Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
overfeed | on: Starfall – Affordable, routine access to microgravity
> FWIW, given how many places in the U.S. are passing datacenter bans

If you have the technical chops to set up a data center in space — with no connections to the electrical grid or municipal water, you can use your technology to build your data center with the same specs right here on earth in 90% of places that you think are issuing "bans". You'll also get much better cooling for free via convection.

A remote town with a population of 43 will be happy for a data center to employ 2 locals, but data center operators aren't doing that today because they want tax breaks tiny towns can't give, infrastructure tiny towns don't have, nevermind a well-armed police force to deter would-be GPU thieves. Space is a red herring.

mike_hearn | parent | next
Not really. In sun synchronous orbit you can use solar power without battery backup. You can't do that on Earth because of night time.

Remote towns with populations of 43 are exactly the sorts of places that are pushing back on having datacenters in their areas.

And space is the ultimate physical protection. In reality a bigger issue than GPU thefts are protests or leftist groups trying to firebomb you. See the problems the Tesla factory in Germany has had with leftist violence, like setting its electricity pylons on fire (because electric cars "consume natural resources and are not sustainable", lol). The left has become very anti-AI and so the risk of attacks on facilities, especially if built outside the USA, is quite high which in turn means you have to overbuild physical security like high fences.

robotresearcher | parent | next
If all the energy for a space appliance comes from the sun, in steady state they only have to radiate away the same amount that hits them. All long-lived spacecraft manage it.

Whether they can be worth the money it cost to put them in orbit is another story.

overfeed | root | parent
> All long-lived spacecraft manage it.

Apples to oranges, long-lived satellites have modest power needs. Doing a back-of-the napkin math on required size of solar array and radiative elements for a single-rack's worth of energy is a sobering exercise for those who are a overly exuberant on the topic. The all-in power estimate for a single GB300 chip is 2.1kW

robotresearcher | root | parent
Well, it can’t use more than it can get from the sun that hits it. So it can’t need to radiate more than that away. So it’s radiator size needs are in proportion to its solar panel size needs, and no worse than that.

Edit: ISS is about 90KW steady state, and the collector to radiator area ratio is about 5:1. Dunno about the mass ratio.

My point is not that space data centers are viable or sensible. Only that the need for cooling is limited. If a terrestrial datacenter was powered only by its rooftop solar panels, cooling it would be trivial. Space is harder, but there just isn’t that much heat to dump.

A simple rock in orbit radiates exactly as much heat as hits it from the sun, on average.

loading story #50376078
loading story #50376871
bryan_w | parent
It's not a technical problem. It's a people problem. Every data center project over the last year has experienced some form of pushback no matter where they're built
overfeed | root | parent
By definition, a data center in space is remote, self-reliant on electrical power and doesn't use potable water. These features require technical solutions before they become practical, and once one has cracked those challenges, they have disarmed all the push-back arguments people have raised against data centers. It's telling that the data centers want to build-out near population centers, i.e. where someone else has paid for fiber, grid and water infrastructure; it's a good old fashioned raid of the commons. This is why no-one is pushing for building data centers in locales with 0.2 people/sq mile with no one to subsidize the costs.