Comments on: Engineers use simulated moon dust to make glass

By: Jeff Wright

Jeff Wright — Fri, 23 May 2025 22:26:13 +0000

A new coating for solar applications:
https://techxplore.com/news/2025-05-thin-material-high-efficiency-durability.html

This efficiency level is among the highest ever recorded for perovskite-organic tandem solar cells globally. Moreover, the device maintained over 80% of its initial efficiency after prolonged exposure to high temperatures of 65°C and continuous illumination, demonstrating excellent long-term stability.

By: Max

Max — Mon, 07 Apr 2025 01:38:17 +0000

Don C.;
After going down the rabbit hole, I discovered what you knew.
Your suspicions are correct, even though the crystals show promise, they’re at 25% efficiency now. There’s at least a dozen different types of crystals utilizing different chemicals and structures and methods. They’re hoping to have the most efficient cell soon. The leading contender involves lead, which is not cheap to bring from earth. The efficiency is variable depending on temperature and the strong sunlight in space. Because it utilizes a larger spectrum of light, it decomposes faster as it produces a variable amount of electricity. That’s where the smoky glass comes in to promote longer shelf life filtering UV light that’ll break down substrate. They expect a maximum of 20 years lifespan (output diminishes 5 to 10% per year depending on solar activity) which brings up the problem of/ or ability to recycle which has it at this point twice the cost of normal solar cells. They cannot go to terrestrial garbage dumps because of the lead but that’s not a problem on the moon. If they can’t be recycled they’ll be used as covered sidewalks, or launched into space by rail guns to burn up in earths atmosphere.
Although mass production has gotten the cost down, you still cannot produce a new solar cell with the energy produced only by a solar cell. (Solar cells are “negative” energy producers… They have their applications like on satellites but they’re not economical or practical unless you get someone else like taxpayers to pay for them) by the time they are paid for, they need to be replaced.

The cost of making solar cells on the moon will be so prohibitive, it should only be talked about in science fiction. The metal support structure alone will cost as much as producing materials on earth.
Baby steps, find the raw materials and start mining. Methods and techniques will be experimented to find what works in a vacuum and low gravity. Manufacturing processes and the availability of equipment without losing lives will take years… And a lot of energy so we need to be talking only about on demand dependable nuclear power and not what’s available during only 14 days of sunlight.

Which brings up energy storage, “batteries”.
A massive electrical storage is the other half of the equation if you’re able to build miles of solar cells…, even with solar mirror hydroelectric systems will need a back up for the two week long night.
Untell a linked infrastructure that circumnavigate the moon with a power station always in sunlight transmitting constant energy into the grid… Nuclear power is the only reliable source.
Which reminds me, have you seen the nuclear battery products that China will soon be offering? Batteries that last 50 years?

By: Don C.

Don C. — Sun, 06 Apr 2025 16:30:12 +0000

“…new panels produced up to 100 times more energy than traditional solar panels.” & from the paper (“This change alone could cut a spacecraft’s launch mass by 99.4%, slash 99% of transport costs, and make long-term lunar settlements more feasible”).

I haven’t fully read the paper yet, but I interpreted the statement: ‘existing PV cells are 10-40% efficient’, so these cells will be well above 100% efficient if producing 100x the energy. Obviously that can’t be, or I am misinterpreting their words. So their sentence is more PR than engineering. And few engineering discoveries, involving power, have reduced any costs by 99+%.

On the other hand. olivine exists in meteorites (pallasites – I have a slice of one) and makes up a fair amount of the mineral “stuff” of earth. It can be converted (with ‘sufficient’ temp & pressures) to perovskite. Since the moon was blasted off the earth, it too should have plenty of olivine. Conversion to perovskite is then a chemical process, albeit requiring a factory of sorts. So we may not even have to send the finished materials for their design of PV cells from earth. A bonus – no import tariffs that way, for locally produced products!

Since they were talking of as little as 1 kg of perovskite, obviously that would be cheap to send from earth, without constructing production facilities on the moon.

By: Jeff Wright

Jeff Wright — Sun, 06 Apr 2025 12:53:01 +0000

The real ice-9

By: wayne

wayne — Sat, 05 Apr 2025 16:15:36 +0000

I’d suggest looking up “crystal polymorphism.”

When Ritonavir “Disappeared”
https://youtu.be/PccOwGEbtQU
9:47