Those fit on satellites in zero g. The moon has gravity so you support them at an angle you need bracing on something else, or for extra long panels connected to a structure you need bracing inside these ultra flex panels.
In space panels can radiate from their back sides into space, but that doesn’t work on the moon as it hits 260 degrees Fahrenheit in the day. Look up panel efficiency curves with temperature. Cooling during the day is a major concern for a long term lunar base, but also needed for panels.
Further you need cables from wherever they are to where up your using power.
Lunar dust again is an issue for solar panels on the moon vs satellites.
All added up doubling weight may be generous.
> https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20060008706
Sure, and that worked wonderfully a lab. But, production systems need to worry about a great deal of stuff that doesn’t apply in a lab setting. I don’t mean this dismissively yes I completely agree in theory it could work, but it’s just not working technology yet. I haven’t looked recently so hopefully there is a system demonstration out there.
UltraFlex/MegaFlex is rated for 3g acceleration on those satellites even when fanned out, why do you think it would have problems with 0.16g? That's one twentieth of what they're supposed to withstand.
>but that doesn’t work on the moon as it hits 260 degrees Fahrenheit in the day
That's just not the case on the Lunar south pole: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/60707425-2...
> Further you need cables from wherever they are to where up your using power.
High-voltage cables are not that heavy.
> Sure, and that worked wonderfully a lab. But, production systems need to worry about a great deal of stuff that doesn’t apply in a lab setting. I don’t mean this dismissively yes I completely agree in theory it could work, but it’s just not working technology yet.
Of course you don't; you're just disingenuously moving the goalposts.
You seem to be stuck on just one issue, heat is vastly more of an issue than this.
Anyway, flexing isn’t breaking. https://www.americaspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/LIFE...
The actual panel on Mars isn’t flat or particularly big. Now, if we’re assuming the Moon mission is going to be at it’s equator then laying them directly on the lunar surface is fine. But big arrays at an angle need to be rigid or you’re losing poster from a using a worse angle due to the curve, either option means more weight for a given power output.
> That's just not the case on the Lunar south pole
Sure, and that deals with heat but now the solar array needs to deal with being at the poles.
> Sure, and that deals with heat but now the solar array needs to deal with being at the poles.
"Now"? It needed to deal with being at the pole the whole time. There was never an intention to put it elsewhere.
Attaching a beam at one end requires a more rigid structure which is more weight, which is exactly what I said the problem was several times.
> There never was an intention to put it elsewhere.
I just said you could lower weight by laying them flat at the equator. My point was simply that isn’t an option, therefore you they need extra support. Operating closer to the poles has both clear advantages and downsides, access to water is a big benefit but it’s not quite as obvious a choice as often assumed.
Not really because that allows you to omit other parts of the original self-supporting "fanned" structure which formerly had a similar role to that beam. Furthermore you wouldn't be building this structure to withstand 3g like the "stock" UltraFlex/MegaFlex arrays but you'd build it specifically to withstand static 0.16g in one axis for deploying after landing on the Moon. Consequently I very strongly doubt that this would give it "more weight" than the current UltraFlex/MegaFlex arrays already have because you're assuming more weight for a flimsier structure and that just doesn't make any sense, unless you'd assume the use of inferior materials for some reason.
And again even at Mars’s 0.38g it’s already bending. It can clearly survive more force, but not at an optional solar collection angle. Use the same thing on the moon near the poles and sure it’s not going to break, but it’s also not collecting 200W/kg.
So why even mention panel efficiency?
> First actual array output falls over time
You always compensate for it, it's not hard.
> Panels on the moon need to be mounted at an appropriate angle for maximum efficiency, cooling, they need wires to move electric from the panel to your power conversion
All included in that figure.
> electronics to handle that power
That is admittedly not included in that figure but PPUs are still fairly lightweight these days.
> Don’t forget the moon is dealing with days of full sun panels need to maintain low temperatures for efficiency
We've already dealt with these things for geostationary satellites, and those are almost always insolated thanks to their orbit.
> and you can’t just dump all that heat into the moon
On the south pole you most likely can, since even though there's lots of sunlight, the extreme incidence angle means that the surface is disproportionately cool.
> A 50kg array consisting of 25kg of solar panels, at 30% efficiency produces: 25 different 0.2kw panels for 30 percent of the time over 28 days times 24 hours = 25 * 0.200kw * 0.30 * 28 * 24h = 1008 kWh or 1.008 MWh.
Heh? A 50 kg array at 200 W/kg produces 10 kW peak and even at 30% capacity factor generates ~2 MWh in a lunar month: 100.324*29.5 = 2.124 MWh.
> consisting of 25kg of solar panels
I already said that the ~200 W/kg for UltraFlex/MegaFlex arrays includes structures, so there's no "25kg of solar panels". There are in fact no panels at all - on UltraFlex/MegaFlex, individual "naked" cells are attached to the flexible substrate of the array directly.
> I have yet to read about an actual working system over 30% water to hydrogen to water. Do you have any citations or is this assuming some unknown breakthrough?
No, it assumes perfectly standard system components. But here you have NASA's RFC demonstrating 50% efficiency in 2006 (already fifteen years ago!): https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20060008706