Live data from Hacker News

Datacenters in space aren't going to work

taranis.ie

331–340 of 447 posts

Re: Datacenters in space aren't going to work

#331
post #213
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Commonwealth Fusion Systems called dibs on next last year by saying they’re gonna have a Dominion (Virginia) commercial site up and running in the early 2030s. https://cfs.energy/news-and-media/commonwealth-fusion-system...

Is there a way I can take bets on this not happening? Because I’d sure like to.

Despite the massive PPAs that have already been signed on a chunk of the plant’s planned output I also find it very hard to believe.

Re: Datacenters in space aren't going to work

#332
post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only real advantage is 24/7 power without having to use batteries (or some other power supply at night or when cloudy). The way solar prices are going the problem of suppling power when the sun isn’t visible is a real bottleneck.

For 24/7 solar... you are either in a sun synchronous orbit or in a very high orbit. The sun synchronous are polar orbits ($$$) that are preferred for earth observation (so that the sun is casting the same shadows). As these are polar orbits, the satellite is not overhead all the time and getting a satellite into such an orbit takes a bit of work. A SpaceX is at about $3k / kg to LEO. The numbers I see suggest a $20k…

I think a prerequisite to doing any really big stuff in space would be fully and rapidly reusable launch rockets, which could get costs down by a couple orders of magnitude.

And geostationary isn't necessary for this. You could go a bit higher or lower and still have 24/7 sunlight. Relay your communications through Starlink or something and you have full connectivity.

That said, I think orbital data centers still don't make sense, for all the reasons described in the article.

Re: Datacenters in space aren't going to work

#333
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Moon doesn't have a magnetic field, though, so the second half of the article discussing difficulties due to radiation would still apply, right?

We will need to develop very robust, space-worthy electronics eventually. We can't rely on natural magnetic fields forever.

We have them. The RAD750 for example (on the JWST and Curiosity rovers https://www.theregister.com/2012/08/08/mars_probe_cpu/ ) costs about $350k, has the architecture of a PowerPC 750 (the blue and white PowerMac G3), and runs at up to 200 MHz.

Re: Datacenters in space aren't going to work

#334
The advantage of space is that you have infinite scale. Maybe data centers in space do not work at low scale but you have to think of them at much larger scale.

Elon Musk considered data centers in space simply for the fact that more solar power is available in space than Earth

Re: Datacenters in space aren't going to work

#335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn't work, it was an utterly terrible idea and they are almost certainly lying about the sentiment that it "worked". No ability to perform maintenance is a complete nonstarter. Communications and power is a nightmare to get right. The thermal management story sucks - just because you have metal touching water doesn't mean you have effective radiation of heat. Actually scaling it up is nearly impossible because y…

Presumably it didn't work well or they wouldn't have shelved it. But do you actually know about what happened or is this all based on your priors?

They only reported on the positives. The negatives can be intuitively guessed, because they didn't explain how they solved any of them.

Re: Datacenters in space aren't going to work

#336

To say the quiet part out loud, I don't think any serious companies have any intention to build a data center in space. There is no benefit in actually trying this. There is however, benefit in saying you'll do it to advance a narrative and distract from the problems terrestrial data centers are facing to an audience that mostly doesn't understand how heat transfer in a vacuum works.

Much like oil companies crowing about their carbon capture or oil from algae projects.

Re: Datacenters in space aren't going to work

#337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You literally just need to be in space, because no typical laws apply if you are there. That makes no sense. Unless you are going to use the data in space (what for?), you need to import it into a country, and it is at that point the crime will have been committed. You can't, for example, circumvent GDPR laws just by sending the data into space first.

I can see you lack imagination. That's good! It indeed makes no sense, you're right.

[deleted]

Re: Datacenters in space aren't going to work

#339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"A City on Mars" (2024) I wasn't terribly impressed with this one. I found it mostly just a bundle of vague negativity and insufficient (disingenuous?) use of problem-solving. However if you want to try it then give the rebuttal a fair shake too. https://nss.org/wp-content/uploads/NSS-JOURNAL-Critique-of-A...

I was very interested to see in that rebuttal that they explicitly called out ‘datacenters in space’ as a means of ‘exporting’ solar power to the earth. > As the Weinersmiths point out, the ease of generating solar electricity in space is foundational to space development. They focus on the challenges in beaming power back to the Earth, but the “power” could be returned to the Earth in other ways, such as by doing en…

I find it hard to believe that launching and operating data centers in space would turn out to be cheaper than solar, wind, and batteries down here on the ground.

Re: Datacenters in space aren't going to work

#340
post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only real advantage is 24/7 power without having to use batteries (or some other power supply at night or when cloudy). The way solar prices are going the problem of suppling power when the sun isn’t visible is a real bottleneck.

For 24/7 solar... you are either in a sun synchronous orbit or in a very high orbit. The sun synchronous are polar orbits ($$$) that are preferred for earth observation (so that the sun is casting the same shadows). As these are polar orbits, the satellite is not overhead all the time and getting a satellite into such an orbit takes a bit of work. A SpaceX is at about $3k / kg to LEO. The numbers I see suggest a $20k…

Launching into polar orbit takes about an extra 5-10% delta-v, depending on the latitude you launch from. It isn’t going to cost 6x as much.
Post reply on HN