the butterfly-shaped solar panels are beautiful but NOT safe

gaetanomarano · 2007-05-11 19:56:59

.

the Orion's "butterfly" shaped solar panels are original and beautiful but could be a RISK (for the astronauts and/or the mission) if something goes wrong, so, in my latest article I suggest to SPLIT them in two modules and (also) to adopt a "DAISY" shaped design:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/02 … anels.html

.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2007-05-11 22:58:30

A flower shape would be more expensive, the whole idea at this point in time is also to reduce weight

gaetanomarano · 2007-05-12 02:45:55

A flower shape would be more expensive, the whole idea at this point in time is also to reduce weight

the new "printed film" solar panels are very very light and low cost (in the order of hundreds dollars, not million$)

the advantage of my (daisy shape + side panels + extra redundancy) design is that, also with a few failed or damaged "petals", the full system still works safely (and the $10 billion moon mission doesn't need to abort)

.

GCNRevenger · 2007-05-12 06:26:27

If the panels are arrayed around the capsule, how will they track the sun?

Also, thin-film cheap solar cells won't survive the 6mo radiation soak in Lunar orbit I bet, so what they cost is irrelevant. They are also typically far less efficient.

gaetanomarano · 2007-05-12 07:14:09

If the panels are arrayed around the capsule, how will they track the sun?

the Orion (like the Apollo) will rotate slowly to avoid the surface's overheating, also (in my proposal) the solar panels are 100% redundant to give twice the system's required power

Also, thin-film cheap solar cells won't survive the 6mo radiation soak in Lunar orbit I bet, so what they cost is irrelevant. They are also typically far less efficient.

since the Orion will fly to the moon in 2020 (the 2015 orbital missions will be less risky) NASA could use the BEST technology available

however, the solar cells are the most lighter and cheaper parts of the (very expensive) Orion but (in the same time) the MOST IMPORTANT part for the LIFE of the astronauts and the capsule, then (both) their price and weight don't matter!

and, about the safety of the "butterfly" design, this is a comment by Craig Fink posted on my groups.google.sci.space.policy thread: "Nice paper. Looks like Orion violates NASA redundancy policy on the Shuttle. It's not fail operational, fail safe. First failure, half the power to the Capsule is gone. Second failure, the other half is gone. And it can occur half way across the Solar System." (like Mars...)

.

gaetanomarano · 2007-05-12 18:04:45

.

it's REALLY INCREDIBLE that NASA and LockMart have adopted the "buttrefly" solar panels (below) since its design is the LESS RELIABLE we can imagine!!!

EACH panel has TEN "hinges", that, after the SM fairing is jettisoned, must deploy (ALL) with the BEST PRECISION then must be FIRMLY joined at opposite ends!!!

also, everything MUST work FINE and REMAIN in their operational position for the ENTIRE (two weeks to six months) Orion flight in space and after ALL accelerations, braking, maneuverings, etc. since, if its juncture will fail, the panel will "bend back" on itself and don't open again!

the "butterfly" has over 26 probabilities to fail !!!!! (20 "hinges" + 2 panel's juncture + 2 inclination mechanics + 2 orientation systems)

never seen something more complex and less reliable than an Orion's "butterfly"!!!

.

GCNRevenger · 2007-05-12 21:00:50

"Its soooooooo unreliable! Yaaaargh!" (insert Howard Dean scream here)

Yes and I suppose all those dozens of communications satellites with a dozen hinges in their rectangular solar arrays are "very very not reliable!!11!1" too, since those are like, you know, square instead of round.

Oh and Orion won't be "slowly rotating" or any such nonsense, it will have plenty of radiator capacity to sit nice and still. Apollo had the luxury since it was powered by fuel cells, Orion does not, and so it won't.

100% redundant solar arrays also means 100% extra mass, doubling the mass of the system. Orion is now slimmed down nearly to the kilograms of target payload weight, and you want to go slap several hundred more kilos on there? Brilliant.

Orion doesn't even need both arrays for operational power, all you really have to do is run the RCS system, fire the SM engine, and thats all. Losing half the power is not good, but its not fatal either. Once the SM has fired, the capsule can simply coast back to Earth.

