You’re out of your depth here… Those reasons for affordable solar cells on earth in no way directly translate to applications in completely different environments (planets or moons)

‘on earth’

Did you miss the bit where I specified space applications, or did you just ignore it?

https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Preparing_for_the_Future/Space_for_Earth/Energy/Helium-3_mining_on_the_lunar_surface

The Apollo programme’s own geologist, Harrison Schmidt, has repeatedly made the argument for Helium-3 mining, whilst Gerald Kulcinski at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is another leading proponent. He has created a small reactor at the Fusion Technology Institute, but so far it has not been possible to create the helium fusion reaction with a net power output.

This idea of “well earth has solar, so solar must work just as well on the moon!” doesn’t take into account natural lunar resources (solar needs rare earth metals) , atmospheric conditions, thermal conditions, material transport, etc… Sure, a well-functioning moon settlement would probably have a combination of thermo, solar, and nuclear power,

Holy fucking shit, dude, natural atmospheric and thermal conditions and material transport are exactly why nuclear power seems dubious to me as the basis for a moon base. I’m a proponent of nuclear power here on earth.

but it is strange how you’re writing off one of the most promising forms of energy that excites and interests space scientists most.

“Space scientists” here meaning ‘you’, apparently, since major investment into space-based nuclear power for earth-orbit and lunar applications has been very slim since the 60s despite niche applications and a small chorus of proponents, not unlike ‘Practical fusion in 20 years’ types.

These issues you’re having just sound like cope due to the fact that the US is now lagging in space science.

Uh. Okay.