top 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [S] 17 points 1 year ago (17 children)

What is up with this obsession with data centres in space?

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (16 children)

    I don't know where it started. Maybe someone rich watched Altered Carbon or played CP2077. But now that the fantasy's circling among billionaires, others want to cash in.

    ...From the firm's perspective, if it's hilariously impractical, so what? It's Bezos's money, and they'll take it.

    And they must know funding for space-based science (the actual practical application) is drying up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (15 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (14 children)

    I'm not sure if this is satire (I mean no offense), but its exactly what I'm talking about.

    There's nothing 'chilling' about being in the shade in space. Radiating large amounts of power is immensely difficult and, in fact, a huge engineering challenge for speculative spacecraft designs, like reactor-powered rockets.

    My favorite 'speculative space travel' site has a utterly fantastic writeup on this: https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/heatrad.php

    As it points out, it's already a costly challenge on the ISS and Space Shuttle:

    img

    img


    ...And that doesn't even matter, because it's utterly dwarfed by the stupendous cost of getting even a pound into LEO in the first place. Or the absolutely monumental cost of any kind of maintenance (or equipment writeoffs) if something breaks. Hence I'm ignoring other extreme engineering challenges, like bit-flips from cosmic radiation (which Nvidia tested on the ISS, and which gets worse as lithography gets smaller), or complexities of connecting structures in space (hence this firm).

    https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/engines.php#rockettyranny

    Hence, the only things that go in space are things that absolutely must, like low volume scientific equipment. Its more practical to just put servers under antarctica because it's still at least 50X cheaper to install them, run them, and maintain them there.


    Hence, my point. Folks like Bezos aren't expected to know esoteric, theoretical stuff. They're business folks. But they should know enough to ask someone qualified to asses their fantasies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (11 children)

    Read Project Rho.

    TL;DR: we're discussing fundamental physics limitations here, like the rocket equation, heat flow, how radiation interacts with mass, things like that. Not technology challenges.

    In sci fi that completely throws technological/engineering limitations out the window because everything's designed by sun-sized transcendent AI, even they face the same limitations: https://www.orionsarm.com/eg-topic/49350e2d34113

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 1 year ago* (10 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    Let's do math.

    Let's say the "space datacenter" peaks at 500 megawatts, seeing how Earth ones apparently peak around this. But that includes stuff like waste heat from power generation, the cooling and comms system, eveything on the spacecraft.

    Lets say we want the coolant at 60C, so the computing stuff stays under 80C, as I am trying to give this system the benefit of the doubt. And lets assume the radiator is quite efficient and ignore mere engineering concerns, and give it an overall emissivity of 0.8.

    From Project Rho:

    Radiator area = P / (ε * σ * T^4)

    Radiator area = (10 ^ 8 W) / ((0.8 emissivity) * (5.670374419 *10^-8, boltzman constant) * (333 Kelvin ^ 4, the same as 60C))

    ...That's a radiator two thirds of a mile across.


    Let's, again, toss practicality out the window and say the "weight" of the whole thing is similar to a 6 mm aluminum panel, which seems like an unreasonable feat of engineering. After all, we gotta pump liquid through the thing, and unfold it somehow. But lets go with it.

    That's 5400 cubic meters of aluminum. That's 5.6 * 10^6 kilograms. Picture a cargo ship flattened into a disk; that's the order of mass we're talking about.

    At 20,000 kg per flight... that's 112 Falcon Heavy flights to low earth orbit, or ~$10 billion dollars. Just to get our impossible radiator into orbit, and nothing else. Lets say launch costs get 10X cheaper, somehow, and that's still a billion dollars.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    That’s 5400 cubic meters of aluminum. That’s 5.6 * 10^6 kilograms. Picture a cargo ship flattened into a disk; that’s the order of mass we’re talking about.

    Deorbiting it would probably make for an exciting show. Also, I wonder how much aluminum you can dump into the atmosphere before you have effects.

    kagis

    Oooh.

    https://csl.noaa.gov/news/2025/427_0428.html

    Within 15 years, plummeting satellites could release enough aluminum to alter winds, temps in the stratosphere

    Estimates suggest satellite debris could rival the amount of naturally occurring meteor dust in the atmosphere by 2040.

