Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cooling in Space

guille.site

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 101 posts

Re: Cooling in Space

#81

Post by mysterydip »

kryptiskt wrote: post #10

Allow me to propose a modest alternative to space data centers, namely mountaintop data centers. This would consist of a container full of servers and GPUs and what else goes into a data center, a wind turbine for power and a communication module (say laser or microwave) for communicating with a base station with a fiber connection. This would be lifted on top of a mountain by a helicopter and bolted in place. Coolin…

(I know this is a joke, but it made me think): I wonder what side effects having GW-level heat generation would have on the surrounding area. snowcapped mountains turn to rivers? Spring year round? Something else?

Re: Cooling in Space

#82

Post by zarzavat »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #59
zarzavat wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maintenance for a mountaintop data center only requires a team of skilled mountaineers. In space you'd need astronauts. It's at least an order of magnitude cheaper, perhaps two or three.

Nobody is doing maintenance on a small cluster in a satellite. It's disposable with a timespan of less than a decade to recoup all costs. Note that the usual argument to retire hardware is the electrical costs but when you've got lifetime solar you can run it indefinitely.

Nobody is doing maintenance on an orbital data center because it's too expensive and dangerous, not because it wouldn't be useful. Maintenance in space would in fact be way more useful than on land because the redundancy required by a lack of maintenance necessitates extra mass.

If you could pay a few space sherpas $100k to head up into LEO and service the thing, it would definitely be worth it.

Re: Cooling in Space

#83

Post by JoelJacobson »

tristanj wrote: post #64
JoelJacobson wrote: post #61

This article made me think of a strange claim by Elon Musk at 07:08 in this [1] interview: "Cooling is actually much easier in space than it is on earth. You can just radiate to the vacuum." I don't think that follows. The radiator is only the final heat sink. You still need to move heat from very dense chips into a deployable, space-rated radiator, and handle pumps, loops, leaks, redundancy, radiation damage, replac…

Radiators in space are a solved problem. The ISS has 70 kW of cooling via multiple radiators, using a dual loop water/ammonia system. The water loop cools the station and high-priority electronics, then the ammonia loop cools the water loop and transfers heat to the radiators, which release the heat out to space. There are additional radiators just for the solar panels. AI sat mini can use a simpler single ammonia lo…

[flagged]

Re: Cooling in Space

#84

Post by XorNot »

simondotau wrote: post #73
XorNot wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes because when your infrastructure is Earth based, your staff is Earth based and your customers are Earth based, your company's legal registration and owner are Earth based, it would be absolutely impossible for a government to enforce any type of jurisdictional control if your datacenters were in space. And absolutely no one, anywhere, ever, has the capability to damage or destroy a satellite...

Absolutely no one, anywhere, ever, has the capability to damage or destroy many hundreds of satellites (assuming that SpaceX wouldn't be a willing launch partner).

> (assuming that SpaceX wouldn't be a willing launch partner)

really think about that statement when discussing deliberately avoiding government jurisdiction...

(perhaps also consider that it is not the case that no one can damage a lot of satellites in orbit, but that up until recently no one has had any incentive to build the number of interceptors you would need to do it. But how viable is a space-based datacenter business if you decide to try and pretend you're untouchable, and one of the _many_ governments which operates anti-satellite weapons simply shoots one of your satellites? The debris field from ASAT weapons tests has been of considerable concern everytime they've been used - and given the proximity of useful orbital slots for such a service, the number of intercepts required to render a constellation completely inoperable is going to be _far less_ then the number of satellites).

(in the vein of motivation too: it is well within the power of most well-funded governments to build laser systems would would degrade or destroy orbital satellites, but again, no one has had considerable motivation to do so till recently)

(and of course all of this is - again - competing against the simpler option of simply arresting the people on Earth, or interdicting their ground stations)

Re: Cooling in Space

#85

Post by zarzavat »

jvanderbot wrote: post #62
lpapez wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a comment on the absurdity of orbital data centers. Mountaintop data centers sound absurd, but are more feasible and efficient than orbital ones in nearly every aspect.

That's fine, if the argument for DC in space is just "Let's put them in the hardest place possible". Then less hard -> absurd, implies more harder -> more absurder. But space based dc accomplish something that mountaintop dc do not. The different list of benefits/tradeoffs are why space DC are proposed and mountaintop ones are not. It's a difference of kind, not degree. It's not a meaningful experiment to just try to…

> - Power available 24/7 for "free"

The Sun is visible from Earth as well, the last time I checked.

