Allow me to propose a modest alternative to space data centers, namely mountaintop data centers. This would consist of a container full of servers and GPUs and what else goes into a data center, a wind turbine for power and a communication module (say laser or microwave) for communicating with a base station with a fiber connection. This would be lifted on top of a mountain by a helicopter and bolted in place. Cooling would be provided by heat sinks exposed to the outside air. Some of the nodes could relay traffic from other nodes on remote mountain tops out of sight of the base station.
This scheme has many advantages over space data centers including launch costs, cooling, connection latency, servicability and ease of recycling.
I think we can't rule out the explanation that all the ideas of space data centers could be connected to a desire by some of finding additional applications for rockets that can transport stuff to space.
I think we can't rule out the explanation that all the ideas of space data centers could have been connected solely to a desire to pump SpaceX's IPO.
It also provides a post hoc rationale for rolling Elon's loss making businesses into SpaceX. The bull case for ODCs looks a lot like the bull case for space based solar power that Musk once called "the stupidest thing ever"...
That said, SpaceX aren't the only entity proposing ODCs, they're just the only ones promising they're going to make country-sized profits out of them...
A better idea is to put them on Mars, so people actually think before they send a stupid question.
I'm thinking if we send them out to catch the Voyager probe up, people might have time to write stuff themselves before they ask the computer to do it for them :)
You just need to go north. Most of Finland requires massive amounts of heating for most of the year for industrial and residential purposes. If the math doesn’t add up there, I really can’t see how math for orbital data centers would add up.
(I know this is a joke, but it made me think): I wonder what side effects having GW-level heat generation would have on the surrounding area. snowcapped mountains turn to rivers? Spring year round? Something else?
What advantage does a mountaintop have versus a more accessible earth-based location?
I suspect one of the motivations for space datacenters is to try to stay out of the reach of all jurisdictions so you Musk can start to run his companies as an autonomous state.
If the goal is to avoid various national jurisdictions, what about floating a barge out into international waters? Do it near the equator in the middle of the pacific to maximize the difficulty of humans getting there. Use the money saved by not needing to launch into orbit to purchase massive gun turrets to prevent piracy.
Instead of one large floating barge, make it a thousand smaller floating barges connected with Starlink. Monitor vessel activity near them and autonomously move the fleet to make intercepting them as difficult as possible. Rig them to explode upon capture to deter theft.
(Hint to the downvoters: I'm not being serious.)
A submarine comes by, says hi by torpedo, bye. Woe!
blub °Oo.
China already has a ground based laser array for military purposes (blinding more or less permanently spy satellites). Some think it could be upgraded to hard killing satellites, which I don't think is yet possible (the amount of energy to burn a sat is also enough to ionise air and thus waste and disperse the laser's energy), but with something heavily constrained by heat dissipation like an orbital datacenter, that last array could overload it and fry it...
> the amount of energy to burn a sat is also enough to ionise air and thus waste and disperse the laser's energy
Why would you use a single beam? Place them far enough apart that they don't begin to converge until the atmosphere has thinned out.
Yes because when your infrastructure is Earth based, your staff is Earth based and your customers are Earth based, your company's legal registration and owner are Earth based, it would be absolutely impossible for a government to enforce any type of jurisdictional control if your datacenters were in space.
And absolutely no one, anywhere, ever, has the capability to damage or destroy a satellite...
Absolutely no one, anywhere, ever, has the capability to damage or destroy many hundreds of satellites (assuming that SpaceX wouldn't be a willing launch partner).
> (assuming that SpaceX wouldn't be a willing launch partner)
really think about that statement when discussing deliberately avoiding government jurisdiction...
(perhaps also consider that it is not the case that no one can damage a lot of satellites in orbit, but that up until recently no one has had any incentive to build the number of interceptors you would need to do it. But how viable is a space-based datacenter business if you decide to try and pretend you're untouchable, and one of the _many_ governments which operates anti-satellite weapons simply shoots one of your satellites? The debris field from ASAT weapons tests has been of considerable concern everytime they've been used - and given the proximity of useful orbital slots for such a service, the number of intercepts required to render a constellation completely inoperable is going to be _far less_ then the number of satellites).
(in the vein of motivation too: it is well within the power of most well-funded governments to build laser systems would would degrade or destroy orbital satellites, but again, no one has had considerable motivation to do so till recently)
(and of course all of this is - again - competing against the simpler option of simply arresting the people on Earth, or interdicting their ground stations)
As I understand it the idea is to have many of such sats. Literally clouds of them.
Not necessarily in orbits which are easily reachable for current ASATs, nor 'economical'.
For now...
What would be accomplished by doing this vs placing them basically anywhere else on earth?
It is a comment on the absurdity of orbital data centers. Mountaintop data centers sound absurd, but are more feasible and efficient than orbital ones in nearly every aspect.
Cooling is not the crux of the real problem, it's the fact that we have no way to replace single failed units in a running space-based data center without another launch - and if youre stressing your total launch cadence with 'new' datacenters, at what % do you repair or replace the whole slab.
The launch tempo, following the invention of a functioning approach to in-space single node replacement for even a modest portion of the planned workload capacity is something that strains credulity, even at the normal earth-level maintenance rate.
