Why latest Landsat satellites have solar panel on only one side?
$begingroup$
It is normal for satellites to have solar panels on both sides of the body.
But Landsat satellites, from Landsat 4, seems to have the solar panel on only one side. Are there any specific advantages of having such a configuration?
artificial-satellite design solar-power electronics
asked 15 hours ago
karthikeyankarthikeyan
2,2431428
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is normal for satellites to have solar panels on both sides of the body.
But Landsat satellites, from Landsat 4, seems to have the solar panel on only one side. Are there any specific advantages of having such a configuration?
artificial-satellite design solar-power electronics
asked 15 hours ago
karthikeyankarthikeyan
2,2431428
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Definitely a different question, but similar theme ;-) Why do the solar panels on the seven Sentinel configurations look so completely different from each other?
$endgroup$
– uhoh
15 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is normal for satellites to have solar panels on both sides of the body.
But Landsat satellites, from Landsat 4, seems to have the solar panel on only one side. Are there any specific advantages of having such a configuration?
artificial-satellite design solar-power electronics
asked 15 hours ago
karthikeyankarthikeyan
2,2431428
$endgroup$
It is normal for satellites to have solar panels on both sides of the body.
But Landsat satellites, from Landsat 4, seems to have the solar panel on only one side. Are there any specific advantages of having such a configuration?
artificial-satellite design solar-power electronics
artificial-satellite design solar-power electronics
asked 15 hours ago
karthikeyankarthikeyan
2,2431428
asked 15 hours ago
karthikeyankarthikeyan
2,2431428
asked 15 hours ago
karthikeyankarthikeyan
2,2431428
asked 15 hours ago
karthikeyankarthikeyan
2,2431428
asked 15 hours ago
karthikeyankarthikeyan
2,2431428
2,2431428
$begingroup$
Definitely a different question, but similar theme ;-) Why do the solar panels on the seven Sentinel configurations look so completely different from each other?
$endgroup$
– uhoh
15 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Definitely a different question, but similar theme ;-) Why do the solar panels on the seven Sentinel configurations look so completely different from each other?
$endgroup$
– uhoh
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
Definitely a different question, but similar theme ;-) Why do the solar panels on the seven Sentinel configurations look so completely different from each other?
$endgroup$
– uhoh
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
Definitely a different question, but similar theme ;-) Why do the solar panels on the seven Sentinel configurations look so completely different from each other?
$endgroup$
– uhoh
15 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Solar panel technology seems to have caught up with power requirements on the satellite. Since price of components is really no object when building a system like this, super expensive panels with efficiency ratings of up to 40% can be used.
The trick to engineering something properly is using just the right amount of materials, as the old maxim goes "Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands". If the engineers were meeting the power requirements for the satellite with just one set of solar panels, why include the other? It's possible to predict the power requirements very exactly and each gram that the engineers save can be used on something else which is more mission critical such as a better imagery system.
As to why build it asymmetrically? There are basically no benefits to building it symmetrically. Modern control software can easily compensate for the shifted center of mass and you also save on motors and unfolding systems in mass.
answered 14 hours ago
DragongeekDragongeek
4,8021636
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Still the answer is pending a solid argument for an asymmetric build.
$endgroup$
– karthikeyan
14 hours ago
9
$begingroup$
There's no reason for a satellite to be symmetrical. Symmetrical designs are often used for aesthetics, aerodynamics, or balance, none of which a satellite needs to have. In the satellite's case, form follows function so they design the functionality and this causes the shape, they don't start out with a 'satellite shape' and then fill in components. In this case, building the solar panels symmetrically would have just increased the weight as you need more motors to unfold the panels.
$endgroup$
– Dragongeek
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
I anticipated some form of payload packaging efficiency given the satellite in discussion is earth observation satellite, but your argument for more motor is also a good one. Didn’t strike me nor have I come across. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– karthikeyan
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Dragongeek isn't there asymmetry in solar radiation pressure causing an unbalanced torque? or does it just integrate out over an orbit?
$endgroup$
– costrom
8 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34144%2fwhy-latest-landsat-satellites-have-solar-panel-on-only-one-side%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Solar panel technology seems to have caught up with power requirements on the satellite. Since price of components is really no object when building a system like this, super expensive panels with efficiency ratings of up to 40% can be used.
