Solar panels in space are 5 time more expensive to build than on earth (not talking into account launching them to space), while being 5 to 10 time more efficient. They also degrade 5 to 10 time faster, not accounting for solar flares. Deorbiting solar panels (and satellites) is also a huge environmental issue, as I dislike heavy metal in my food (and you should too). It isn't a real issue yet because we didn't send enough up there for the quantities to be an issue, but idiots seems persuaded we should increase the quantity of heavy metal sent in orbit without fixing this issue first.
Even assuming "that's it", why not just install it in e.g. Morocco instead? It's not like space is any easier to access than the Sahara, and saving a few dozen ms of network latency isn't particularly valuable when your TTFT is measured in tenths of a second. Sure, sun synchronous orbits are a thing, but you also need more expensive panels and the comparative efficiency will decline over time vs land-based hardware as your chips fail (wasting that part of the resource budget) and the land hardware gets upgraded.
The number of political actors that can stop you from building in Morocco (or confiscate/damage your invested capital once you deploy it) are numerous. The number that can do so in space? Maybe a half dozen. We’re already seeing states and municipalities in the US moving to ban data centers and the energy infrastructure needed to power them. Building in space faces no such procedural roadblocks.
The economics still seem like an open question, but if the demand for compute is high enough, space based data centers might be the only option
Let's not forget that physics confiscates satellites pretty quickly too. I realize I didn't say it explicitly, but I was assuming that this hypothetical land-based hardware would have access to only the same resources available to the satellites, namely sunlight and a network connection. That makes it somewhat less politically charged than a DC tied into local infrastructure.
If AGI were to happen, or if AI became a trillions-of-dollars-generating industry, you wouldn't want to have your data-centers which might be the most valuable thing on Earth be located in a foreign country. All this investment in infrastructure is not purely based on where the industry is now, but predicated by where those who are bullish about it think it will be in 5-10 years.
I think Elons version is totally crazy but the idea of edge computer (maybe for latency or something) on each satellite above your head could make sense. It could even integrate well with larger terrestrial datacenters (like your example of Morocco) depending on use case
Elon explained the logic at length in an interview: Cheaper != Available.
The availability of power is the constraint almost everywhere, no matter how much money you throw at it.
Gas turbine production has a many-year backlog. Everybody that can make the single-crystal superalloy turbine blades is fully booked for most of a decade and can't expand capacity for years (at least).
Meanwhile, putting a slightly larger solar panel onto a satellite is a trivial engineering excercise and has no blockers in 2026.
Disclaimer: Personally, I suspect all this AI-in-space "talk" from Elon is just cheap marketing to boost the IPO of xAI.
In space, that solar panel is always in the sunlight. No clouds, no night time. Weirdly enough, earth is a more challenging environment in some ways for solar. You need to lay out >3x the number of panels on earth to get the same power production, and you need batteries or a grid interconnection as a buffer.
Also, there's a populist backlash on building datacenters, power transmission infra, and power generation in many areas on earth. Locally, we have a number of people complaining about solar arrays going up on farmland, even though it's the farmers choosing to do it. "It's an eyesore".
If you mean the farmers' arrays, those are meant for commercial generation, so a good bit bigger, but one nice thing about solar is it's extremely modular, and you can fit it to the land. I believe bigger panels are more common for commercial, but I think it's a lot nicer to handle 40-50 pound panels than 70 pound panels.
> Okay but why not take that slightly larger solar panel and leave it on Earth?
Because panel cap factor is about 10-20% to begin because day and night exists on earth. Say you wanted to power it on solar + batteries and picked Australia. You pick place that has decent port and most exposure, i.e. Port Hedland. In winter, daily average drops by 20%. Also because atmosphere - 30% less insolation when compared to space. Finally add 10-45% cooling losses.
Which effectively means you need something at least 10-20x more panels + batteries to match space.
What are the benefits of a solar panel in space vs a solar panel here on Earth? I get that there's less "night" up there, and there's less interference from the atmosphere so the solar is more efficient, but is it that much more efficient that it actually makes more sense than solar panels on earth?
Solar panels in space are 5 time more expensive to build than on earth (not talking into account launching them to space), while being 5 to 10 time more efficient. They also degrade 5 to 10 time faster, not accounting for solar flares. Deorbiting solar panels (and satellites) is also a huge environmental issue, as I dislike heavy metal in my food (and you should too). It isn't a real issue yet because we didn't send enough up there for the quantities to be an issue, but idiots seems persuaded we should increase the quantity of heavy metal sent in orbit without fixing this issue first.
Even assuming "that's it", why not just install it in e.g. Morocco instead? It's not like space is any easier to access than the Sahara, and saving a few dozen ms of network latency isn't particularly valuable when your TTFT is measured in tenths of a second. Sure, sun synchronous orbits are a thing, but you also need more expensive panels and the comparative efficiency will decline over time vs land-based hardware as your chips fail (wasting that part of the resource budget) and the land hardware gets upgraded.
