←back to thread

199 points angadh | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.762s | 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 #
PaulDavisThe1st ◴[] No.44392843[source]
seems oddly paradoxical. ISS interior at some roughly livable temperature. Exterior is ... freakin' space! Temperature gradient seems as if it should take of it ...

... and then you realize that because it is space, there's almost nothing out there to absorb the heat ...

replies(3): >>44392889 #>>44393008 #>>44393181 #
throwawaymaths ◴[] No.44392889[source]
there literally is nothing to absorb the heat. Conduction and convection are out, all you got is radiation.

new vc rule: no investing in space startups unless their founders have 1000 hours in KSP and 500 hours in children of a dead earth

replies(2): >>44393170 #>>44393734 #
Robotbeat ◴[] No.44393734[source]
Radiation is not actually a problem unless you're trying to do super high power nuclear electric propulsion (i.e. in your videogame). Classic armchair engineer mistake, tbh.

Radiators work great in space. Stefan-Boltzmann's law. The ISS's solar panels are MUCH smaller than the radiators. Considering datacenters on Earth have to have massive heat exchangers as well, I really think the bUt wHaT aBoUt rAdiAtOrs is an overblown gotcha, considering every satellite still has to dump heat and works just fine.

replies(2): >>44393866 #>>44395412 #
fennecfoxy ◴[] No.44395412[source]
There's a difference between a couple humans (n150W) and say JUST one H200 DGX (8700W).
replies(2): >>44397872 #>>44399194 #
yreg ◴[] No.44399194[source]
Shouldn't the radiators be directly proportional to the area of the solar panels? (Since there's no one munching on food on board.)
replies(1): >>44404032 #
throwawaymaths ◴[] No.44404032[source]
yes, exactly. they are going to be absolutely huge and add to launch and engineering costs.
replies(1): >>44424801 #
1. yreg ◴[] No.44424801[source]
Every part does by definition add to launch and engineering costs…

The point is that heat radiation is not the main deal-breaker regarding this project as some comments in this subthread insinuate.

replies(1): >>44425578 #
2. throwawaymaths ◴[] No.44425578[source]
The point is: the power consumption requirements (quote: considering every satellite still has to dump heat and works just fine) for satellite X is not even close to racks of hyperscaler compute.