[–] overfeed 3 days ago
[–] robotresearcher 3 days ago
Whether they can be worth the money it cost to put them in orbit is another story.
[–] overfeed 3 days ago
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 3 days ago
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.
[–] overfeed 3 days ago
You are correct that the first law of thermodynamics dictates the energy, but anyone who has parked a car in the sun will tell you, the temperature where the absorption/dissipation equilibrium is achieved is often incompatible with the survival of the cargo.
edit to your edit:
> Edit: ISS is about 90KW steady state, and the collector to radiator area ratio is about 5:1. Dunno about the mass ratio.
Cool; that's about half the wattage of one modern full-height Nvidia AI rack (172kW) - you need two ISSes to service just 1 rack; extrapolate that to a data center's worth of racks and see if the math is mathing. The ISS is about the size of a(n American) football field.
[–] robotresearcher 3 days ago
[–] overfeed 3 days ago
[–] robotresearcher 3 days ago
[–] Sammi 3 days ago
You won't immediately freeze if you enter space without a suit. You'll die almost immediately, but it will be because your blood will begin to boil because of the lack of pressure kinda like an extreme form of divers sickness - it's just not the cold that'll get you first.
[–] adrian_b 2 days ago
Without gravity, it is likely that this can be done only by pumping continuously a lot of liquid, which will increase the power consumption and it will reduce reliability.
Solar panels that have heat radiators on their backside will have a higher temperature than simple solar panels, where half of the absorbed solar energy is converted into electrical energy and taken away. The efficiency of solar panels decreases with temperature, so hotter solar panels will have to be made bigger for the same electrical energy output.
Maintenance would be too expensive, so a space datacenter would have to be overprovisioned, e.g. with a double number of GPUs, to keep the average of the number of still working GPUs at the desired level over the lifetime of the datacenter. This will also increase the power and cooling requirements in the early part of a life cycle, and both the power generation and the cooling will have to be dimensioned for the maximum values, not for the average values.
It is certainly possible to design a datacenter that will work in space, but there is a very large number of difficulties that will increase the cost both in comparison with terrestrial datacenters and in comparison with existing satellites.
Until a detailed design is done by someone, it is not possible to know exactly how many times more expensive will be a space datacenter, but my opinion, as an engineer with experience in industrial design, is that the cost will be too high to make it worthwhile.
[–] verzali 3 days ago
[–] robotresearcher 2 days ago
You know space rocks where we live don’t melt because the Earth and moon don’t melt.
[–] bryan_w 3 days ago
[–] overfeed 3 days ago
[–] mensetmanusman 1 day ago
building where people live is raiding the commons? Lol
[–] amanaplanacanal 2 days ago
[–] chasd00 2 days ago
This isn’t true, many of these DCs are in very very rural areas and get pushback from people not even living there. Governors get pressure from people hundreds of miles away of the site and then shut it down or impose moratoriums. It’s FUD on social media trying to slow AI advancement that is the root of all of it. The genie is out of the bottle, it’s like blacksmiths trying to slow industrialization. It’s already happened.
[–] mike_hearn 3 days ago
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.
[–] adrian_b 2 days ago
Moreover, a datacenter in a sun synchronous orbit must be able to maneuver anyway, otherwise without adjusting the orbit it will enter in the shadow of the Earth after a month or two, due to the revolution of the Earth around the Sun.
If the datacenter must make periodic adjustments of the orbit, it will need to carry a lot of fuel, especially because a datacenter will be much heavier than a typical satellite, so much more fuel will be needed for orbit changes.
Thus it is not certain that a sun synchronous orbit is the best choice. It is possible that the extra fuel required for it may make this choice worse than using another orbit where the datacenter will not have power for half of the time.
[–] mike_hearn 2 days ago
Do you know what the capacity of this orbit is?
[–] amanaplanacanal 2 days ago
[–] thayne 3 days ago
[–] gmerc 3 days ago
Space datacenters are just SDI2, a convenient bullshit to be able to funnel more money to campaign donors.
As long as there’s space on earth, Space Datacenters can never be economical. It’s rally that simple.
[–] hparadiz 3 days ago
[–] ileonichwiesz 3 days ago
We’re not talking about launching little satellites here, we’re talking about replacing giant buildings.
[–] adrianN 3 days ago
[–] mike_hearn 3 days ago
The radiators are not a big deal. The solar panels required are much bigger. You can just run the electronics really hot to improve the efficiency of the radiation. Nobody is going to get close to those chips so the usual safety requirements don't apply.
You don't service it. Over time the chips degrade and become less useful. Eventually you deorbit it and it burns up. It's a sealed unit, not meant to be replaced.
[–] adrianN 3 days ago
[–] echoangle 3 days ago
The chip temperature isn’t limited by safety issues (unless self destruction of the chip counts as safety to you). Certainly not to protect the people around it.
