zlacker

[return to "Data centers in space makes no sense"]
1. beloch+kK[view] [source] 2026-02-03 23:33:46
>>ajyoon+(OP)
I would not assume cooling has been worked out.

Space is a vacuum. i.e. The lack-of-a-thing that makes a thermos great at keeping your drink hot. A satellite is, if nothing else, a fantastic thermos. A data center in space would necessarily rely completely on cooling by radiation, unlike a terrestrial data center that can make use of convection and conduction. You can't just pipe heat out into the atmosphere or build a heat exchanger. You can't exchange heat with vacuum. You can only radiate heat into it.

Heat is going to limit the compute that can be done in a satellite data centre and radiative cooling solutions are going to massively increase weight. It makes far more sense to build data centers in the arctic.

Musk is up to something here. This could be another hyperloop (i.e. A distracting promise meant to sabotage competition). It could be a legal dodge. It could be a power grab. What it will not be is a useful source of computing power. Anyone who takes this venture seriously is probably going to be burned.

◧◩
2. lancew+SS[view] [source] 2026-02-04 00:21:10
>>beloch+kK
It's exiting the 5th best social network and the 10th (or worse) best AI company and selling them to a decent company.

It probably increases Elon's share of the combined entity.

It delivers on a promise to investors that he will make money for them, even as the underlying businesses are lousy.

◧◩◪
3. gpt5+AZ[view] [source] 2026-02-04 01:01:18
>>lancew+SS
I'm confused about the level of conversation here. Can we actually run the math on heat dissipation and feasibility?

A Starlink satellite uses about 5K Watts of solar power. It needs to dissipate around that amount (+ the sun power on it) just to operate. There are around 10K starlink satellites already in orbit, which means that the Starlink constellation is already effectively equivalent to a 50 Mega-watt (in a rough, back of the envelope feasibility way).

Isn't 50MW already by itself equivalent to the energy consumption of a typical hyperscaler cloud?

Why is starlink possible and other computations are not? Starlink is also already financially viable. Wouldn't it also become significantly cheaper as we improve our orbital launch vehicles?

◧◩◪◨
4. hirsin+B51[view] [source] 2026-02-04 01:43:28
>>gpt5+AZ
Simply put no, 50MW is not the typical hyperscaler cloud size. It's not even the typical single datacenter size.

A single AI rack consumes 60kW, and there is apparently a single DC that alone consumes 650MW.

When Microsoft puts in a DC, the machines are done in units of a "stamp", ie a couple racks together. These aren't scaled by dollar or sqft, but by the MW.

And on top of that... That's a bunch of satellites not even trying to crunch data at top speed. No where near the right order of magnitude.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. tensor+Wn1[view] [source] 2026-02-04 04:22:33
>>hirsin+B51
How much of that power is radiated as the radio waves it sends?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. nosian+Va2[view] [source] 2026-02-04 11:21:06
>>tensor+Wn1
The radio receiver and transmitter are additional hardware and energy consumption. They add to the heat, not subtract from it.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. jeltz+ie2[view] [source] 2026-02-04 11:46:11
>>nosian+Va2
I think you missed the point. If you have a 100 MW communicstion satellite and a 100 MW compute satellite those are very different beasts. The first might send 50% of the energy away as radio communication making it effectively a 50 MW satellitefor cooling purposes.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. habine+Ul2[view] [source] 2026-02-04 12:41:52
>>jeltz+ie2
No, they didn't. You can't "send away" thermal energy via radio waves. At the temperatures we're talking about, thermal energy is in the infrared. That's blackbody radiation.
[go to top]