Addressing the increased failure rates due to the hard rads and geomagnetic effects, while demanding that orbital systems remain above nm% load - that's n% of the hardware still operating - at 100% power and thermal, or 100% of hardware at m% of power and thermal, or the intersection of those two slopes at any given time - in order to meet shareholders profit expectations pushes that launch cadence and cost - to maintain the baseline of workload... and well, the math of that for even a minimal % of earthbound current deployed demand is just staggeringly many launches per year.
Maybe i'm missing something, but bigger vehicles for putting larger payloads doesnt make it better, it makes it worse.
That's fine, if the argument for DC in space is just "Let's put them in the hardest place possible". Then less hard -> absurd, implies more harder -> more absurder.
But space based dc accomplish something that mountaintop dc do not. The different list of benefits/tradeoffs are why space DC are proposed and mountaintop ones are not. It's a difference of kind, not degree. It's not a meaningful experiment to just try to build DC in hard places and then we can finally validate space.
Stated benefits in particular:
- Power available 24/7 for "free"
- coms w/o interruption using existing infra
- Rideshare (SPX can build out capacity while other lifts pay some of the bill for lift)
- Nonregulation
- Very low latency to "places of interest far from USA mountains"
And no, I do not believe that mountaintop automatically satisfies these benefits in a smooth way such that mountaintop is a meaningful stepping stone towards space.
> - Power available 24/7 for "free"
The Sun is visible from Earth as well, the last time I checked.
In LEO you don't get power 24/7 because you are only 500km above the Earth. Yes the Sun is more attenuated on Earth but what we care about is $/W not raw wattage, and Earth certainly has cheaper $/W than space.
> - coms w/o interruption using existing infra
I'm perplexed how comms might be easier in space than on Earth where you can just run a cable.
> - Rideshare (SPX can build out capacity while other lifts pay some of the bill for lift)
On Earth you don't need to rideshare because you don't have to ride a rocket.
> - Nonregulation
Space is more regulated than Earth. The only way to get to space is via a rocket which is the same as an ICBM. Governments regulate the process of building ICBMs and what payloads can ride on them.
If you want non-regulation then go to international waters or find a bribable government.
> - Very low latency to "places of interest far from USA mountains"
The latency is not terrible in LEO but it's nowhere near as good as on Earth.
We're losing the direct chain of thought here. My assertion is that "Nonexistence of Mountaintop DC is not a counter-example to space DC". That's it. The reasons were spelled out.
Your points: "Mountaintop" is how comms is easier in space vs on earth. Starlink already serves many rural areas simply b/c it is easier to go to/from space in some places than "running a cable". "Latency is nowhere near as good as on earth" is just false. "Mountaintop" is why. But more broadly, my most recent vacation cabin has higher latency than starlink offers. Case closed I guess?
And one more on latency: I was referring to latency in areas of interest far from USA mountaintops / USA in general. You might want to peruse the DARPA programs on low latency in-situ, closed loop comms for in theater (sometimes space based) compute. Something close to the action.
Power: "Mountaintop" is how space has a better power case than earth. Not all of earth. Mountaintop earth. top level comment was talking about a wind turbine on a mountaintop. That's an attempt at 24h power which is very likely strictly worse.
You can step back and make larger arguments, but this thread is narrower.
"Space is more regulated than Earth". Yes, again, you're talking about wider counts of regulation. Just go look around at the pushback to data centers and you'll see some of the case for DC in space. The path to getting equipment into space is clean - just get permits and launch same as SPX does for starlink. The path to building a data center on a mountaintop probably encounters at least some non-paperwork pushback that's likely to trip big political fights. That's it. Are there a lot of mountaintops that are sufficiently cold to warrant "cooling" arguments that are not part of large state/federal parks?
So going back to the thread - if you believe that a mountaintop datacenter is a counter example to the feasibility of a space-based data center, then I think you're making a category error on some of the above criteria. Your comments don't dissuade me at all about that because they don't address either side of that argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
What about the rough weather and difficulty of maintenance, especially in rough weather?
Maintenance for a mountaintop data center only requires a team of skilled mountaineers. In space you'd need astronauts. It's at least an order of magnitude cheaper, perhaps two or three.
Nobody is doing maintenance on a small cluster in a satellite. It's disposable with a timespan of less than a decade to recoup all costs. Note that the usual argument to retire hardware is the electrical costs but when you've got lifetime solar you can run it indefinitely.
Nobody is doing maintenance on an orbital data center because it's too expensive and dangerous, not because it wouldn't be useful. Maintenance in space would in fact be way more useful than on land because the redundancy required by a lack of maintenance necessitates extra mass.
If you could pay a few space sherpas $100k to head up into LEO and service the thing, it would definitely be worth it.
I never said it wouldn't be useful, only that it isn't likely to happen. Amortized costs would reflect that. So it seems we agree?
> If you could pay a few space sherpas $100k to head up into LEO and service the thing, it would definitely be worth it.
Would it? Whatever you pay to launch the repair tech plus the replacement parts could instead be spent launching new hardware. Obviously the repair payload is a fraction of the total weight of new hardware but is it a small enough fraction to make repairing things worthwhile? I think it's likely that disposable is cheaper in this scenario.