[–] hackeraccount 2 days ago
[–] nradov 3 days ago
[–] reaperducer 3 days ago
Data centers in brownfields and urban environments see near-zero resistance. There are data centers in skyscrapers in the center of most major U.S. cities, and nobody cares.
Stop plowing down the forests, slurping up the aquifers, and digging up the prairies, and people will stop complaining.
[–] derektank 3 days ago
[–] Peanuts99 2 days ago
[–] jquery 3 days ago
[–] derektank 3 days ago
[–] chunky1994 3 days ago
[–] ipsum2 3 days ago
Realistically you can only hear it if you're within 30-50 feet of the data center, unless there's a separate diesel/natural gas generator.
[–] reaperducer 2 days ago
Put a data center next to BoAT, and nobody cares.
[–] jquery 3 days ago
[–] IcyWindows 3 days ago
[–] blackqueeriroh 3 days ago
[–] reaperducer 2 days ago
Not visited one in the middle of the day. Lived next to one 24/7.
[–] victorbjorklund 3 days ago
Also pretty sure there will always be empty land somewhere on earth where no one cares. It will always be easier to build and maintain even in a desert than in space.
[–] mike_hearn 3 days ago
1. Everything rusts.
2. There is no permanent power source, unlike in sun synchronous orbit where you have 24/7 daylight.
3. The US has no ship building industry of any size.
4. Storms can destroy things.
There is no empty space on Earth unclaimed by governments. Given the results of the American midterms essentially all land is currently controlled by left wing governments, and the left is very anti-AI. Only China really wants to build AI at scale but they don't have enough chips yet. That might change, but even then not many companies want to upload all their IP to China.
So you can forget building more or less any large industrial projects on Earth for the foreseeable future. It may not matter. There appears to be a GPU glut starting anyway, so who knows if anyone will even need new datacenters for a while?
[–] sriacha 2 days ago
[1] https://panthalassa.com/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4PCJRN7yGs (interview with the founder)
[–] nonethewiser 3 days ago
[–] m3kw9 3 days ago
[–] DrewADesign 3 days ago
[–] azan_ 3 days ago
Did they though? From what I’ve read the places where they build get lots of money and infrastructure (not only DC-related) from them.
[–] DrewADesign 3 days ago
[–] MattGaiser 3 days ago
Whether it’s A16Z tweeting about how the value of all white collar wages is their market or Anthropic basically saying entry level jobs are done.
[–] DrewADesign 3 days ago
[–] lenerdenator 3 days ago
[–] lern_too_spel 3 days ago
[–] thayne 3 days ago
[–] Tanjreeve 3 days ago
In seriousness this is an example of the previous point. Rather than engaging with the issue the tech/DC industry seems to think they can wordplay their way out of it by quibbling about irrelevant technical details and people are primed to get extremely angry at grinfucking type behaviour nowadays.
[–] azan_ 2 days ago
[–] Tanjreeve 2 days ago
[–] jazzypants 3 days ago
https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-says-it-is-going-to-stop-...
https://www.wpr.org/news/microsoft-to-stop-using-ndas-with-l...
https://www.npr.org/2026/08/27/nx-s1-5879528/data-center-nda...
[–] DrewADesign 3 days ago
[–] kirubakaran 3 days ago
[–] jazzypants 3 days ago
I mostly agree with you, and obviously there is a lot of intelligence in the valley, but there doesn't seem to be much wisdom.
[–] AnthonyMouse 3 days ago
Because the backlash isn't actually about the data centers, it's about AI. 80% of the complaints about data centers are nonsense and the remaining 20% only apply to the ones where they're doing something that isn't actually required, like burning fossil fuels to power them.
Which you can tell because the demands look like "stop building data centers" rather than "to build one you have to add 110% as many watt hours in new non-fossil fuel generation to the grid as you use".
[–] jazzypants 2 days ago
[–] wahern 3 days ago
Maybe they didn't predict the magnitude and vitriol of the backlash, but NIMBY resistance to all infrastructure projects has only been growing over the years. For example, wrt solar and wind power. It was obvious data centers were going to see at least as much resistance because you need to build the data centers and more power generation.
Do data centers in space make less sense than build outs in more accommodating countries? Not necessarily. It's not an either/or thing, and it all depends on the concrete bottom line numbers. In space you don't have to worry about managing political winds at all; you control everything. More accomodating countries tend to be poorer with worse infrastructure, so there are more unknown risks. And you don't need to develop or manage a foreign workforce, which is why 100% of Silicon Valley jobs didn't instantly jump to India or Poland.
[–] jurgenburgen 1 day ago
You ignore global geopolitics at your own peril. In space you have no government to protect you when a hostile nation state blows up your infrastructure.
