More discussion: >>43977188
The sun will be eclipsed by earth many times per day, requiring you to either shift all workloads or add substantial UPS weight. The radiator grid you need to cool 125kw is something like 16x the size of the entire data center.
I watched this video last week that went into 3 different scenarios, it's a good watch.
I'm pretty sure it was that series that also described https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_droplet_radiator , with the side effects of different ships having very distinct heat patterns because of their radiator patterns. And that if a ship ever had to make a turn while they were active, big glowing arcs of slowly-cooling droplets would be flung out into space and leave a kind of heat plume.
By the way, the same channel also has a sobering video on commercial space stations. https://youtube.com/watch?v=2G60Y3ydtqY
> Because caches hold the most recent and most relevant data to the current processing, it is critical that this data be accurate. To enable this, AMD has designed EPYC with multiple tiers of cache protection. The level 1 data cache includes SEC-DED ECC, which can detect two-bit errors and correct single-bit errors. Through parity and retry, L1 data cache tag errors and L1 instruction cache errors are automatically corrected. The L2 and L3 caches are extended even further with the ability to correct double errors and detect triple errors.
1) The atmosphere attenuates sunlight (even when it's not cloudy)
2) The solar array in orbit can pivot to face the sun all the time.
3) While most orbits will go into earth's shadow some of the time, on average they'll be in sunlight more of the time than a typical point on the surface.
Due to the Earth's axial tilt [1], geostationary orbits generally have 24 hour sun exposure, except for a few minutes a day around the equinoxes [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt
[2] https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/our-satellites/currently-flying/...
*Table 1. Cost comparison of a single 40 MW cluster operated for 10 years in space vs on land.*
| Cost Item | Terrestrial | Space
|:------------------------------|:--------------------------------|:----------------
| Energy (10 years) | $140m @ $0.04 per kWh | $2m cost of solar array
| Launch | None | $5m (single launch of compute module, solar & radiators)
| Cooling (chiller energy cost) | $7m @ 5% of overall power usage | More efficient cooling architecture taking advantage of higher ΔT in space
| Water usage | 1.7m tons @ 0.5L/kWh | Not required
| Enclosure (Sat. Bus/Building) | Approximately equivalent cost | Approximately equivalent cost
| Backup power supply | $20m | Not required
| All other DC hardware | Approximately equivalent cost | Approximately equivalent cost
| Radiation shielding | Not required | $1.2m @ 1 kg of shielding per kW of compute and $30/kg launch cost
| Cost Balance | $167m | $8.2m
- asteroids? Debris? It's there even any risk of anything significantly big to be damaged by something flying by?
"About once a year, an automobile-sized asteroid hits Earth’s atmosphere, creates an impressive fireball, and burns up before reaching the surface."
I assume a good old "Prius" might have opinions about such construction of it flies through it.
But I guess "space is big", risks are low?
https://www.nasa.gov/solar-system/asteroids/asteroid-fast-fa...
> and even the nuclear decay (due to practical considerations the latter, as well as the atmospheric noise, is not viable except for fairly restricted applications or online distribution services)
https://starcloudinc.github.io/wp.pdf
Your thinking seems more risk averse, which is similar to myself. However that doesn't mean that without the business drivers these types of things can't happen if enough attention is given too it. Costs are often because we're comparing one thing which has significant efficiencies built into the supply chain, vs something that doesn't, which by virtue drives up the cost. Perhaps Nvidia have money to burn on trying something.