Thread

1. fwlr · 1790297624 · focus · HN ↗

   Yes, the physics are worse, and yes, the economics are worse, but data centers in space have the crucial advantage that they are out of range of the molotov-throwing arm of Joe Public (recently unemployed).

   1. scirob · 1790340304 · focus · HN ↗

      Putting data centers in Antarctica or extreme north Canadian islands would also put you out of the way of molotov-throwing joe public. Even in space your not safe from the voting public as long as your companies directors are sitting on earth somewhere.

      1. thehappypm · 1790341150 · focus · HN ↗

         Yeah, but those places don’t have 24/7 solar energy

         1. ctde · 1790341547 · focus · HN ↗

            google: orbit

            it does not see the sun half of the time

            polar orbits don't come to the rescue, they are quite busy already

            1. Ajedi32 · 1790342746 · focus · HN ↗

               Sun-synchronous orbit gets sunlight ~100% of the time.

               From TFA:

               > In low Earth orbit, satellites can access near-constant sunlight, generating up to eight times more solar power than on Earth.

               That's obviously a reference to sun-synchronous orbit. You don't get 8 times more solar power in a low inclination orbit.

               1. ctde · 1790345596 · focus · HN ↗

                  i already countered that argument, but to spell it out: sun synchronous orbits which see the sun all the time are a 1d manifold (approximately) and quite busy already, so they won't come to the rescue.

                  1. Ajedi32 · 1790356762 · focus · HN ↗

                     My point is that SSO isn't "coming to the rescue", it's literally the entire premise of the idea (greater availability of solar power there vs anywhere on earth). I don't buy "there's no more room" as an argument when we're talking about space, even in a relatively crowded set of orbits like SSO.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.