Timeline for Why does the ISS not use the most efficient solar panels available?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 14, 2015 at 10:34 | vote | accept | Hobbes | ||
| Aug 28, 2015 at 5:46 | comment | added | Prokop Hapala | but thickness of wavers is ~0.1-0.2 mm, while thickness on active junction is often just several microns. By "substrate" I mean that many thin-film solar cells (where juction is even < 1 micron ) are still deposited on some substrate like glass for structural rigidity (ISS panels are also rigid, so I guess they have quite thick substrate/support in comparison to junction thickness). ad "in space do not need good structural support (zero g)" ... I agree I would prefer something like phys.org/news/… ... but this is not the case of ISS SAW | |
| Aug 28, 2015 at 1:14 | comment | added | Aron | The substrate scales with the number of junctions. The structural parts do not (by the way, glass counts as structural). However, you have to remember that solar panels in space do not need good structural support (zero g). I also completely neglected the non-quantum losses involved (silicon is actually not very transparent, extra layering decreases transmittivity). That is why I said that for a naive approach it is 3 times heavier. | |
| Aug 27, 2015 at 18:39 | comment | added | Prokop Hapala | this would be true if whole panel would consist of just p-n junction ... but there is considerable amount passive balast such as substrate ( silicon, glass ... ) contacts, and structural parts (e.g. metalic truss and girders ) if this passive balast is more than 33% of the weight of the whole panel (which I guess it is ... but I'm not sure) than going from 15% to 30% efficiency while would be usefull | |
| Jul 1, 2015 at 11:19 | history | answered | Aron | CC BY-SA 3.0 |