3 ms·

>The build cost of the ISS arrays was around $300 million (space PV is way more expensive than terrestrial). That was 20 years ago, on a government contract, f

>The build cost of the ISS arrays was around $300 million (space PV is way more expensive than terrestrial). That was 20 years ago, on a government contract, for panels that must survive the rigors of actual space. Panel manufacturing costs have dropped almost 10x since then, and the environment (assumed under the protection of martian atmosphere) which they will operate will be far less extreme than Earth orbit, necessitating less expensive materials. I'm not so sure your numbers account for this.

davedx 9y ago
Good points. They do need to be tough enough to withstand Martian dust storms, but apparently they aren't as bad as they look due to the low atmospheric pressure. I read the biggest problem is cleaning the dust off them.
Kubuxu 9y ago
Space applications use single crystal GaAs (Gallium arsenide) process instead of wide spread c-Si (Crystalline silicon, currently usually multi-Si), due to their superior performance and weight. Process of producing c-Si panels has become a lot cheaper but this doesn't apply to GaAs process.
- philipkglass 9y ago
  The International Space Station's solar array is crystalline silicon: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/solar_arrays.html#.WV0s5dPytE4 https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/element... Space applications are now mostly using triple-junction cells with GaAs as one of the layers. Spectrolab, Azur Space, and SolAero's product lines are dominated by triple-junction cells. Azur Space also still sells space-qualified silicon cells (lower efficiency and much lower radiation tolerance, but cheaper): http://www.azurspace.com/images/pdfs/0002162-00-03_DB_SIA.pdf http://www.azurspace.com/images/pdfs/0002162-00-03_DB_SIA.pd... The Martian radiation environment is mild enough that crystalline silicon might still be competitive if you needed large stationary arrays. But on the Martian surface, where you can't rely on near-constant sunlight, nuclear is going to be tough to beat. (Orbiters are a much better match with solar.)

davedx 9y ago

Good points. They do need to be tough enough to withstand Martian dust storms, but apparently they aren't as bad as they look due to the low atmospheric pressure. I read the biggest problem is cleaning the dust off them.

Kubuxu 9y ago

Space applications use single crystal GaAs (Gallium arsenide) process instead of wide spread c-Si (Crystalline silicon, currently usually multi-Si), due to their superior performance and weight. Process of producing c-Si panels has become a lot cheaper but this doesn't apply to GaAs process.

philipkglass 9y ago
The International Space Station's solar array is crystalline silicon: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/solar_arrays.html#.WV0s5dPytE4 https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/element... Space applications are now mostly using triple-junction cells with GaAs as one of the layers. Spectrolab, Azur Space, and SolAero's product lines are dominated by triple-junction cells. Azur Space also still sells space-qualified silicon cells (lower efficiency and much lower radiation tolerance, but cheaper): http://www.azurspace.com/images/pdfs/0002162-00-03_DB_SIA.pdf http://www.azurspace.com/images/pdfs/0002162-00-03_DB_SIA.pd... The Martian radiation environment is mild enough that crystalline silicon might still be competitive if you needed large stationary arrays. But on the Martian surface, where you can't rely on near-constant sunlight, nuclear is going to be tough to beat. (Orbiters are a much better match with solar.)