What are the pros and cons of static solar panels in non-atmospheric situation?

[RainDreamer]

I am trying to figure out what uses there could be for solar panels that doesn't have a sun tracking function over ones that does. Note that this applies to both the static panels we get in stock game, and also some modded solar panels that simply doesn't have sun tracking function like the ones in Near Future solar. It is a very general question about the use of solar panels at large.

[Norpo]

Right now? Less weight (and with the stock static panels, complete lackthereof) and if you're making a small probe, the tracking solar panels can actually be considered heavy.

Of course you pay in part count, though for using the non-trackers.

[cantab]

Lightness, compactness, and simplicity. The OX-STAT is massless. Even if it wasn't, it's very light. And you don't need to worry about deploying it. The power generation is enough for many smaller craft.

[Invader Myk]

Early tech unlock

Compared to folding panels they are harder to hit during docking manoeuvres

[The_Rocketeer]

You can't forget to deploy the OX-STAT. Very important.

[herbal space program]

You can't forget to deploy the OX-STAT. Very important.

This very much. There's nothing quite like launching a probe with deployable panels and then forgetting to extend them before running out of juice. D'ooooh!

[tadswana]

As the drag calculations will be more complicated in the KSP 1.0 release, will be interesting to see how this impacts deployable arrays... particularly for very low density (high altitude) work, where in reality they would just get ripped right off.

[John FX]

IIRC they are a bit more efficient in terms of EC/sqft or EC/kilo than the larger panel arrays. You can't knock them off during docking or EVA (as easily). No need to deploy.

They are also useful if you do not need all the EC generated by a 1x6 or 2x3 panel.

As already said, the larger panels weight matters a lot more if you are making small probes.

[Renegrade]

IIRC they are a bit more efficient in terms of EC/sqft or EC/kilo than the larger panel arrays. You can't knock them off during docking or EVA (as easily). No need to deploy.

I haven't run figures for the area, but here's my chart I made for my Horrible Nerf:

//  Stock
//  Panel     EC/ton  Cost/EC
//  OX-STAT      150      133
//  OX-4*        114.286  190
//  SP-*          80      200
//  Gigantor      51.429  166
//  RTG            9.375 4400

"EC" referring to "EC/s" of course.

The "SP" panels are the 'protected ones', and the "OX" ones are not. The folding panels are no match for the OX-STAT and the Gigantor is basically the aerospike of solar arrays (except in terms of part count).

(My Horrible Nerf changes it so that the Gigantor is the best in terms of EC/ton and Cost/EC (being very expensive in that regard), and the OX-STAT the worst, with the mid-range panels in the middle)

[cantab]

Well the OX-STATS should be light because they're literally just a solar panel. The others have the unfolding and tracking mechanisms. Placed round a cylinder as they usually are, OX-STATs will average generating 1/pi of their full capability.

[Renegrade]

Well the OX-STATS should be light because they're literally just a solar panel. The others have the unfolding and tracking mechanisms. Placed round a cylinder as they usually are, OX-STATs will average generating 1/pi of their full capability.

They're also a first-generation panel, if you want to bring realism in. A first generation solar panel on Earth generated about as much power as a wooden board with two wires attached. Possibly less. Also it's not just a solar panel, it has a mounting bracket too, plus it's significantly tougher than the other panels, implying it has non-visible protection (some sort of plate backing, some sort of strong glass covering), or an unusually tough construction. Trust me - I've handled these things without pre-installed backing, and they're about as delicate as anything you could imagine.

Given that the you can do everything in the current stock game save ion drive with a single ox-stat and a handful of batteries, and that you can do that all masslessly.. massive, huge, heavy-handed nerfing isn't just recommended...it's required. Even with heavy nerfing, it can still fill a very roomy niche of maintaining basic power for various craft. Heck you can run one of the 1.7e/min cores off of a single ox-stat in orbit of any stock planet with the stock curve. Even with an inverse-square curve, it still only takes one panel at Jool. There's still plenty of gameplay justification for a low-power, low-efficiency, tough fixed panel.

Thanks to #lolreactionwheels, their facing restriction is largely irrelevant.

[Wabbit]

I like to use them on huge stations. I use IR parts to make my own massive panels with structural plates, that fold and turn. Otherwise, they are tougher, cheaper, lighter, simpler and unlock earlier. Just not as practical.