    At that rate, a satellite would burn up in the atmosphere every one to two days, depositing 10,000 metric tons of alumina in the upper atmosphere. That's equivalent to about 150 space shuttles vaporizing in the atmosphere every year.

    The new study, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, suggests that much alumina could alter polar vortex speeds, heat up parts of the mesosphere by as much as 1.5 degrees Celsius, and impact the ozone layer. The metal aerosols and other particles vaporized from falling satellites would likely circulate in the stratosphere for several years, according to the authors.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    But why?

    This was a totally unrealistic estimate, it’s probably more like trillions of R&D and launches. But even if it’s not, why on Earth would anyone spend that money when it’s so easy to and cheap to put data centers on Earth? We have tons of land! We have tons of space for making energy! And ocean! We can swap the servers out when they go obsolete in a few years! What’s the benefit to putting this same stuff in space?

    It’s like discussing orbital, beamed solar power when land-based solar arrays are dirt cheap, yet barely getting funded as is. It’s an interesting thought experiment on using the higher solar flux, yes, and it abruptly ends when you start to consider practicality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Is a huge heat shield with some aerogel or something behind it to contain the heat that couldn’t be turned into energy

    The first line of the Project Rho page:

    NO, for the millionth time you CANNOT get rid of the heat by turning it into electricity!

    And yes, we're assuming the radiator is way far away on some kind of tether. Again, first few lines of the page. But the aerogel wouldn't make a difference, it would actually hinder this system.

    I will bet money that at some point someone argued that communications going through satellites in space would be unpractical because of engineering and technological challenges, the stupendous cost of getting stuff up there, and monumental maintenance costs compared to just having some lines going through some street poles.

    No.

    No one was saying this.

    People complained about the engineering concerns, but engineers recognized it was physically practical... in theory.

    But we are talking about physics now. Doesn't matter if you're a transcendental AI or not, you cannot engineer your way around thermodynamics, and we are talking about just one problematic system.

    The only tech that would make such a dramatic difference (that's on the horizon) is a space elevator, as it circumvents the rocket equation entirely by 'pushing' against the Earth. But this is really, really, really hard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    NO, for the millionth time you CANNOT get rid of the heat by turning it into electricity!

    Pet peeve: Oxygen Not Included should get that patched that out of the Steam Turbine. It just does heat deletion to generate electricity rather than heat flow from warm to cool.

    I kind of wish that there were more games in the genre. There's a whole slew of things that I wish that the genre had.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Given that one of the largest problems with the data centers we're building today is heat dissipation, that seems like an exceptionally poor choice. Space creates major problems for heat dissipation.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The high radiation environment and the challenge of doing common maintenance tasks (e.g. disk replacement) seem prohibitively difficult as well...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Yeah. Honestly, I'm having a hard time thinking of any substantial benefits. Eventually, okay, sure, there's a point in time where we can't create computer structures on Earth if we're going to scale up, but that is way the hell out there on the list of constraints we have. I also kind of suspect that materials science and manufacturing and computing technologies may change a lot and obsolete anything we create now long before that.

    The article has:

    “Starcloud’s mission is to move cloud computing closer to where data is generated,” Starcloud CEO Philip Johnston said in a statement.

    But most data isn't generated in space. It's generated on Earth. Maybe if you have some kind of Earth-observation satellite in low earth orbit and want to add a shit-ton more processing capability to it so you don't have to send its data back down to datacenters on Earth to chew on? Sounds kind of Orwellian, but maybe I could see that. But it seems like such a niche case.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

    Maybe cold storage of huge amounts of data in geosynchronous orbit could be a not-terrible idea. But I guess they'll want to keep latencies low and place them in LEO

    Edit: Curiously, the last time I read this article several years ago it presented the consequence of making space completely inaccessible in the introduction (can't remember if sourced or not), while now halfway though the article, under "Implications", it says

    The catastrophic scenarios predict an increase in the number of collisions per year, as opposed to a physically impassable barrier to space exploration that occurs in higher orbits. ^[citation needed]

    I wonder if "in 2025 the number [of tracked space debris] was estimated at over 11,800, most of which (7,135) belonged to Starlink" has anything to do with that 😒

  • source
  • 75 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    7 comments in c/spaceflight@sh.itjust.works view that post