4 ms·

Wouldn't solar panels on the moon be easier? No atmosphere and on always being blasted with sunshine.

josh11b 4y ago
There is no place on the moon that isn't in shadow 14 days at a time. https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/07/03/powering-the-lunar-base-version-2/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/07/03/powering-the-l...
- amelius 4y ago
  Near the poles?
  - Fordec 4y ago
    Only works if your bases are at the poles. Which for some missions works, but it's a limitation if your project needs to be anywhere else.
    - Nomentatus 4y ago
      https://futurism.com/the-byte/harvard-super-tall-towers-power-moon-base https://futurism.com/the-byte/harvard-super-tall-towers-powe... There's a famous-in-the-area ex-NASA blogger with good (not perfect) articles on the topic, but I can't Google and find him 'cause authoritative institutions now seems to trump and drown out mere experts on Google. Others here cite him: https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/08/17/blog-series-countering-misconceptions-in-space-journalism/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/08/17/blog-series-co...
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  Maybe use solar panels to split lunar ice water in to hydrogen and oxygen, then use that to run fuel cells in the dark periods.
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    14 days of lunar night would get quite cold. Maybe you could use the bases' water tanks as thermal batteries.
- Nomentatus 4y ago
  Tall lunar pole towers: https://futurism.com/the-byte/harvard-super-tall-towers-power-moon-base https://futurism.com/the-byte/harvard-super-tall-towers-powe... Maybe better: nuke the moon and reduce a few key crater rims, then use much shorter towers. Could be that a series of regular bombs might be more effective and less likely to "alarm the horses (general public.)"
- ehnto 4y ago
  Given the satellites need to be geostationary, don't they have the same issue? I know due to the higher altitude you would get more time in the sun but I feel like even one to two days would be too much distruption (2 days battery storage would be crazy expensive to send up but maybe that equation changes one day)
- napier 4y ago
  Beam the power around the moon from where it's sunny at any given time to wherever needs it, using phased array orbital substation reciever-transmitters. No atmospheric interference to result in high rates of transmission loss. Might prove cost efficient.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Wouldn't solar panels on the moon be easier? Dust.
- nakedrobot2 4y ago
  there is no wind on the moon.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > there is no wind on the moon There is near a Moon base, which is presumably where you’d need power.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      "Near" is a relative term; 10 km is a rounding error for resistive losses even in a mediocre cable at unspectacular voltages, even 1000 km isn't much loss for an HVDC cable, and it's economically reasonable to loop the moon with a 600Ω conductor if SpaceX's Starship price estimate works out.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        I was going to rebut with distance and maintenance, but it's a hell of a lot easier to go 10km over than 10km up. (I think?) > it's economically reasonable to loop the moon with a 600Ω conductor Could you generate nontrivial power from the Moon's motion through the Earth's magnetic field?
        WJW 4y ago
        My gut feeling says that it is not impossible but you would probably need many loops around the moon to generate a sufficient coil, making the whole thing cost prohibitive. You could probably dot some solar farms around the equator of the moon and loop them all up with a big cable for a fraction of the price.
        ben_w 4y ago
dirkc 4y ago
Two reasons I can think of 1. A moon day is 28 earth days, thus 14 days of darkness 2. Ice are in permanently shaded areas near the poles of the moon, it might be easier to setup satellites to beam down power rather than setting up in 2 locations
elil17 4y ago
In addition to what others have said, it takes more fuel/energy to land a payload on the moon than it does to orbit one.

There is no place on the moon that isn't in shadow 14 days at a time. https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/07/03/powering-the-lunar-base-version-2/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/07/03/powering-the-l...

amelius 4y ago
Near the poles?
- Fordec 4y ago
  Only works if your bases are at the poles. Which for some missions works, but it's a limitation if your project needs to be anywhere else.
  - Nomentatus 4y ago
    https://futurism.com/the-byte/harvard-super-tall-towers-power-moon-base https://futurism.com/the-byte/harvard-super-tall-towers-powe... There's a famous-in-the-area ex-NASA blogger with good (not perfect) articles on the topic, but I can't Google and find him 'cause authoritative institutions now seems to trump and drown out mere experts on Google. Others here cite him: https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/08/17/blog-series-countering-misconceptions-in-space-journalism/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/08/17/blog-series-co...
TaylorAlexander 4y ago
Maybe use solar panels to split lunar ice water in to hydrogen and oxygen, then use that to run fuel cells in the dark periods.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  14 days of lunar night would get quite cold. Maybe you could use the bases' water tanks as thermal batteries.
Nomentatus 4y ago
Tall lunar pole towers: https://futurism.com/the-byte/harvard-super-tall-towers-power-moon-base https://futurism.com/the-byte/harvard-super-tall-towers-powe... Maybe better: nuke the moon and reduce a few key crater rims, then use much shorter towers. Could be that a series of regular bombs might be more effective and less likely to "alarm the horses (general public.)"
ehnto 4y ago
Given the satellites need to be geostationary, don't they have the same issue? I know due to the higher altitude you would get more time in the sun but I feel like even one to two days would be too much distruption (2 days battery storage would be crazy expensive to send up but maybe that equation changes one day)
napier 4y ago
Beam the power around the moon from where it's sunny at any given time to wherever needs it, using phased array orbital substation reciever-transmitters. No atmospheric interference to result in high rates of transmission loss. Might prove cost efficient.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> Wouldn't solar panels on the moon be easier? Dust.

nakedrobot2 4y ago
there is no wind on the moon.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > there is no wind on the moon There is near a Moon base, which is presumably where you’d need power.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    "Near" is a relative term; 10 km is a rounding error for resistive losses even in a mediocre cable at unspectacular voltages, even 1000 km isn't much loss for an HVDC cable, and it's economically reasonable to loop the moon with a 600Ω conductor if SpaceX's Starship price estimate works out.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      I was going to rebut with distance and maintenance, but it's a hell of a lot easier to go 10km over than 10km up. (I think?) > it's economically reasonable to loop the moon with a 600Ω conductor Could you generate nontrivial power from the Moon's motion through the Earth's magnetic field?
      - WJW 4y ago
        My gut feeling says that it is not impossible but you would probably need many loops around the moon to generate a sufficient coil, making the whole thing cost prohibitive. You could probably dot some solar farms around the equator of the moon and loop them all up with a big cable for a fraction of the price.
      - ben_w 4y ago

dirkc 4y ago

Two reasons I can think of 1. A moon day is 28 earth days, thus 14 days of darkness 2. Ice are in permanently shaded areas near the poles of the moon, it might be easier to setup satellites to beam down power rather than setting up in 2 locations

elil17 4y ago

In addition to what others have said, it takes more fuel/energy to land a payload on the moon than it does to orbit one.