Thread

1. zactato · 1790267254 · focus · HN ↗

   How are they solving the heat dissipation issues?

   1. GMoromisato · 1790270501 · focus · HN ↗

      Please stop with this argument. This is one of the easiest problems to solve. Heat dissipation requires a radiator, which is just a dumb hunk of metal. All you need is a cheap way to launch mass to orbit, which is exactly what SpaceX (and Chinese companies) are doing.

      The only valid argument against data centers in space is the economic cost. If the per megatoken price for space datacenters is higher than terrestrial, then this won't work.

      But the price for terrestrial datacenters keeps going up and technology keeps dropping the price of space-based.

      1. legohead · 1790274545 · focus · HN ↗

         and yet notice how the cooling video / section was the only one they didn't have a solution for... just saying "radiator" doesn't make sense - the radiator heats up too. it's how you get rid of the heat, not where you put it.

         1. GMoromisato · 1790277423 · focus · HN ↗

            Huh? Radiators are known technology. They have them on ISS; they have them on every Starlink satellite. This isn't like warp drive or antigravity.

            Moreover, you can easily calculate how big of a radiator you need for a given power level and temperature. You can use the Stefan–Boltzmann law:

              A ~ (1000 P) / (2 e k T^4)
            

            Where

              A is the radiator area in square meters
              P is the power in kilowatts
              e is emissivity (usually 0.9)
              k is the constant 5.67e-8
            

            For a 1 kW test like Googles, you just need 1 square meter of radiators (assuming two-sided).

            For SpaceX's 175 kW satellites, they will need ~170 square meters of radiators.

            None of this is impossible or even difficult to calculate. That's why I think this is the laziest argument against space data centers. There are so many other more reasonable arguments (like whether they will be economically competitive) but people love to latch on to this one for some reason.

            1. dekhn · 1790280755 · focus · HN ↗

               To your last paragraph: when opposing something, it makes sense to use the laziest argument first. Only if that doesn't achieve your goals, would you move towards less lazy arguments. I forget what the term for this is, it's generally criticized ("you should just put your strongest arguments first").

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.