←back to thread

199 points angadh | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.287s | source
Show context
energywut ◴[] No.44391208[source]
Putting a datacenter in space is one of the worst ideas I've heard in a while.

Reliable energy? Possible, but difficult -- need plenty of batteries

Cooling? Very difficult. Where does the heat transfer to?

Latency? Highly variable.

Equipment upgrades and maintenance? Impossible.

Radiation shielding? Not free.

Decommissioning? Potentially dangerous!

Orbital maintenance? Gotta install engines on your datacenter and keep them fueled.

There's no upside, it's only downsides as far as I can tell.

replies(15): >>44391352 #>>44391460 #>>44391591 #>>44391677 #>>44391698 #>>44392785 #>>44392868 #>>44393116 #>>44393237 #>>44393502 #>>44393578 #>>44393769 #>>44394060 #>>44399622 #>>44403253 #
wkat4242 ◴[] No.44391698[source]
Yes cooling is difficult. Half the "solar panels" on the ISS aren't solar panels but heat radiation panels. That's the only way you can get rid of it and it's very inefficient so you need a huge surface.
replies(2): >>44392843 #>>44393701 #
Robotbeat ◴[] No.44393701[source]
This isn’t true. The radiators on ISS are MUCH smaller than the solar panels. I know it’s every single armchair engineer’s idea that heat rejection is this impossible problem in space, but your own example of ISS proves this is untrue. Radiators are no more of a problem than solar panels.
replies(2): >>44394900 #>>44397257 #
e_y_ ◴[] No.44394900[source]
The heat load of the ISS is a handful of astronauts and some equipment and whatever it absorbs from the sun. Not an entire data center or a nuclear rocket which is where the radiator discussion comes into play.
replies(1): >>44396736 #
1. Robotbeat ◴[] No.44396736[source]
The heat load is equal to the load from the solar panels, to first order. So actually yeah, you CAN compare the size of solar panels to the size of the radiators.