[Skorpychan]

There's no choice, for me. The static panels go on absolutely EVERYTHING, around the fuel tank. Even if it's got deployable panels, or an RTG.

Just something to keep the lights on, probe cores powered up, and SAS operating until I can deploy something bigger, or fire up an engine.

[Sirrobert]

I always put a few static pannels on everything I launch. And for most crafts, it's more than enough.

Without life support, manned rockets only use power when turning, and the internal batteries are enough for a roundtrip in Kerbin system anyway. A single static pannel is enough to ensure they never run out of power

[Engineer of Stuff]

I always put one on my craft, just in case I forget to deploy my main panels or break all of them.

[tsotha]

They're cheap, you can't forget to deploy them, you can't forget to retract them, they're more durable, and (most importantly) they provide plenty of power for most ships. I used to put the folding panels on all my ships (mostly because they look cool) until I realized I was using only a tiny fraction of the power they were providing. What takes power? Reaction wheels, probe heads, science transmission... average power use is minuscule. Throw on a couple batteries and you're set. Particularly since engines provide power when they're running. You can get to other planets with a couple batteries and no solar cells at all using a T-30.

I really only use the folding panels for Karbonite installations, though you need them for ion thrusters and science labs (assuming you use those items).

[Yasmy]

I think no one mentioned the 2nd best reason to use the OX-STAT (liberally):

They can really make your vessel look snazzy.

Particularly if you lack fancy parts from fancy mod packs.

[kujuman]

I use them mostly in two situations. 1) they line up perfectly around a hexcore in 6x symmetry, getting a classic satellite look. 2) I put a few in protected places on the tops of rovers for emergency power (say I flip and break my extended panels)

[MarvinKitFox]

I am trying to figure out what uses there could be for solar panels that doesn't have a sun tracking function over ones that does. Note that this applies to both the static panels we get in stock game, and also some modded solar panels that simply doesn't have sun tracking function like the ones in Near Future solar. It is a very general question about the use of solar panels at large.

Benefits of large, mobile solar panels: They look cool

Disadvantage: The power/mass ratio is a bit low.

Benefits of the ox-stat flatmount solar panel:

1) won't blow off

2) cheap(ish)

3) Enough power, even from just one, if you are closer than Duna and the panel is pacing the sun.

4) The power/mass ratio is quite high. If fact, it is <<<error divide by zero>>>

[SaturnV]

I seldom use that XL thing due to its awful EC-weight ratio.

Technically speaking the only pos of it is the reduction of parts count and its cooler looking

[Renegrade]

though you need them for ion thrusters and science labs (assuming you use those items).

Nope! A science lab doesn't need folding panels either, slap on a few Z-400s and an ox-stat or two and you're good. You can run low on juice with just one ox-stat, but that's what timewarp is for. And there's nothing stopping you from slapping six (or more!) ox-stats on either side.

Ions are trickier, but you can just #lol-stat spam your way around that too..especially if you have cubic octags unlocked/available. Also you can complete maneuvers on batteries (Z-400 is also #lolmassless!) if you want.

#lolmassless has to go. But even with mass, the #lol-stat is still the best panel assuming you can arrange orientation for it (#lolreactionwheels). Down with #lol-stat!

[cantab]

Regarding reaction wheels, sure you can turn your spacecraft easily enough - when you're controlling it and paying attention. But if it's a probe and it ends up with all the panels facing away from the sun, and you didn't think to lock a battery (or that feature/exploit is stopped), you're boned.

[NASAHireMe]

For really light rovers, you can use the 1x6 extendable panel to flip yourself if your rover is flipped accidentally.

[Sirrobert]

Regarding reaction wheels, sure you can turn your spacecraft easily enough - when you're controlling it and paying attention. But if it's a probe and it ends up with all the panels facing away from the sun, and you didn't think to lock a battery (or that feature/exploit is stopped), you're boned.

That's why you put on multiple pannels facing all directions.

And you will eventually rotate when the planet rotates around the sun. But that doesn't help much when you've got essential manouvers planned (like a capture).

I had that problem once with a manned ship going to the Mun. I always put 2 pannels on the top, but the rocket was facing engine first to the sun, so no power. Fortunatly, popping out for EVA caused some rotation

[Greenfire32]

Pros:

• Can't forget to deploy them

• Super hard to break accidently

• Small surface area. Good for compact designs

Cons:

• Need multiple for efficient use

• Small means less energy gain

• Asymetrical designs risk "black-out" periods of no power