The trick to engineering something properly is using just the right amount of materials, as the old maxim goes "Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands". If the engineers were meeting the power requirements for the satellite with just one set of solar panels, why include the other? It's possible to predict the power requirements very exactly and each gram that the engineers save can be used on something else which is more mission critical such as a better imagery system.
As to why build it asymmetrically? There are basically no benefits to building it symmetrically. Modern control software can easily compensate for the shifted center of mass and you also save on motors and unfolding systems in mass.
answered 14 hours ago
DragongeekDragongeek
4,8021636
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Still the answer is pending a solid argument for an asymmetric build.
$endgroup$
– karthikeyan
14 hours ago
9
$begingroup$
There's no reason for a satellite to be symmetrical. Symmetrical designs are often used for aesthetics, aerodynamics, or balance, none of which a satellite needs to have. In the satellite's case, form follows function so they design the functionality and this causes the shape, they don't start out with a 'satellite shape' and then fill in components. In this case, building the solar panels symmetrically would have just increased the weight as you need more motors to unfold the panels.
$endgroup$
– Dragongeek
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
I anticipated some form of payload packaging efficiency given the satellite in discussion is earth observation satellite, but your argument for more motor is also a good one. Didn’t strike me nor have I come across. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– karthikeyan
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Dragongeek isn't there asymmetry in solar radiation pressure causing an unbalanced torque? or does it just integrate out over an orbit?
$endgroup$
– costrom
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Solar panel technology seems to have caught up with power requirements on the satellite. Since price of components is really no object when building a system like this, super expensive panels with efficiency ratings of up to 40% can be used.
The trick to engineering something properly is using just the right amount of materials, as the old maxim goes "Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands". If the engineers were meeting the power requirements for the satellite with just one set of solar panels, why include the other? It's possible to predict the power requirements very exactly and each gram that the engineers save can be used on something else which is more mission critical such as a better imagery system.
As to why build it asymmetrically? There are basically no benefits to building it symmetrically. Modern control software can easily compensate for the shifted center of mass and you also save on motors and unfolding systems in mass.
answered 14 hours ago
DragongeekDragongeek
4,8021636
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Still the answer is pending a solid argument for an asymmetric build.
$endgroup$
– karthikeyan
14 hours ago
9
$begingroup$
There's no reason for a satellite to be symmetrical. Symmetrical designs are often used for aesthetics, aerodynamics, or balance, none of which a satellite needs to have. In the satellite's case, form follows function so they design the functionality and this causes the shape, they don't start out with a 'satellite shape' and then fill in components. In this case, building the solar panels symmetrically would have just increased the weight as you need more motors to unfold the panels.
$endgroup$
– Dragongeek
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
I anticipated some form of payload packaging efficiency given the satellite in discussion is earth observation satellite, but your argument for more motor is also a good one. Didn’t strike me nor have I come across. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– karthikeyan
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Dragongeek isn't there asymmetry in solar radiation pressure causing an unbalanced torque? or does it just integrate out over an orbit?
$endgroup$
– costrom
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Solar panel technology seems to have caught up with power requirements on the satellite. Since price of components is really no object when building a system like this, super expensive panels with efficiency ratings of up to 40% can be used.
The trick to engineering something properly is using just the right amount of materials, as the old maxim goes "Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands". If the engineers were meeting the power requirements for the satellite with just one set of solar panels, why include the other? It's possible to predict the power requirements very exactly and each gram that the engineers save can be used on something else which is more mission critical such as a better imagery system.
As to why build it asymmetrically? There are basically no benefits to building it symmetrically. Modern control software can easily compensate for the shifted center of mass and you also save on motors and unfolding systems in mass.
answered 14 hours ago
DragongeekDragongeek
4,8021636
$endgroup$
Solar panel technology seems to have caught up with power requirements on the satellite. Since price of components is really no object when building a system like this, super expensive panels with efficiency ratings of up to 40% can be used.
The trick to engineering something properly is using just the right amount of materials, as the old maxim goes "Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands". If the engineers were meeting the power requirements for the satellite with just one set of solar panels, why include the other? It's possible to predict the power requirements very exactly and each gram that the engineers save can be used on something else which is more mission critical such as a better imagery system.
