Peak of (almost) eternal light close to Moon's South Pole

[h2ouniverse]

<p><font size="2">This article on SDC:</font></p><p><font size="2">http://www.space.com/news/080925-moon-peak-base.html</font></p><p><font size="2">and the abstract: </font></p><p><font size="2">http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EPSC2008/00205/EPSC2008-A-00205-1.pdf?PHPSESSID=2911c1d531df7ae40daff60fd15327b1</font></p><p><font size="2">The predicted values are 97% of illumination time. The 3% are due to a shadow cast by a neighbouring hill. This was based on images from Smart1.</font></p><p><font size="2">Processing images of Kaguya should bring more light (pun intended) to this area.</font></p>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This article on SDC:http://www.space.com/news/080925-moon-peak-base.htmland the abstract: http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EPSC2008/00205/EPSC2008-A-00205-1.pdf?PHPSESSID=2911c1d531df7ae40daff60fd15327b1The predicted values are 97% of illumination time. The 3% are due to a shadow cast by a neighbouring hill. This was based on images from Smart1.Processing images of Kaguya should bring more light (pun intended) to this area. <br />Posted by h2ouniverse</DIV><br /><br />And a nice pun it was <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[franontanaya]

<p>It would be cool to see an estimation of the area of permanent light, and how much solar power could it produce.</p><p>Wouldn't regolith static charge build up to nasty levels in that place?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It would be cool to see an estimation of the area of permanent light, and how much solar power could it produce.Wouldn't regolith static charge build up to nasty levels in that place? <br />Posted by franontanaya</DIV><br /><br />The Solar Arrays should be vertical and rotate as for a satellite.&nbsp;They should accumulate little dust (vertical). &nbsp;They should be at some distance from the ground to avoid electrostatic discharges (that occur on satellites sometimes between the body and the wings).</p><p>In that case the solar flux incoming will be about 1400 W per square meter. An efficiency of more than 20% can be assumed for GaAs cells => >280W per square meter produced.</p>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Solar Arrays should be vertical and rotate as for a satellite.&nbsp;They should accumulate little dust (vertical). &nbsp;They should be at some distance from the ground to avoid electrostatic discharges (that occur on satellites sometimes between the body and the wings).In that case the solar flux incoming will be about 1400 W per square meter. An efficiency of more than 20% can be assumed for GaAs cells => >280W per square meter produced. <br />Posted by h2ouniverse</DIV><br /><br />I think that by the time such arrays will be deployed (a decade or more from now) the efficiency will be greater than 20%. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think that by the time such arrays will be deployed (a decade or more from now) the efficiency will be greater than 20%. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />I agree. But I had to be conservative...</p><p>Cheers.</p>