zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. Townle+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-05-13 21:38:57
It sounds like their vision for space-based data centers presupposes nearly-free energy costs, delivered via a colossal solar farm made possible by falling launch costs.

Temporarily putting aside (extremely fair) feasibility questions around those two pre-requisites, data centers are a not-bad choice for things to do with unlimited space energy.

Aluminum smelting or growing food are the two I’d think of otherwise, and neither of those can have inputs/outputs beamed to a global network of high-bandwidth satellites.

replies(1): >>gbear6+v9
2. gbear6+v9[view] [source] 2025-05-13 22:47:32
>>Townle+(OP)
Solar energy isn’t that much more efficient in Earth orbit than on Earth - maybe twice as efficient. That sounds nice, but you’re saving half of your solar panel cost while massively increasing every other cost.
replies(1): >>mplanc+ai
◧◩
3. mplanc+ai[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-05-13 23:49:28
>>gbear6+v9
The one benefit is being able to be in a synchronous orbit with the sun, so you don’t have to contend with night. However, that’s just another ~doubling of efficiency, which I think still nowhere near makes up for the additional costs.
replies(1): >>DrillS+4m
◧◩◪
4. DrillS+4m[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-05-14 00:24:34
>>mplanc+ai
It also makes the cooling problem more difficult.
replies(1): >>mplanc+qq
◧◩◪◨
5. mplanc+qq[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-05-14 01:10:55
>>DrillS+4m
Yeah, it seems like the cooling is pretty much the number one implausible thing among a raft of implausible things
[go to top]