As far as being "on the other side of the solar system!!11!111!1" is silly, the Orion CM only would be used for Mars, and then only in the last hours of the return trip. It wouldn't even have to have any power at all probably, except to pop the parachutes. If the Orion is used for other missions, it will need a booster module of some kind launched separately, and since it is sent up separately, it must have its own power source. There is the backup right there.

gaetanomarano · 2007-05-14 06:32:39

...dozens of communications satellites with a dozen hinges in their rectangular solar arrays...

- all comm sats fly unmanned, so, no matter if a too complex design fails
- comm sats' prices are in the order of 100s M$ while each moon mission costs in the order of billion$$$
- all comm sats' flights are insured, so, if they die in space or explode a lift-off, nothing too bad will happen
- the sats launched so far are thousands (hundreds still operational) while the moon missions will be 12 in the next 20 years
- ALL missions away from earth have a very high risk (by itself) while, if an Orion fail in LEO, the astronauts can re-enter in hours
- the Orion "butterfly" has TWICE the complexity of the (already very complex) example sat you posted, since it has TWICE the hinges, a different (and never used before) shape, a more complex deploy movement, etc. so it could be WAYS unreliable vs. a sat solar panel !

Orion won't be "slowly rotating" ... it will have plenty of radiator capacity

the "butterfly" is less reliable than other designs WITH or WITHOUT a rotating-Orion, also, if the Orion doesn't rotate for itself, it must rotate for the docked LSAM that will have big cryogenic LOX/LH2 tanks exposed to the sun that risks to boil off

100% redundant solar arrays also means 100% extra mass

- astronauts and mission survival are 1000 times more important than save a few kg. of payload mass
- I'm sure that also the "buttrefly" design already has some (30%, 50% or more) redundancy (so nothing change)
- to-day's solar panels are very light and efficient and the panels available in the next 10 years will be BETTER
- the Orion's overweight problems are in the order of TONS not kg. ...

Orion doesn't even need both arrays for operational power, all you really have to do is run the RCS system, fire the SM engine, and thats all. Losing half the power is not good, but its not fatal either. Once the SM has fired, the capsule can simply coast back to Earth.

I've already said that... lose ONE of the wings will be not a risk for the astronauts... but a multi-billion$$$ mission (of 12 available...) will FAIL (and for a very stupid reason: "the crazy butterfly")

Orion CM only would be used for Mars

if (e.g.) the very complex Orion's buttrefly will fail to deploy after the launch, the multi-multi-billion$$$ Mars mission could fail before it starts!!!

it's stupid and absurd to adopt a so complex and unreliable design while many other reliable design could be used !

.

RedStreak · 2007-05-14 08:08:45

.
the Orion's "butterfly" shaped solar panels are original and beautiful

Hardly original. They're obviously modeled after the Phoenix lander's own solar arrays.

GCNRevenger · 2007-05-14 11:46:00

Oh how you whine and moan

Communications satellites are reliable, their folding solar arrays have worked on hundreds of satellites for decades with essentially zero failures. The hinged solar arrays are absolutely not a reliability problem, even if they have twice the number of hinges. Furthermore, the arrays will be deployed and locked into the deployed position before the Orion capsule ever leaves Earth orbit. They just aren't going to spontaneously un-deploy in Lunar orbit or something.

More nonsense about Orion having to spin with the LSAM. Why would it have to do that? Its fuel tanks will be well insulated. Not a problem either. Things that spin are more difficult to dock, so it makes little sense to spin the things.

About "astronauts must not be risked!!111!111!" stuff, look, the only way to never expose the astronauts to risk is to never even let them on the launch pad. The Orion already has a 100% redundancy with the solar arrays, and the only time with real chance for damage is when they are deployed after launch, so the crew will know if there is a problem before leaving Earth orbit.

