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. echoangle · 1790291678 · focus · HN ↗

               I think you misunderstand the argument of the people worrying about cooling. I don’t think most people think it’s literally physically impossible, they just think that this will be the thing that makes it economically uncompetitive. It’s a combined argument.

               1. GMoromisato · 1790294653 · focus · HN ↗

                  That may be the argument, but it's a dumb argument. Most of the cost is going to go to chips, solar panels, and launch. Radiators are probably one of the cheapest parts of the satellite: it's a hunk of metal with some pumps for liquid cooling.

                  People use that argument because it takes zero thought to make and significant effort to refute.

                  1. notahacker · 1790325025 · focus · HN ↗

                     People use that argument because one of the chief bullshit arguments put forward by proponents of space based datacentres is "space is cold", when what they actually mean is "space lacks the possibility of using relatively efficient conductive cooling, so we need to expensively launch large amounts of additional mass to use radiative cooling, consider the extent to which we can shield our miles of active cooling loops from impact, and under current plans all of this mass must be replaced on the same cycles as the chips"

                     "Space is cold" is classic zero effort to make, significant effort to refute stuff: proponents imply complete nonsense about vacuums being optimal for cooling and anyone who understands why this is a lie to gull retail investors ends up getting bogged down in "sure, but Boltzmann equations proving it's prohibitively expensive doesn't prove it isn't possible"...

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.