zlacker

[return to "xAI joins SpaceX"]
1. alangi+u6[view] [source] 2026-02-02 22:13:48
>>g-mork+(OP)
Either this is a straight up con, or Musk found a glitch in physics. It's extremely difficult to keep things cold in space.
◧◩
2. Doctor+Ca[view] [source] 2026-02-02 22:29:03
>>alangi+u6
what makes you believe this?

radiators can be made as long as desirable within the shade of the solar panels, hence the designer can pracitically set arbitrarily low temperatures above the background temperature of the universe.

◧◩◪
3. eldenr+Ub[view] [source] 2026-02-02 22:33:14
>>Doctor+Ca
these same comments pop up every time someone brings up satellite data-centers where people just assume the only way of dissipating heat is through convection with the environment.
◧◩◪◨
4. wat100+Md[view] [source] 2026-02-02 22:39:18
>>eldenr+Ub
No, we just "assume" (i.e. know) that radiation in a vacuum is a really bad way of dissipating heat, to the point that we use vacuum as a very effective insulator on earth.

Yes, you can overcome this with enough radiator area. Which costs money, and adds weight and space, which costs more money.

Nobody is saying the idea of data centers in space is impossible. It's obviously very possible. But it doesn't make even the slightest bit of economic sense. Everything gets way, way harder and there's no upside.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. eldenr+Nf[view] [source] 2026-02-02 22:47:19
>>wat100+Md
The radiators would be lighter compared to the solar panels, and slightly smaller surface area so you can line them back to back

I don't think dissipating heat would be an issue at all. The cost of launch I think is the main bottleneck, but cooling would just be a small overhead on the cost of energy. Not a fundamental problem.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. wat100+9p[view] [source] 2026-02-02 23:25:02
>>eldenr+Nf
The pertinent thing is that it’s not an advantage. It may be doable but it’s not easier than cooling a computer in a building.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. Doctor+bT[view] [source] 2026-02-03 02:23:04
>>wat100+9p
The distinction is that you don't need to compete for land area, that you don't cause local environmental damage by heating say a river or a lake, that you don't compete with meatbags for energy and heat dissipation rights.

Without eventually moving compute to space we are going to have compute infringe on the space, energy, heat dissipation rights of meatbags. Why welcome that?!?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. defros+pU[view] [source] 2026-02-03 02:31:58
>>Doctor+bT
How efficient is thermal radiation through a vacuum again?

Sure, it occurs, but what does the Stefan–Boltzmann law tell us about GPU clusters in space?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. Doctor+9V[view] [source] 2026-02-03 02:37:13
>>defros+pU
> How efficient is thermal radiation through a vacuum again?

I provided the calculation for the pyramidal shape: if the base of a pyramid were a square solar panel with side length L, then for a target temperature of 300K (a typical back of envelope substitute for "room temperature") the height of the pyramid would have to be about 3 times the side length of the square base. Quite reasonable.

> Sure, it occurs, but what does the Stefan–Boltzmann law tell us about GPU clusters in space?

The Stefan-Boltzmann law tells us that whatever prevents us from putting GPU clusters in space, it's not the difficulty in shedding heat by thermal radiation that is supposedly stopping us.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. defros+EV[view] [source] 2026-02-03 02:40:55
>>Doctor+9V
Is it the required size of the wings for radiative cooling then?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
11. Doctor+IX[view] [source] 2026-02-03 02:58:28
>>defros+EV
Just picture a square based pyramid, like a pyramid from egypt, thats the rough shape. Lets pretend the bottom is square. For thermodynamic analysis, we can just pretend the scale is irrelevant, it could be 4 cm x 4 cm base or 4 km x 4 km base. Now stretch the pyramid so the height of the tip is 3 times the length of the sides of the square base, so 12 cm or 12 km in the random examples above.

If the base were a solar panel aimed perpendicular to sun, then the tip is facing away and all side triangles faces of the pyramid are in the shade.

I voluntarily give up heat dissipation area on 2 of the 4 triangular sides (just to make calculations easier, if we make them thermally reflective -emissivity 0-, we can't shed heat, but also don't absorb heat coming from lukewarm Earth).

The remaining 2 triangular sides will be large enough that the temperature of the triangular panels is kept below 300 K.

The panels also serve as the cold heat baths, i.e. the thermal sinks for the compute on board.

Not sure what you mean with wings, I intentionally chose a convex shape like a pyramid so that no part of the surface of the pyramid can see another part of the surface, so no self-obstruction for shedding heat etc...

If this doesn't answer your question, feel free to ask a new question so I understand what your actual question is.

The electrical power available for compute will be approximately 20% (efficiency of solar panels) times the area of the square base L ^ 2 times 1360 W / m ^ 2 .

The electrical power thus scales quadratically with the chosen side length, and thus linearly with the area of the square base.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨
12. oliv59+0M1[view] [source] 2026-02-03 10:07:47
>>Doctor+IX
Some people on here are such NPCs, you can give them all calculations, numbers and diagrams as to how this is not an impossible concept, and all they will say is "Thermal radiation is not efficient".

You can prove that the lower efficiency can be managed, and they will still say the only thing they know: "Thermal radiation is not efficient".

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨◲
13. Doctor+3R1[view] [source] 2026-02-03 10:51:00
>>oliv59+0M1
don't give up on them ;)

as an example my points almost instantly fell down 15 points, but over the last 11 hours it has recuperated back to just a 1 point drop.

it's not because they don't like to write an apology (which I don't ask for) that they aren't secretly happy they learnt something new in physics, and in the end thats what matters to me :)

[go to top]