Its is simple nonsense to assert that the round solar arrays are somehow "sooo baaaadd!11!11" while rectangular ones are not: these arrays must be gimbaled, so you can't just place small panels around the skirt of the SM, they have to be deployable and "stick out" from the vehicle. Square or round, makes little difference, except the round one is a little lighter. Hundreds of small-array satellites to date with a dozen hinges each means thousands of hinges, virtually all of them performing perfectly.

gaetanomarano · 2007-05-15 06:51:55

Furthermore, the arrays will be deployed and locked into the deployed position before the Orion capsule ever leaves Earth orbit.

since there are many simpler and most reliable designs/shapes (than butterflies) there are NO rational reasons to risk a LOM just to defend a "SHAPE" (not a technology!)

...about Orion having to spin with the LSAM...

I don't know if the Orion+LSAM will spin or not (the Apollo spinned flying) however, more reliable (than butterfly) solar arrays can be designed for a spinning or non-spinning Orion

...the only time with real chance for damage is when they are deployed...

when will be TOO LATE to save a multi-billion$$$ mission KILLED by a so little and stupid problem

...simple nonsense to assert...

the ONLY nonsense here is your strong defence of a "SHAPE" (not a technology!) vs. other simpler and most reliable designs!

...these arrays must be gimbaled...

the "butterfly" is NOT the "ONLY" (nor the simplest and most reliable) way to have an efficient sun exposition of the solar panels

.

GCNRevenger · 2007-05-15 07:13:03

You don't know what you are talking about

The choice is between regular rigid rectangular arrays (like on the Boeing 700 satellite above) or the circular "umbrella" style ones called for by NASA. There is a difference between them, that for the rectangular option the panels must all be rigid, and the structure required to make them rigid takes up mass.

The circular "umbrella" style ones on the other hand, like an umbrella, only the frame needs to be rigid and the cells can have a flexible backing. This technology is not new either, and is presently in use on the ISS main solar arrays. Rigid frame, but flexible-backed cells, means more area per kilo.

The round umbrella shape is better for small arrays if using the flexible-backed cells, only needing a small umbrella-like structure instead of a thicker rectangular frame.

It isn't just a shape, its a technology. Flexible-backed silicon cells offer more power per kilo than traditional satellite-style all-rigid arrays. Thats a pretty rational reason.

when will be TOO LATE to save a multi-billion$$$ mission KILLED by a so little and stupid problem

Nonsense, they will be plenty reliable. If they are safe enough for a manned vehicle, they should be plenty reliable for the mission. You are just waving your arms and trying to convince us by shear hyperventilation. You don't know, but I think NASA does know better than you.

Oh, and we know Orion won't spin, because it has to be solar powered.

SpaceNut · 2007-05-16 12:07:32

The square panels so close to the body of the ship will mean that they will be in the shadow of the capsule with nearly half almost not getting any light except for when the ship is pointed directly at the sun. The panels would also be blocked by the LSAM as it heads towards the moon since they face forward towards the top of the capsule. Adding a pivit point to allow for them to turn towards the back still only allows for some to half to recieve light on its journey.

The Nasa panels extend farther from the body and have the ability to pivit and rotation of the ship and the panels make it possible for them to recieve much more light under either senario.

GCNRevenger · 2007-05-16 12:26:41

They will also be very difficult to gimbal to track the sun, further reducing effectiveness. With the "daisy" configuration, you would need the extra area just to make up for it.

gaetanomarano · 2007-05-19 08:25:20

...flexible-backed cells...

now, ALL solar panels can be built with thin and light film cells, then, ALL panels (with EVERY shapes and dimensions) and their supports (also thanks to zero-G) are very light, so, we they can choice the best shape wthout any sensibl weight penalty

in the first UPDATE of my "Orion's Solar Panels" article (with two new images and one animation) I've published a BETTER (and MOST RELIABLE) alternative to the Orion's "butterfly" ...the "Sails" shaped solar arrays:

www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/027solarpanels.html

they looks like a double-Soyuz array, but have four gimbals that rotate the panels (like four "sails") to point them towards the sun to have the max energy possible

...we know Orion won't spin, because it has to be solar powered...

the Orion will rotate like Apollo and I explain why in my second article's update:

www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/027solarpanels.html

and this is the second version of my "Sails" shaped solar panels for a rotating Orion:

About the (current) Orion's "butterfly" design, to-day I've seen a NASA drawing of the Orion's SM rear that shows the dimensions of the rigid modules joined to the gimbals.

