For a permanent base on the moon, or anywhere, weight is critical. We need take as little there as possible. Already we are replacing batteries on ISS. How many times have we replaced batteries on Hubble? Imagine how many batteries you will need just to run the outpost. Every five years we will have to boost tons of batteries to the lunar surface. Then so we bury the old toxic batteries on the moon, or do we return them to Earth? What happens if there is a launch failure and toxic chemicals from those batteries are scattered all over the landscape?rogrushton":20orvmta said:I am not a tree hugger by any stretch but we already have the technology to put solar on the ISS so why not use the same thing on the moon.You scruntch them down into the canisters like the ISS and shoot them to the moon on Aries and you unroll them as big as you want. Plus you have to store the radioactive waste somewhere and transport it and handle it and if there is a spill the whole moon is just a rock and not viable for any resources at all. And if or when we leave the moon you take the same solar cells with you. I for one would not want to be the astro or cosmonaut that has to handle that stuff in 1/6th g.
Some solar for redundancy might not be a bad idea, but not for total power. Also, on the moon those huge solar panels are going to be targets for micrometers. I'm not sure about this, but wouldn't the mass of the moon make them more susceptible to meteors than the smaller ISS?
These are some good question for the tree huggers that think only nuclear energy is toxic.