As to why build it asymmetrically? There are basically no benefits to building it symmetrically. Modern control software can easily compensate for the shifted center of mass and you also save on motors and unfolding systems in mass.
answered 14 hours ago
DragongeekDragongeek
4,8021636
answered 14 hours ago
DragongeekDragongeek
4,8021636
answered 14 hours ago
DragongeekDragongeek
4,8021636
answered 14 hours ago
DragongeekDragongeek
4,8021636
4,8021636
$begingroup$
Still the answer is pending a solid argument for an asymmetric build.
$endgroup$
– karthikeyan
14 hours ago
9
$begingroup$
There's no reason for a satellite to be symmetrical. Symmetrical designs are often used for aesthetics, aerodynamics, or balance, none of which a satellite needs to have. In the satellite's case, form follows function so they design the functionality and this causes the shape, they don't start out with a 'satellite shape' and then fill in components. In this case, building the solar panels symmetrically would have just increased the weight as you need more motors to unfold the panels.
$endgroup$
– Dragongeek
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
I anticipated some form of payload packaging efficiency given the satellite in discussion is earth observation satellite, but your argument for more motor is also a good one. Didn’t strike me nor have I come across. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– karthikeyan
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Dragongeek isn't there asymmetry in solar radiation pressure causing an unbalanced torque? or does it just integrate out over an orbit?
$endgroup$
– costrom
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Still the answer is pending a solid argument for an asymmetric build.
$endgroup$
– karthikeyan
14 hours ago
9
$begingroup$
There's no reason for a satellite to be symmetrical. Symmetrical designs are often used for aesthetics, aerodynamics, or balance, none of which a satellite needs to have. In the satellite's case, form follows function so they design the functionality and this causes the shape, they don't start out with a 'satellite shape' and then fill in components. In this case, building the solar panels symmetrically would have just increased the weight as you need more motors to unfold the panels.
$endgroup$
– Dragongeek
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
I anticipated some form of payload packaging efficiency given the satellite in discussion is earth observation satellite, but your argument for more motor is also a good one. Didn’t strike me nor have I come across. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– karthikeyan
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Dragongeek isn't there asymmetry in solar radiation pressure causing an unbalanced torque? or does it just integrate out over an orbit?
$endgroup$
– costrom
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Still the answer is pending a solid argument for an asymmetric build.
$endgroup$
– karthikeyan
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
Still the answer is pending a solid argument for an asymmetric build.
$endgroup$
– karthikeyan
14 hours ago
9
9
$begingroup$
There's no reason for a satellite to be symmetrical. Symmetrical designs are often used for aesthetics, aerodynamics, or balance, none of which a satellite needs to have. In the satellite's case, form follows function so they design the functionality and this causes the shape, they don't start out with a 'satellite shape' and then fill in components. In this case, building the solar panels symmetrically would have just increased the weight as you need more motors to unfold the panels.
$endgroup$
– Dragongeek
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
There's no reason for a satellite to be symmetrical. Symmetrical designs are often used for aesthetics, aerodynamics, or balance, none of which a satellite needs to have. In the satellite's case, form follows function so they design the functionality and this causes the shape, they don't start out with a 'satellite shape' and then fill in components. In this case, building the solar panels symmetrically would have just increased the weight as you need more motors to unfold the panels.
$endgroup$
– Dragongeek
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
I anticipated some form of payload packaging efficiency given the satellite in discussion is earth observation satellite, but your argument for more motor is also a good one. Didn’t strike me nor have I come across. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– karthikeyan
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
I anticipated some form of payload packaging efficiency given the satellite in discussion is earth observation satellite, but your argument for more motor is also a good one. Didn’t strike me nor have I come across. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– karthikeyan
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Dragongeek isn't there asymmetry in solar radiation pressure causing an unbalanced torque? or does it just integrate out over an orbit?
$endgroup$
– costrom
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Dragongeek isn't there asymmetry in solar radiation pressure causing an unbalanced torque? or does it just integrate out over an orbit?
$endgroup$
– costrom
8 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34144%2fwhy-latest-landsat-satellites-have-solar-panel-on-only-one-side%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Definitely a different question, but similar theme ;-) Why do the solar panels on the seven Sentinel configurations look so completely different from each other?
$endgroup$
– uhoh
15 hours ago