Well, its not 1/10th but 1/20th the wing's circumference!

In other words, each wing has 20 hinges (not ten!) half of them on the front side of the wing (visible in the Orion image published here) and the second half in the rear (hidden) side of it!

Then, the two wings of the Orion's "butterfly" have a total of 40 segments/slices and 40 hinges + six other moving-parts (the wing's locking systems and two x/z-axis gimbals) that (ALL) may FAIL, killing a $10Bn moon mission since just ONE defective hinge could HINDE the entire wing to deploy properly!

.

GCNRevenger · 2007-05-19 23:15:04

now, ALL solar panels can be built with thin and light film cells, then, ALL panels (with EVERY shapes and dimensions) and their supports (also thanks to zero-G) are very light, so, we they can choice the best shape wthout any sensibl weight penalty

That is not true, that is a lie. Thin film cells are only good for very large (100s of square meters) arrays that aren't subjected to cosmic radiation. And their support structures cannot be too light weight, otherwise they will be unable to withstand rotational stresses. You are just waving a magic wand to make as big a solar array as you want no matter the weight, which is nonsense. If you double the array area, you will roughly double the array mass.

Your "Option #2" is silly simply because the Service Module isn't that long. There is no room to accommodate four such arrays, and even if it did now you have four deployment mechanisms instead of two like NASA's design. Deployment is in fact the most dangerous time for a solar panel. And you double this risk as well as increasing mass, even if it would fit which it won't.

Your "Option #3" is even worse, because unless the capsule is pointed directly at or away from the sun, there is no possible orientation that gives you more than two arrays aligned with the sun. Its a stupid design, even by your standards.

Your assertion that Orion must rotate to keep cool is just a stupid lie, the radiators will have more capacity than Apollo's, and thus no spinning is required. Furthermore, because it is much harder if not impractical to align the solar panels with the sun when you are spinning, this means the solar-powered Orion will not be spinning. Apollo didn't have solar panels, so it had the capability to spin, but Orion does not.

I can just imagine your wild-eyed hyperventilation reaching a crescendo with this stuff about "40 HINGES SO BAD!!!11`!!1" until your eyes bug out so much they pop right out of your head. Its just a hinge, and even if one fails, that doesn't mean the array will not deploy since the adjacent spars would stretch out the array if there were a failure anyway.

This is unlike your "VERY RELIABLE1!!!1!1" rectangular arrays, where if one of the hinges fails, the whole array is no good.

But I digress, if we can't do something simple like make solar arrays that deploy reliably, then we don't have any business flying to the Moon or anywhere until we do.

And finally, I reject your absurd $10 Billion figure for the cost of a Lunar mission. M. Griffin clearly states that the approximate marginal cost is only about one billion. A 1000% markup is lunacy, I spit on your ridiculous, pathetic slander against NASA.

gaetanomarano · 2007-05-20 01:27:01

...array mass...

the "array mass" is a minute fraction of the (giant) Orion+SM mass (but VERY important for the astronauts and missions survival) then, they can use the shape they want

...four deployment mechanisms...

the butterfly has FORTY "deployment mechanisms" (since EACH hinge must work perfectly for a correct deploy)

...there is no possible orientation that gives you more than two arrays aligned with the sun...

the option #3 is for a ROTATING Orion to have (at least) two panels always pointed the sun
also, the Orion will fly just 3+3 days under the "full sun" while, in earth and lunar orbit, they will be half time in the light and half time in the dark, then, a panels+batteries system designed to work with HALF light will CERTAINLY works well when it will fly under TWICE the light

...the radiators will have more capacity than Apollo's...