In LEO you don't get power 24/7 because you are only 500km above the Earth. Yes the Sun is more attenuated on Earth but what we care about is $/W not raw wattage, and Earth certainly has cheaper $/W than space.

> - coms w/o interruption using existing infra

I'm perplexed how comms might be easier in space than on Earth where you can just run a cable.

> - Rideshare (SPX can build out capacity while other lifts pay some of the bill for lift)

On Earth you don't need to rideshare because you don't have to ride a rocket.

> - Nonregulation

Space is more regulated than Earth. The only way to get to space is via a rocket which is the same as an ICBM. Governments regulate the process of building ICBMs and what payloads can ride on them.

If you want non-regulation then go to international waters or find a bribable government.

> - Very low latency to "places of interest far from USA mountains"

The latency is not terrible in LEO but it's nowhere near as good as on Earth.

Re: Cooling in Space

#86

Post by belZaah »

kryptiskt wrote: post #10

Allow me to propose a modest alternative to space data centers, namely mountaintop data centers. This would consist of a container full of servers and GPUs and what else goes into a data center, a wind turbine for power and a communication module (say laser or microwave) for communicating with a base station with a fiber connection. This would be lifted on top of a mountain by a helicopter and bolted in place. Coolin…

You just need to go north. Most of Finland requires massive amounts of heating for most of the year for industrial and residential purposes. If the math doesn’t add up there, I really can’t see how math for orbital data centers would add up.

Re: Cooling in Space

#87

Post by fc417fc802 »

zarzavat wrote: post #82
fc417fc802 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is doing maintenance on a small cluster in a satellite. It's disposable with a timespan of less than a decade to recoup all costs. Note that the usual argument to retire hardware is the electrical costs but when you've got lifetime solar you can run it indefinitely.

Nobody is doing maintenance on an orbital data center because it's too expensive and dangerous, not because it wouldn't be useful. Maintenance in space would in fact be way more useful than on land because the redundancy required by a lack of maintenance necessitates extra mass. If you could pay a few space sherpas $100k to head up into LEO and service the thing, it would definitely be worth it.

I never said it wouldn't be useful, only that it isn't likely to happen. Amortized costs would reflect that. So it seems we agree?

> If you could pay a few space sherpas $100k to head up into LEO and service the thing, it would definitely be worth it.

Would it? Whatever you pay to launch the repair tech plus the replacement parts could instead be spent launching new hardware. Obviously the repair payload is a fraction of the total weight of new hardware but is it a small enough fraction to make repairing things worthwhile? I think it's likely that disposable is cheaper in this scenario.

Re: Cooling in Space

#88

Post by mkl »

LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #71
mkl wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Outer Space Treaty [1] says "A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object", so no escaping jurisdiction. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty , https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty_of_1967#Ar...

Resurrect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_(rocket) , launch it 'anonymously' from international waters?

It doesn't say anything about launch location, and you'd need to ship it out there from a country using a large (registered) boat. That loophole won't work.

Re: Cooling in Space

#89

Post by JoelJacobson »

tristanj wrote: post #64
JoelJacobson wrote: post #61

This article made me think of a strange claim by Elon Musk at 07:08 in this [1] interview: "Cooling is actually much easier in space than it is on earth. You can just radiate to the vacuum." I don't think that follows. The radiator is only the final heat sink. You still need to move heat from very dense chips into a deployable, space-rated radiator, and handle pumps, loops, leaks, redundancy, radiation damage, replac…

Radiators in space are a solved problem. The ISS has 70 kW of cooling via multiple radiators, using a dual loop water/ammonia system. The water loop cools the station and high-priority electronics, then the ammonia loop cools the water loop and transfers heat to the radiators, which release the heat out to space. There are additional radiators just for the solar panels. AI sat mini can use a simpler single ammonia lo…

[flagged]

Re: Cooling in Space

#90

Post by fc417fc802 »

Arodex wrote: post #76
LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A submarine comes by, says hi by torpedo, bye. Woe! blub °Oo.

China already has a ground based laser array for military purposes (blinding more or less permanently spy satellites). Some think it could be upgraded to hard killing satellites, which I don't think is yet possible (the amount of energy to burn a sat is also enough to ionise air and thus waste and disperse the laser's energy), but with something heavily constrained by heat dissipation like an orbital datacenter, that…

> the amount of energy to burn a sat is also enough to ionise air and thus waste and disperse the laser's energy

Why would you use a single beam? Place them far enough apart that they don't begin to converge until the atmosphere has thinned out.

Post reply on HN