 2015 at 13:14 | comment | added | 2012rcampion | Even if the panels were not the most efficient in terms of energy collected per area, they might still be the most efficient by energy per weight. | |
| Jun 30, 2015 at 12:30 | comment | added | TildalWave | One less known fact about ISS solar cells is that they're double-sided (bifacial) to also charge by Earth's albedo illumination. Since this reflected insulation's photon flux is much weaker, this would reflect in ISS SAW (Solar Array Wing) total efficiency. | |
| Jun 30, 2015 at 10:54 | comment | added | Hobbes | For a long time, the solar panels used in spacecraft had the reputation of being the most efficient available, due to their cost-is-no-object nature. I don't know how accurate this is though. | |
| Jun 30, 2015 at 9:00 | comment | added | GdD | When putting something into orbit weight is a major concern, but so is reliability. It has to work, so tried and tested technologies are picked over new. | |
| Jun 30, 2015 at 7:13 | history | asked | Hobbes | CC BY-SA 3.0 |