←back to thread

199 points angadh | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.679s | source
Show context
weinzierl ◴[] No.44394986[source]
Why do they want to put a data center in space in the first place?

Free cooling?

Doesn't make much sense to me. As the article points out the radiators need to me massive.

Access to solar energy?

Solar is more efficient in space, I'll give them that, but does that really outweigh the whole hassle to put the panels in space in the first place?

Physical isolation and security?

Against manipulation maybe, but not against denial of service. Willfully damaged satellite is something I expect to see in the news in the foreseeable future.

Low latency comms?

Latency is limited by distance and speed of light. Everyone with a satellite internet connections knows that low latency is not a particular strength of it.

Marketing and PR?

That, probably.

EDIT:

Thought of another one:

Environmental impact?

No land use, no thermal stress for rivers on one hand but the huge overhead of a space launch on the other.

replies(9): >>44395282 #>>44395382 #>>44396169 #>>44396392 #>>44396890 #>>44397052 #>>44397428 #>>44398557 #>>44403245 #
dyauspitr ◴[] No.44403245[source]
I think you’re a little too dismissive of the 24/7 always available solar power, and the free cooling.
replies(1): >>44403260 #
nandomrumber ◴[] No.44403260[source]
There’s no free cooling in space.

In space there’s no ambient environment to speak of, so you’re limited to radiative cooling, which is massively inferior to refrigeration.

There’s also no 24/7 solar in low Earth orbit, which is where you want to be for latency and serviceable.

replies(1): >>44408499 #
1. dyauspitr ◴[] No.44408499[source]
That’s actually something I never considered. In a true vacuum since there are no particles, temperature is undefined.
replies(1): >>44410138 #
2. nandomrumber ◴[] No.44410138[source]
With the added bonus of there being no ozone layer to absorb UV.