Login

u/Ilya_Novik

Image 1 — I applied standard utility-scale solar PV design workflows to the lunar surface
Image 2 — I applied standard utility-scale solar PV design workflows to the lunar surface
Image 3 — I applied standard utility-scale solar PV design workflows to the lunar surface
Image 4 — I applied standard utility-scale solar PV design workflows to the lunar surface
Image 5 — I applied standard utility-scale solar PV design workflows to the lunar surface
Image 6 — I applied standard utility-scale solar PV design workflows to the lunar surface
Image 7 — I applied standard utility-scale solar PV design workflows to the lunar surface
Image 8 — I applied standard utility-scale solar PV design workflows to the lunar surface
▲ 5 r/ElectricalEngineers

I applied standard utility-scale solar PV design workflows to the lunar surface

With the Artemis II launch, I decided to stress-test our solar engineering tools against a very non-standard environment - the Moon.

I work in utility-scale solar. Our typical workflow: terrain modeling → irradiance analysis → racking/layout design → energy yield simulation. We applied the exact same pipeline to two lunar sites.

Site A - Equatorial (Mare Tranquillitatis)

  • ~14.5-day solar cycle (day/night)
  • GHI equivalent during lunar day is extreme - no atmosphere, no diffuse component
  • Flat terrain, minimal grading challenges
  • Critical problem: 354 hours of continuous darkness per cycle - storage requirements would be massive

Site B - Polar (Shackleton Crater Rim)

  • Low solar elevation angle (~1.5°–6°)
  • Peaks of eternal light with up to ~90% annual illumination
  • Complex topography - steep gradients, shadowing from crater rim features
  • Near-continuous generation but at significantly reduced intensity

Key engineering observations

  • The atmosphere-free environment eliminates diffuse irradiance entirely - every photon is direct (DNI = GHI)
  • Racking design differs radically: equator uses near-flat tilt, pole needs near-vertical panels to catch low-angle sun
  • The energy yield delta between sites is ~2.5x - the continuous generation at the pole wins over peak-but-intermittent equatorial output

Full modeling results in the images. Curious to hear from other engineers - what assumptions would you challenge?

u/Ilya_Novik — 3 days ago
Image 1 — We used solar farm design software to plan a solar plant on the Moon
Image 2 — We used solar farm design software to plan a solar plant on the Moon
Image 3 — We used solar farm design software to plan a solar plant on the Moon
Image 4 — We used solar farm design software to plan a solar plant on the Moon
Image 5 — We used solar farm design software to plan a solar plant on the Moon
Image 6 — We used solar farm design software to plan a solar plant on the Moon
Image 7 — We used solar farm design software to plan a solar plant on the Moon
Image 8 — We used solar farm design software to plan a solar plant on the Moon
▲ 23 r/SolarAmerica+1 crossposts

We used solar farm design software to plan a solar plant on the Moon

So NASA launched Artemis II, humans are heading back to the Moon, and my brain immediately went to: "but could you build a solar farm up there?"

I work in solar engineering, and the software we use daily for utility-scale projects can model pretty much any terrain and conditions. So I figured — why not throw the Moon at it and see what breaks?

The setup

  • Same workflows we use for real Earth-based projects
  • Assume all tech is magically adapted for lunar conditions (yes, I know, big asterisk)
  • Two candidate sites based on publicly available data

Site A: Lunar Equator (Mare Tranquillitatis)

14.5 days of brutal direct sunlight, then 14.5 days of absolute darkness. Flat terrain, simple layout.

Site B: Lunar South Pole (Shackleton Crater Rim)

Sun barely peeks above the horizon, but there are so-called "peaks of eternal light" — spots that get ~90% illumination year-round. Terrain is a nightmare though.

We modeled the landscape, generated weather data, designed racking for each site.

The tradeoff

Equator = high peak output + long blackout periods

Pole = lower intensity + near-continuous generation

One option produces 2.5x more energy than the other. Which one do you think wins?

u/Ilya_Novik — 3 days ago