If you plan to land on the pole, at a high altitude, you could potentially have direct line of sight to the sun 24/7 all year round. From the ground, the sun would appear to travel left to right along the horizon, making a full circle over the course of a month. You just need your solar panels pointed to the sides, not up.
However, if they aren’t directly on the pole, they could still plan their landing to be in a location that gets sunlight for 15 earth days straight, with 0 interruption. As that might be more than the necessary time period for their experiments, that’s probably perfect. And that doesn’t even require being at a high elevation.
Also, being on the pole doesn’t result in dimmer sunlight than on the equator like it would on earth. No atmosphere means the poles get the same completely unfiltered sunlight.
Look, the vast majority of lunar landers (and there have been quite a few) have used solar power, it’s the obvious choice in space.
I don’t think it’d matter much. On earth the poles get less light, even in summer, because the angle of the sun is low so it has to pass through more atmosphere. This isn’t true on the moon, obviously. The angle will be really low on the south pole, but as long as it’s in sunlight it doesn’t matter where it is. There are locations on the poles of the moon that never get sunlight, but I suspect it wasn’t going there.
I’m pretty sure they didn’t expect it to land sideways. Yeah, there are a lot of craters. They can be avoided. Check out how Firefly’s guidance system was able to change landing locations to avoid hazards.
Also, our next lunar eclipse occurs in the next 6 days, how the fuck they expect that to work on solar power in the first place even if it did land correctly?
The biggest problem with RTGs is the extreme cost and lack of availability. Pu-238 is very expensive and at any moment, there’s only tens of KG of Pu-238 available for RTG use. They’re not really a reasonable choice for private industry at this time.
As true as that is, they said that it cost them hundreds of millions of dollars, and the mission was only planned to last from 10 to 14 days or so. They could have used just a piece of a waste uranium rod or something as an alternate power source for such a short-lived mission.
I mean yeah, of course that would still add to the cost and complexity, and I don’t even know what all that would take, but hell if you’re already into the hundreds of millions of dollars range, you ought to consider redundancy and alternate power sources.
I imagine it’s more complicated than that. For example, Pu-238 only emits alpha radiation. I doubt that reactor waste only emits alpha radiation, meaning you’d have to harden the electronics for a close and potentially extreme emitter of beta/gamma radiation. I also don’t know if random high grade reactor waste gets hot enough to provide meaningful amounts of energy via thermoelectric means. Alternatively, it may be that it gets too hot.
I doubt they could have simply slapped something together. The cost of developing a new RTG capable of using reactor waste would likely be a significant fraction of the budget to develop the probe itself. It might have been worth it, but I feel that it’s not clear-cut.
Well that’s a facepalm of a faceplant 😂
You’d almost think that by now they might have learned something from the Voyager 1 and 2 power systems and not relied completely on solar power…
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/voyager-mission-anniversary-rtg-radioisotope-thermoelectric-generator/
Eh… I think they should stick to solar power. Given how much trouble they’ve been having, let’s not give them any weapons grade isotopes…
For what it’s worth, just last week, Firefly stuck the landIng on their first attempt. They’re seriously killing it these days, I’m happy for them.
Solar power? On the south pole of the moon?
That would just barely work on its own, even if the thing didn’t topple over.
Would it barely work, or would it always work?
If you plan to land on the pole, at a high altitude, you could potentially have direct line of sight to the sun 24/7 all year round. From the ground, the sun would appear to travel left to right along the horizon, making a full circle over the course of a month. You just need your solar panels pointed to the sides, not up.
However, if they aren’t directly on the pole, they could still plan their landing to be in a location that gets sunlight for 15 earth days straight, with 0 interruption. As that might be more than the necessary time period for their experiments, that’s probably perfect. And that doesn’t even require being at a high elevation.
Also, being on the pole doesn’t result in dimmer sunlight than on the equator like it would on earth. No atmosphere means the poles get the same completely unfiltered sunlight.
Look, the vast majority of lunar landers (and there have been quite a few) have used solar power, it’s the obvious choice in space.
Nah, solar is the obvious choice in space near the sun, and by not borking it up by landing sideways in a crater on the south pole of the moon.
Very limited scope for solar power, it don’t work after landing sideways in a crater on the south pole.
Edit: By the way, our next lunar eclipse is in 6 days, do you really think that thing would go uninterrupted, even if it did land correctly?
We are in space near the sun… And we have successfully used solar as far out as Jupiter.
Haha, no I didn’t account for lunar eclipses, but that lasts what, 2 hours?
But yeah, not falling over definitely improves the whole mission. No argument there.
I don’t think it’d matter much. On earth the poles get less light, even in summer, because the angle of the sun is low so it has to pass through more atmosphere. This isn’t true on the moon, obviously. The angle will be really low on the south pole, but as long as it’s in sunlight it doesn’t matter where it is. There are locations on the poles of the moon that never get sunlight, but I suspect it wasn’t going there.
It landed sideways like 250 meters away from the intended landing zone. Did you know the moon has way more craters than Earth?
Craters = Shadows
The thing ain’t got no sunlight yo, and its laying sideways in the shade, so no power…
I’m pretty sure they didn’t expect it to land sideways. Yeah, there are a lot of craters. They can be avoided. Check out how Firefly’s guidance system was able to change landing locations to avoid hazards.
I don’t need to check Firefly’s guidance system. The Athena team should check into that though, apparently this is their second similar failure.
Send them the email, not me, I’m just a nobody.
I meant check it out if you want to be informed. Otherwise, why comment if you’re admitting you are wilfully ignorant?
Also, our next lunar eclipse occurs in the next 6 days, how the fuck they expect that to work on solar power in the first place even if it did land correctly?
I’m certain they were aware of that. They got to the fucking moon. They aren’t stupid.
The biggest problem with RTGs is the extreme cost and lack of availability. Pu-238 is very expensive and at any moment, there’s only tens of KG of Pu-238 available for RTG use. They’re not really a reasonable choice for private industry at this time.
As true as that is, they said that it cost them hundreds of millions of dollars, and the mission was only planned to last from 10 to 14 days or so. They could have used just a piece of a waste uranium rod or something as an alternate power source for such a short-lived mission.
I mean yeah, of course that would still add to the cost and complexity, and I don’t even know what all that would take, but hell if you’re already into the hundreds of millions of dollars range, you ought to consider redundancy and alternate power sources.
I imagine it’s more complicated than that. For example, Pu-238 only emits alpha radiation. I doubt that reactor waste only emits alpha radiation, meaning you’d have to harden the electronics for a close and potentially extreme emitter of beta/gamma radiation. I also don’t know if random high grade reactor waste gets hot enough to provide meaningful amounts of energy via thermoelectric means. Alternatively, it may be that it gets too hot.
I doubt they could have simply slapped something together. The cost of developing a new RTG capable of using reactor waste would likely be a significant fraction of the budget to develop the probe itself. It might have been worth it, but I feel that it’s not clear-cut.
They also used the same design of a prior craft that met the same fate. But private industry are problem solvers. 🙄