zlacker

What in particular is wrong/misleading in the Starcloud whitepaper, then?

https://starcloudinc.github.io/wp.pdf

>>energy+(OP)
Probably this bit on page 4, which parent comment addresses: “More efficient cooling architecture taking advantage of higher ΔT in space.”

>>energy+(OP)
They do not at any point outline how cooling will be done, they simply say "it will be more efficient than chillers due to the larger delta T" which is incorrect because it's about dT not delta T

>>energy+(OP)
In Table 1, the cost of cooling of a terrestrial data centre is listed as $7M. The cost of cooling in space is assigned a value of $0 with the claim:

"More efficient cooling architecture taking advantage of higher ΔT in space"

My bold claim: The cost of cooling will not be $0. The cost of launching that cooling into space will also not be $0. The cost of maintaining that mechanically complex cooling in space will not be $0.

They then throw in enough unrealistic calculations later in the "paper" to show that they thought about the actual cost at least a little bit. Apparently just enough to conclude that it's so massive there's no way they're going to list it in the table. Table 1 is pure fantasy.

>>energy+(OP)
Previous discussions on HN: - >>44390781

- >>45667458

- >>43977188

I will not re-read them, but from what I recall from those threads is numbers don't make sense. Something like:

- radiators the multiple square kilometers in size, in space;

- lifting necessary payloads to space is multiples of magnitudes more than we have technology/capacity as the whole world now;

- maintanence nightmare. yeah you can have redundancy, but no feasable way to maintain;

- compare how much effort/energy/maintenance is required to have ISS or Tiangong space stations - these space datacenters sound ridiculous;

NB: I would be happy to be proven wrong. There are many things that are possible if we would invest effort (and money) into it, akin to JFK's "We choose to go to the Moon" talk. Sounded incredible, but it was done from nearly zero to Moon landing in ~7 years. Though as much as I udnerstand - napkin math for such scale of space data centers seem to need efforts that are orders or magnitude more than Apollo mission, i.e. launching Saturn V for years multiple times per day. Even with booster reuse technology this seems literally incredible (not to mention fuel/material costs).

>>beloch+72
That row specifically says "chiller energy cost" which is 0

>>trymas+q2
A giant space datacenter with square kilometers of solar panels doesn't make sense. A cluster of Starlink-sized satellites, which orbit near each other(1) and which are connected using laser-links might make sense.

(1) There are orbital arrangements that allow satellites to stay close together with minimal orbital corrections. Scott Manley mentioned this in one of his videos.

>>red75p+tG
Sounds like we would want to elevate from water wasting on Earth to pollution in space.