Slashdot Log In
ISS Goes Solar
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Jun 13, 2007 07:29 PM
from the no-clouds-in-space dept.
from the no-clouds-in-space dept.
SumDog writes "The international space station's newest power source, a set of solar wings, made its debut yesterday. The solar array is part of a new 17.5-ton space station segment that was connected to the orbiting outpost during a spacewalk Monday."
Related Stories
[+]
Space Station Partners Bicker Over Closure Date 222 comments
jcdick1 writes "The current partners in the ISS are in discussion regarding the closure date of the space station, even though it still has not been fully assembled. 'The United States insists it will pull out of the station at the end of 2015 while Russia wants its life prolonged, said European Space Agency (ESA) chief Jean-Jacques Dordain at an astronautics congress in Hyderabad, southern India. NASA administrator Michael Griffin has told space station partners that the US agency has no plans for "utilization and exploitation" of the science research lab for more than five years after it is completed, Dordain said.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
It's good to see ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's good to see ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think that the price of gas is expensive at the boat dock, you should see the bill for delivering a tankful 200 miles in the sky.
Re:Wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
The main reason to not want to emit greenhouse gases is the "cost" of global warming. You will notice that people who view that cost as very high: already use solar panels and live "off the grid", and people who think that cost is a joke: drive Hummers with the A/C on and the windows down. NASA, like everyone else, is going with the lowest percieved cost.
Off Grid? (Score:5, Funny)
<ducks>
Thank you, I'll be here all week!
Well (Score:4, Informative)
I mean... Tree-huggers everywhere would have been screaming for years if it did run on nuclear (and, quite probably, we don't have the required technology anyway).
Re:Well (Score:4, Informative)
To give sufficient power for the upcoming components and experiments.
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
Nuclear power and spacecraft (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RTG_radiation_m easurement.jpg [wikipedia.org]
Re:Well (Score:4, Funny)
Or at least that's what the manufacturer says. And if you had a $40 M contract you'd say the same. We'll only really find out in 30 years when the guy in charge of the probe suddenly goes "where the hell did my probe go?" one Wednesday morning.
All your voltage are belong to us.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Juno is slated to go into Jupiter orbit. Solar may be useable out to Jupiter. The panels have to increase in size proportional to the distance from the sun squared... The weight increases exponentially. To reach past Jupiter it becomes impossible (practically) to launch that much mass from the ground. If you want 1kW of power at Saturn or maybe the Kuiper belt you have to use nuclear. If Voyager 1 and 2, launched in 1977, were powered by solar, even using these new panels, we would not still be receiving telemetry from it. Voyager 1 is currently is currently 18 times farther from the sun than Jupiter. Voyager 2 is currently 15 times farther from the sun than Jupiter. Both are studying the boundary of our solar system.
Yeah, I suspect much of the advances in solar technology have come out of NASA's budget. This is the kind of area where NASA and DOE spending feeds back obvious results.
I get frustrated as well when people protest launching nuclear powered spacecraft. The probability of an accident is extremely small. The probability of that accident affecting populated areas is smaller. The effect would be insignificant barring an explosion at the launch tower; and, that would be contained to the area around the base. If people are going to make the argument against, I wish they would do it with real numbers. If you're going to argue that "it's bad" then show me how bad and show me how that level of "bad" compares to the safety standards...
I do like this link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RTG_radiation_Make them bigger.... (Score:4, Funny)
What was it running on before? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Here's a real link. (Score:5, Informative)
Odd there's no mention of the computer hack (Score:5, Informative)
If the station couldn't align the solar panels toward the sun for each days charge, then it would only be a matter of time before the batteries died, and without power nothing on the station will work, nothing.
Re: So what you're really trying to say is.. (Score:5, Funny)
The best source of information. (Score:5, Informative)
You can go here [nasa.gov] and get much better, more detailed information about the solar panels, the crew, the rest of the mission, watch live video, etc. Your tax dollars pay for it, you should use it.
It is the most comprehensive site for news in information regarding, imagine this, NASA. The only instance where it's probably not appropriate is when there is some requirement for investigative reporting, otherwise, things like the Boston Globe are likely to give the watered down, science lite AP version of what NASA tells them.
A far cooler aspect. (Score:5, Informative)
Incredibly cool to be able to see something in space and visually identify it.
Re:For once, I read the article, and I see... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How could they not? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)