3+ full days with over 300 °C between the hottest and the coldest side of the Orion/SM/LSAM are too much to avoid damages, then, the Orion will rotate
however, I've published two versions of my Sails-panels for a rotating or non-rotating vehicle

...just a hinge, and even if one fails...

the mechanical parts are the #1 problem of every system since they're teh first that can/may fail... then, more hinges = more risk to fail... also, to start a ($10Bn) mission SAFELY both panels must be LOCKED and that can't happen if (just) ONE hinge will fail

...your absurd $10 Billion figure for the cost of a Lunar mission...

first of all, I've alreday stated why I think each mission will cost this price (all inclusive, of course) and I don't want to repeat it again (no matter if you like my evaluation, or not)
abot the "money lost" the problem of the ESAS is VERY MUCH WORSE since, if just ONE vital system (the butterfly panels, the LSAM ascent stage engine, the 1.5 launches architecture, one of the rockets, etc.) will fail too much times, the ENTIRE $125-230Bn plan will be LOST

...M. Griffin clearly states that the approximate marginal cost...

Mr. Griffin has evaluated the Hubble Servicing 4 mission "marginal cost" around $200M ...but that price was so "marginal" for a Shuttle flight (just the SRB+ET prices) that the GAO professionals have evaluated that single mission between 1.7 and 2.4 billion$$$

.

cIclops · 2007-05-20 02:54:24

Mr. Griffin has evaluated the Hubble Servicing 4 mission "marginal cost" around $200M ...but that price was so "marginal" for a Shuttle flight (just the SRB+ET prices) that the GAO professionals have evaluated that single mission between 1.7 and 2.4 billion$$$

Have you got a reference for that?

Marginal cost is real. It's the additional money that NASA has to pay to do the mission. Of course NASA has an army of internal contractors that also have to be paid to keep STS operational and currently that's about $4 B a year. As there are only 4 or 5 launches per year, it makes a huge difference when these fixed costs are added to the marginal cost of a mission. This is exactly why the new system must not have these enormous fixed costs and Ares I is being designed to minimize them but not to the point of reducing safety. That is a very difficult trade. If NASA lose another crew, no one will thank them for saving money.

GCNRevenger · 2007-05-20 06:49:07

You say that the array mass is a small fraction of the vehicle mass, yet you say in the next breath that Orion is only ~10% too heavy. If the array mass comprises a few percent of this total, does that not make it significant?

And you say that the round arrays called for by NASA have "40" deployment motors/latches, do you have any proof of this? Where is your proof that array spar must be motorized? And you say that if even one of them fails, the array cannot deploy, but that is not true either; if one of the motors does not work, the two on either side could stretch the undeployed section of the array out to compensate. It is an inherently fault-tolerant design, unlike your favored rectangular arrays.

And you wave your arms some more about how harmless four arrays in an "X" shape are just fine, plus you want to throw in some more batteries, but these would certainly add a few hundred kilos and make the mass situation worse. In any event, the simple fact is that half the solar arrays, no matter if you are in any orbit of any altitude or inclination, will be totally wasted. Half of them will produce no power at all, and just be dead weight. How dumb.

3+ full days with over 300 °C between the hottest and the coldest side of the Orion/SM/LSAM are too much to avoid damages

Says you. Most of Orion's exterior will be made from composites or from insulated heat panels that will keep Orion from heating up, and the LSAM won't be able to spin on the Lunar surface where it will be under "300C" heating for two weeks plus continuously. NASA has included plenty of radiator power for Orion (they really are quite substantial) and boiloff ullage for LSAM, this is not a problem.

SAFELY both panels must be LOCKED and that can't happen if (just) ONE hinge will fail

Why won't it be safe if one of the hinges fails to lock after deployment? How is the array going to spontaneously "undeploy?" That is a rhetorical question by the way, and again see above the array could deploy with one or even several of the spar motors failing.

And you don't seem to understand the difference between marginal and marginal + overhead costs at all. Which is not surprising, since it is a fairly simple topic, I shouldn't expect it of you. NASA has cited marginal costs for the Hubble mission while the GAO cites marginal + overhead. The GAO's number is meaningless because the Hubble parts have already been fabricated and it would only cost a little more to fly Shuttle to Hubble then it would for one orbiter to sit in a hanger.

