191–200 of 325 posts
[flagged]
I guess it would be heat pollution at the poles that may contribute to global climate change if we start building immense data centers there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their whitepaper clearly demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge of thermal engineering. E.g. heat pumps are described as magical things. They are literally planning to feed the radiators using a coolant like water and sensible heat at 35 degC to 5 degC. At 5 GW, you then need to be pumping 60 000 liters of water per second. That's like a tenth of the Sacramento river, going through a 16 sq km array in space and ho…
> 60 000 liters of water per second Then they just need to worry about the extra friction heat generated by moving that much liquid.
I had a good laugh. - You can't build 40MW of solar panels for $2M, even with theoretical maximum efficiency. You can't even build the cabling and regulators at that price. - You need battery storage -- not as your backup -- but as primary source. It is going to cost more than $2M. Batteries are heavy. They are going to cost a lot to launch. This is not even solved on the ground yet. - You need a heat transport mediu…
How so? Is it not possible to position the satellite in an orbit that keeps it in perpetual sunlight?
I had a good laugh. - You can't build 40MW of solar panels for $2M, even with theoretical maximum efficiency. You can't even build the cabling and regulators at that price. - You need battery storage -- not as your backup -- but as primary source. It is going to cost more than $2M. Batteries are heavy. They are going to cost a lot to launch. This is not even solved on the ground yet. - You need a heat transport mediu…
Most comments on this page are about the problem with heat. You're saying the problem is battery storage. ... couldn't you just merge both problems into a solution - your radiators ARE you power source
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More like, these guys will be focused on parting VCs from their money. Datacenters in space makes no sense at all. Even ignoring the huge cost of sending hardware there in the first place, cooling is a massive issue in space. No medium to sink heat into means the only way to cool anything is by running water through giant infrared radiators. Not ideal when cooling is the largest bottleneck in scaling datacenters. Not…
> Also disregard the cost it takes to send a technician for maintenance, of updating hardware, etc. This won't happen. If a satellite fails they will just write it off. Maintenance would be more expensive than depreciation
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, this is makes no sense at all. Can I take the other side of this investment? Like an angel funding round, but selling short?
If you figure out how to do this I will invest in your fund.
Otherwise when the big firms go public (A16Z etc.), options trading on their stock.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously use the heat pumps to concentrate the thermal energy up to 2700k, then conduct it along a bunch of tungsten filaments, now it's the world's biggest incandescent lightbulb on top of being the first datacenter in space. Maybe get it up to 4000k for a more modern lighting look. Guess we're gonna assume the dark forest hypothesis is false.
Could they concentrate the energy and beam it down to earth as a source for electricity generation on the ground?
This is orders of magnitude easier than the original proposal -- and yet still nonsensical.