I just don't get it.

It's really cool that SpaceX has the ability to put stuff in orbit without it being a billion-dollar event. But I don't see any advantage to having unmaintainable tech in orbit, where all you can do is throw away an entire satellite.

What's the advantage? You can get solar power here on earth. We're not running out of land; we could put them in the middle of nowhere if we wanted, for way less than orbit.

I just can't think of any reason why we'd do this, other than "it's cool". Which, fair, but it seems like a waste.

▲

pfdietz 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Well, I don't know if they're doing this, but PV can be much lighter in space. Much of the mass (and cost) of PV on Earth is structure to support it against gravity and weather. In space, a thin film PV array could be as little as a few microns thick (using for example CdTe, which absorbs light much more strongly than silicon).

Combine that with the 5-10x higher production from being in constant unfiltered sunlight, and lack of need for storage, and it could well be much cheaper to make the power in space.

▲

youngtaff 4 hours ago | parent [-]

How are you going to get rid on the heat?

And they won't all be in constant unfiltered sunlight some will be in the earth's shadow

▲

pfdietz 4 hours ago | parent [-]

By radiation. You know, like every other satellite does.

They will not be, or need not be, in orbits with substantial amounts of shadowed time.

▲

jfengel an hour ago | parent [-]

Most satellites aren't intended to produce thousands of watts of heat.

	▲	pfdietz an hour ago \| parent [-]
		So now we're quibbling over numbers, not saying the problem is impossible. These satellite will need larger radiators. It's an issue satellite designers have long dealt with, so the presumption that SpaceX has somehow missed the issue in their new design is not credible.