Solar Panels on the Shuttle?

[VR_Dev]

From the looks of it the Space Shuttle doesn't seem to have any solar panels on it. Do they rely fully on batteries? And if so, why wouldn't you want to save weight and just recharge your batteries in space instead of hauling a bunch up there?

This might be a dumb question, but zekes shuttle made me think about it.

[astropapi1]

If I'm not mistaken, they had a fuel cell.

Also, please don't use italic that way, reading your posts feels... weird.

[zekes]

From the looks of it the Space Shuttle doesn't seem to have any solar panels on it. Do they rely fully on batteries? And if so, why wouldn't you want to save weight and just recharge your batteries in space instead of hauling a bunch up there?

This might be a dumb question, but zekes shuttle made me think about it.

http://airplanesandmore.com/prodimages/largeSpace%20Shuttle%20Endeavour.jpg

The space shuttle has fuel cells, if i'm not mistaken.

EDIT: Eerily ninja'd.

[VR_Dev]

Wouldn't solar panels still be lighter? Probably wouldn't generate enough power though.

And hey, I like keeping it classy, you made it wierd

Edited December 12, 2014 by clown_baby

[Sandworm]

If I remember correctly, the fuel cells were tied into the life support. The astronauts drank the water from the fuel cells. It may also have been used for cooling. So the weight math is a little more complicated.

I also remember reading somewhere the size of the solar panels needed would have created serious drag, dramatically shortening Shuttle's on-orbit capabilities and creating instabilities while trying to perform task such as docking or launching satellites. Come to think of it, large solar panels would also have been an issue for the RCS thrusters. They would have ripped them to shreds.

[FishInferno]

If I remember correctly, the fuel cells were tied into the life support. The astronauts drank the water from the fuel cells. It may also have been used for cooling. So the weight math is a little more complicated.

I also remember reading somewhere the size of the solar panels needed would have created serious drag, dramatically shortening Shuttle's on-orbit capabilities and creating instabilities while trying to perform task such as docking or launching satellites. Come to think of it, large solar panels would also have been an issue for the RCS thrusters. They would have ripped them to shreds.

You could put static panels on the wings.

[Camacha]

You could put static panels on the wings.

I am not too sure you would want relatively fragile panels on parts that get inundated in a lot of violence during take off and landing. I thought I saw some pictures of a shuttle with panels on the inside of the bay doors, but after reviewing a couple of pictures those appear to be, in reality, blueish covers or possibly insulation of the doors.

[maltesh]

As I recall the inside of the bay doors is where the Space Shuttles kept their radiators.

[astropapi1]

As I recall the inside of the bay doors is where the Space Shuttles kept their radiators.

You're right, there's no space for solar panels on the cargo bays, and they're not as simple as you'd think in KSP. You have to take care of all the wiring and batteries and stuff.

[Scotius]

Space Shuttle was a poor platform to put solar panels on If they'd been on the outside, lift-off and reentry would put several strain on them. And if they'd been placed inside cargo bay, it would hamper payload operations. But yeah, i was surprised by the lack of even couple of small ones somewhere - just in case

[montyben101]

It has 3 fuel cells, if it loses one it can still land safely but they have to cut the mission short in case they lose another one. Look up when this happened on STS-2

[trekkie_]

I think a separate satellite based power transfer system would probably be better if weight savings was a concern. There's actually a lot of bloat when it comes to weight anyways though. For example, the shuttle reaches nowhere near all its structural limits...which means that's mass that is serving no purpose other than 'just in case' or for longevity.

It costs what....$10,000 to put a pound of mass into earth orbit.....and we've probably put more than a pound worth of things like alcohol in orbit, adding unnecessary costs. There's also some waste in general when it comes to fuel. No booster or first stage is actually 100% empty when it's done with its task, with the reasoning being better safe than sorry. You don't want to end up on 'E' short of your target.

Paying a little more to make sure a whole mission doesn't fail, pays for itself in the long run. That's especially true since most space programs are government funded, and failure after failure would probably shake the confidence of tax payers.....and they'd be less likely to get funding.

[Bill Phil]

NASA up it this point never had solar cells on manned craft. So the Shuttle didn't either.

[Kryten]

NASA up it this point never had solar cells on manned craft. So the Shuttle didn't either.

cough*Skylab*cough

[Nibb31]

Typically, solar panels have mechanical deployment mechanisms, which makes them more failure-prone (that was a lesson learnt from Skylab). They also need to point in direction of the sun, which means either pointing the craft in the proper direction (like Soyuz), which would have been a major annoyance for a vehicle that was supposed to do all sorts of delivery, construction and maintenance jobs, or you need even more mechanical failure points with rotating joints and hinges.

Having them deploy out of the payload bay would have interefered with mission equipment deployment. Having them deploy out of side hatches meant more openings in the heatshield and yet more mechanical failure points.

On the other hand, fuel cells were simpler, lighter, and also provided drinking water. Why bother with solar panels?

[RuBisCO]

Fuel cells made sense for short missions, back before high efficiency solar panels, that and it also doubles as a water source. If your crew is going to go through say several hundred kilograms of water might as well bring it up as H2 and O2 and power the whole mission on it. For example 100 kg of oxygen and hydrogen could provide 5.9 KW of electric power continuously for 14 days (assuming 50% efficiency fuel cells, that means another 5.9 KW of heat) and spit out 100 kg of water for drinking, hygiene, etc. Unless you have water recycling you have to carry the weight of the water up, so the only weight that matters is the fuel cells, storage tanks, piping, radiators, you can reduce radiator and insulator weight and just use the fuel cell waste heat to keep things warm, etc.

[Bill Phil]

cough*Skylab*cough

I was referring to craft that leave the atmosphere and come back in one piece.