>why not just install it in e.g. Morocco instead
The number of political actors that can stop you from building in Morocco (or confiscate/damage your invested capital once you deploy it) are numerous. The number that can do so in space? Maybe a half dozen. We’re already seeing states and municipalities in the US moving to ban data centers and the energy infrastructure needed to power them. Building in space faces no such procedural roadblocks.
The economics still seem like an open question, but if the demand for compute is high enough, space based data centers might be the only option
Let's not forget that physics confiscates satellites pretty quickly too. I realize I didn't say it explicitly, but I was assuming that this hypothetical land-based hardware would have access to only the same resources available to the satellites, namely sunlight and a network connection. That makes it somewhat less politically charged than a DC tied into local infrastructure.
If AGI were to happen, or if AI became a trillions-of-dollars-generating industry, you wouldn't want to have your data-centers which might be the most valuable thing on Earth be located in a foreign country. All this investment in infrastructure is not purely based on where the industry is now, but predicated by where those who are bullish about it think it will be in 5-10 years.
How do you protect your datacenters in space from thrown stones?
You need permission to do that in Morocco
I think Elons version is totally crazy but the idea of edge computer (maybe for latency or something) on each satellite above your head could make sense. It could even integrate well with larger terrestrial datacenters (like your example of Morocco) depending on use case
> "We'll need thousands of them!
> Yes, they know.
> Starlink is already planned for a scale of tens of thousands of satellites.
Meanwhile Google installed that many TPUs yesterday afternoon. The idea is still stupid.
So it'll be more like Hertzner[1] in space. Each node just doing its own thing.
Not sure about the cost perspective but, at least that makes more sense than a giant brick floating around.
[1]: https://lafibre.info/hetzner/over-200-000-servers-in-one-pla...
issue is land based will still be cheaper. there are lot of cool things we can do in space, i’m not convinced putting data center is one of them.
Elon explained the logic at length in an interview: Cheaper != Available.
The availability of power is the constraint almost everywhere, no matter how much money you throw at it.
Gas turbine production has a many-year backlog. Everybody that can make the single-crystal superalloy turbine blades is fully booked for most of a decade and can't expand capacity for years (at least).
Meanwhile, putting a slightly larger solar panel onto a satellite is a trivial engineering excercise and has no blockers in 2026.
Disclaimer: Personally, I suspect all this AI-in-space "talk" from Elon is just cheap marketing to boost the IPO of xAI.
Okay but why not take that slightly larger solar panel and leave it on Earth?
Is the sunlight millions of times brighter beyond the atmosphere? I don’t get it.
In space, that solar panel is always in the sunlight. No clouds, no night time. Weirdly enough, earth is a more challenging environment in some ways for solar. You need to lay out >3x the number of panels on earth to get the same power production, and you need batteries or a grid interconnection as a buffer.
Also, there's a populist backlash on building datacenters, power transmission infra, and power generation in many areas on earth. Locally, we have a number of people complaining about solar arrays going up on farmland, even though it's the farmers choosing to do it. "It's an eyesore".
> In space, that solar panel is always in the sunlight
Only in a Sun-synchronous orbit, at specific elevations. Most 'normal' orbits have periods of shade.
Right, sorry, I meant in the orbits they're considering for these - I think they're mainly considering sun-sync.
How big is it? I have some space I’m not using, no pun intended.
How big are panels? If you get 60 cell panels, about 68x45 inches/1.7m x 1.1m. Our home array is 60 of those, 24kw.
Example of a spec sheet: https://signaturesolar.imagerelay.com/share/ffc69ee2265b4613...
If you mean the farmers' arrays, those are meant for commercial generation, so a good bit bigger, but one nice thing about solar is it's extremely modular, and you can fit it to the land. I believe bigger panels are more common for commercial, but I think it's a lot nicer to handle 40-50 pound panels than 70 pound panels.
You have to ask permission to build it somewhere. Nobody is going to stop you in space.
> Okay but why not take that slightly larger solar panel and leave it on Earth?
Because panel cap factor is about 10-20% to begin because day and night exists on earth. Say you wanted to power it on solar + batteries and picked Australia. You pick place that has decent port and most exposure, i.e. Port Hedland. In winter, daily average drops by 20%. Also because atmosphere - 30% less insolation when compared to space. Finally add 10-45% cooling losses.
Which effectively means you need something at least 10-20x more panels + batteries to match space.
What are the benefits of a solar panel in space vs a solar panel here on Earth? I get that there's less "night" up there, and there's less interference from the atmosphere so the solar is more efficient, but is it that much more efficient that it actually makes more sense than solar panels on earth?
Admittedly asked Claude, but improvements are estimated to be x6-8 improvements on energy collection