I digress, even with your stunted understanding, $10Bn per mission is lunacy, the entire manned flight budget isn't even $10Bn, and NASA won't be pouring the entire thing in just building one set of Moon rockets a year. Again, even just from an objective viewpoint from someone who knows nothing of space travel, a 1000% difference is insane. Even spreading the development and overhead dollars across each mission would not even reach half that that figure.

the ENTIRE $125-230Bn plan will be LOST

Lastly, where in the heck did this come from? If one mission gets scrubbed the entire VSE is instantly destroyed? You're insane.

gaetanomarano · 2007-05-20 07:21:21

...got a reference...

I don't save the links of all pages I read, but I'll search it again

Marginal cost is real.

the price of the SRB+ET in a Shuttle flight is so "marginal" like the price of the gasoline in an Indy race
.

gaetanomarano · 2007-05-20 07:55:51

..."40" deployment motors...

no, the wings will have 40 hinges (that ALL must work properly) not 40 motors, but, if they have 40 motors, its reliability will be further reduced

...some more batteries...

great part of the Orion flights (weeks or months) will be in earth and lunar orbit where the panels will receive the light just half the time and not even with the right inclination, so, the batteries will be sized for THAT (worse) situation, then, Orion don't need any extra battery for the (full light) 3+3 days earth-moon-earth travels

...plenty of radiator power for Orion...

there is no advantage to cover the full SM surface with radiators if half of them will remain 3+ days at +150°C
the day on the moon is 14 days but not all with the same inclination of the sun (and the same temperature)
also, I've read that NASA studies some thermal protections for the long stay hardware on the moon

marginal + overhead

both are REAL money, then REAL costs

...$10Bn per mission is lunacy...

you're right since its based on the (optimistic) NASA evluations ($125Bn / 12 missions) ...the real price (including inflation, cost growt, etc.) will be up to twice this figure

If one mission gets scrubbed the entire VSE is instantly destroyed?

no, if one mission will fail the ESAS plan will have some years of delay, but, if the ESAS hardware will shows too much design flaws, it will need to be redesigned or could be deleted
.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2007-05-11 19:56:59

Re: the butterfly-shaped solar panels are beautiful but NOT safe

#2 2007-05-11 22:58:30

Re: the butterfly-shaped solar panels are beautiful but NOT safe

#3 2007-05-12 02:45:55

Re: the butterfly-shaped solar panels are beautiful but NOT safe

#4 2007-05-12 06:26:27

Re: the butterfly-shaped solar panels are beautiful but NOT safe

#5 2007-05-12 07:14:09

Re: the butterfly-shaped solar panels are beautiful but NOT safe

#6 2007-05-12 18:04:45

Re: the butterfly-shaped solar panels are beautiful but NOT safe

#7 2007-05-12 21:00:50

Re: the butterfly-shaped solar panels are beautiful but NOT safe

#8 2007-05-14 06:32:39

Re: the butterfly-shaped solar panels are beautiful but NOT safe

#9 2007-05-14 08:08:45

Re: the butterfly-shaped solar panels are beautiful but NOT safe

#10 2007-05-14 11:46:00

Re: the butterfly-shaped solar panels are beautiful but NOT safe

#11 2007-05-15 06:51:55

Re: the butterfly-shaped solar panels are beautiful but NOT safe

#12 2007-05-15 07:13:03

Re: the butterfly-shaped solar panels are beautiful but NOT safe

#13 2007-05-16 12:07:32

Re: the butterfly-shaped solar panels are beautiful but NOT safe

#14 2007-05-16 12:26:41

Re: the butterfly-shaped solar panels are beautiful but NOT safe

#15 2007-05-19 08:25:20

Re: the butterfly-shaped solar panels are beautiful but NOT safe

#16 2007-05-19 23:15:04

Re: the butterfly-shaped solar panels are beautiful but NOT safe

#17 2007-05-20 01:27:01

Re: the butterfly-shaped solar panels are beautiful but NOT safe

#18 2007-05-20 02:54:24

Re: the butterfly-shaped solar panels are beautiful but NOT safe

#19 2007-05-20 06:49:07

Re: the butterfly-shaped solar panels are beautiful but NOT safe

#20 2007-05-20 07:21:21

Re: the butterfly-shaped solar panels are beautiful but NOT safe

#21 2007-05-20 07:55:51

Re: the butterfly-shaped solar panels are beautiful but NOT safe

Board footer