←back to thread

199 points angadh | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
GlenTheMachine ◴[] No.44393313[source]
Space roboticist here.

As with a lot of things, it isn't the initial outlay, it's the maintenance costs. Terrestrial datacenters have parts fail and get replaced all the time. The mass analysis given here -- which appears quite good, at first glance -- doesn't including any mass, energy, or thermal system numbers for the infrastructure you would need to have to replace failed components.

As a first cut, this would require:

- an autonomous rendezvous and docking system

- a fully railed robotic system, e.g. some sort of robotic manipulator that can move along rails and reach every card in every server in the system, which usually means a system of relatively stiff rails running throughout the interior of the plant

- CPU, power, comms, and cooling to support the above

- importantly, the ability of the robotic servicing system toto replace itself. In other words, it would need to be at least two fault tolerant -- which usually means dual wound motors, redundant gears, redundant harness, redundant power, comms, and compute. Alternately, two or more independent robotic systems that are capable of not only replacing cards but also of replacing each other.

- regular launches containing replacement hardware

- ongoing ground support staff to deal with failures

The mass analysis also doesn't appear to include the massive number of heat pipes you would need to transfer the heat from the chips to the radiators. For an orbiting datacenter, that would probably be the single biggest mass allocation.

replies(17): >>44393394 #>>44393436 #>>44393528 #>>44393553 #>>44393882 #>>44394969 #>>44395311 #>>44395355 #>>44396009 #>>44396843 #>>44397057 #>>44397975 #>>44398392 #>>44398563 #>>44406204 #>>44410213 #>>44414799 #
oceanplexian ◴[] No.44393528[source]
Why does it need to be robots?

On Earth we have skeleton crews maintain large datacenters. If the cost of mass to orbit is 100x cheaper, it’s not that absurd to have an on-call rotation of humans to maintain the space datacenter and install parts shipped on space FedEx or whatever we have in the future.

replies(5): >>44393575 #>>44393751 #>>44393919 #>>44395151 #>>44406420 #
Robotbeat ◴[] No.44393751[source]
Bingo.

It's all contingent on a factor of 100-1000x reduction in launch costs, and a lot of the objections to the idea don't really engage with that concept. That's a cost comparable to air travel (both air freight and passenger travel).

(Especially irritating is the continued assertion that thermal radiation is really hard, and not like something that every satellite already seems to deal with just fine, with a radiator surface much smaller than the solar array.)

replies(2): >>44393841 #>>44395147 #
1. weq ◴[] No.44393841[source]
Musk is already in the testing phase for this. His starship rockets should be reusable as soon as 2018!
replies(3): >>44394009 #>>44394886 #>>44396722 #
2. Nevermark ◴[] No.44394009[source]
And in the meantime, he has responsibly redistributed and recycled their mass. Avoiding any concern that Earth's mass could be negatively impacted.
3. mavhc ◴[] No.44394886[source]
How will he overtake all the other reusable rockets at this rate?
4. Robotbeat ◴[] No.44396722[source]
Well sure. If you think fully reusable rockets won’t ever happen, then the datacenter in space thing isn’t viable. But THAT’S where the problem is, not innumerate bullcrap about size of radiators.

(And of course, the mostly reusable Falcon 9 is launching far more mass to orbit than the rest of the world combined, launching about 150 times per year. No one yet has managed to field a similarly highly reusable orbital rocket booster since Falcon 9 was first recovered about 10 years ago in 2015).