[–] arcwhite 3 days ago
[–] DrewADesign 3 days ago
I agree there is a profound lack of wisdom in tech, and they seem to be proud of it… like they believe they’ve discovered a workaround.
[–] customguy 3 days ago
> I agree there is a profound lack of wisdom in tech, and they seem to be proud of it… like they believe they’ve discovered a workaround.
Even in discussions here I'm constantly put off by comments that are this hand-rubbing talking to oneself about how the "AI haters" are all stupid, or how they can be forced to use or consume things they don't want against their will. It kind of baits all the sociopaths out into the open, because if their deus ex machina is about to show up, why bother with the tedious masking?
> I don’t think you have to be dumb to fail to acknowledge reality.
No, but you can be emotionally stunted to force you to be dumb. Call it narcissism or whatever, but no sense of others or self = constant need to rewrite the world around you, and fearing logic and honesty like a vampire would fear sunlight. A dumb person can learn, people who are forced to act dumb cannot. They are still, effectively, very dumb. They will go to their graves dumber than an illiterate or mentally handicapped person would have. Not knowing a bunch of things that are true is meh... but thinking you know a trillion things that are all just the scab on a wound that happened in childhood, none of them true, and one dumber than the other, now that is astonishingly dumb.
[–] samrus 3 days ago
https://www.govtech.com/question-of-the-day/how-many-anti-da...
[–] vasco 3 days ago
[–] DrewADesign 2 days ago
[–] mike_hearn 3 days ago
- America. Much harder since the elections. Not appealing.
- Europe. Doesn't have enough electricity with anti-AI, anti-big tech and high tax governments. Not appealing.
- Latin America. Expensive, likely to have your assets appropriated by socialists. Not appealing.
- Africa. No.
- Middle East. Your GPU cluster might get blown up. No.
- China. To some extent yes. Plenty of power and space, pro-AI government, but many companies don't want to send their IP to a country famous for copying it and they're still under GPU sanctions.
- Japan, Korea, etc. Maybe. They're not really famous for big datacenters though.
- Australia, Canada. Possible, but you're exposed to Europe-style political risks.
There just aren't many places on Earth where it's realistic to build and operate AI datacenters once political issues and grid constraints are taken into account.
[–] DrewADesign 3 days ago
[–] olmo23 3 days ago
[–] mike_hearn 3 days ago
[–] rbanffy 2 days ago
I had to laugh. Not sure what Kool Aid you’ve been drinking, but you should stop.
[–] mike_hearn 2 days ago
[–] rbanffy 2 days ago
It’s far more likely the American companies will appropriate the government, as it has happened much too frequently, especially in Latin America.
[–] mike_hearn 1 day ago
https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2026/01/30/brazil-advances-a...
They also love pressuring tech companies over content, something much easier if they have expensive assets in the country.
There are still court cases pending over Venezuela's expropriation of assets.
https://tlblog.org/d-c-circuit-allows-venezuela-expropriatio...
Argentina was seizing multi-billion dollar oil firms as recently as fifteen years ago.
You're going to say, but those aren't datacenters. No, because nobody builds big datacenters in Latin America, because they have a history of nationalizing valuable assets.
[–] rbanffy 23 hours ago
Tech companies operating in a country have to comply with said country’s laws. In the specific case of Brazil, compliance with judicial orders is not optional. I remember Twitter was blocked because Elon tried to be non-compliant by firing everyone and thus having no representative in Brazil. It obviously didn’t work. The US forced similar adjustment on TikTok and doesn’t seem to hesitate trying to impose American laws outside its territory.
Most countries consider mineral resources to be state-owned if they are located within their national borders. Bribing officials and installing puppet governments only takes you so far, and occasionally local governments grow backbones to allow them to oppose exploitation.
And courts in the US have no jurisdiction outside their borders. If there is a legitimate complaint, it can be brought to the WTO or other similar international court. Unfortunately, in order to avoid prosecution for war crimes, the US chose not to be part of the ICC.
[–] dopa42365 3 days ago
[–] jltsiren 3 days ago
A recent law also gave data centers the last priority for grid access. The idea was to prioritize productive industry over less productive uses of electricity. Even something with as little added value as steel production tends to employ ~10 people (directly or as subcontractors) and produce ~€10 million/year of exports for every MW of average power consumption.
[–] devilsdata 3 days ago
[–] paxy 3 days ago
a. put them a few miles outside urban centers
b. put them in space
Which is a cheaper, better option?
[–] lenerdenator 3 days ago
[–] senordevnyc 3 days ago
[–] zardo 2 days ago
[–] senordevnyc 2 days ago
[–] shit_game 3 days ago
[–] marcosdumay 2 days ago
That tells a lot about who decision makers are optimizing against.
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.