alt Hacker NewsCooling in Space
Comments
Only stating the solar panel - radiator area ratio and not mentioning the actual area that a data center should have, is a sin of omission - and a great one. Also, hand-waving numerous engineering problems just by saying “we’ve solve harder problems before / you can come up with a few designs” is the last thing I want to see in anything that comes up in Hacker News.
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.
Space data centers are physically possible but don't make financial sense. The total cost of an orbital datacenter over five years is at least 2–3x that of a terrestrial one.
But those economics don't matter to SpaceX, because the main purpose of its orbital data centers is to create a use case for Starship. Starship has to fly frequently to iron out the kinks, encounter and fix rare (1/1000) failure situations, and optimize the launch cadence which pushes launch costs down. Plus Starship needs to fly a lot before it's ready for crewed flight. The long-term goal is a Starship optimized for crewed interplanetary travel. Orbital data centers are a payload that bring in some revenue, and provide a reason to launch constantly.
It's the same thing they did with Starlink to make Falcon 9 as reliable and rapidly reusable as it is.
What I don't understand about building a space data center is that you need radiators to release heat. Otherwise, it will become a space thermos. What's even more incomprehensible is that you would need specialized equipment for space radiation, and GPUs are consumables. To make that profitable, you would need pricing that is many times higher than the cost of a regular data center. I don't understand why there are people who actually fall for this. If I say this, people will call me someone who mocks others' challenges, but it seems like they're saying physical problems can be overcome too easily.
I still don’t see what the advantage is. Of course it’s physically possible to build a datacenter in space, but I can’t imagine land prices being that high that the same data center on earth wouldn’t be cheaper. Even just due to launch costs and the more sophisticated equipment needed for space.
Whyyyy are we not building distributed data centers under driveways? I want one under my driveway to melt the snow. It can use my power and water hookups if it pays for them.
Seems reasonable that the area needed would be less than the solar panels. Since it sould be more efficient to dump heat than collect energy from light.
I think it's a vary valid option to launch swarms of datacenters into space. I think a few decades to a hundred years from now, it will be the norm. Until then, we can find plany of land to do it. Instead a launch, you just need a battery. Much cheaper. All the rest stays the same.
This isn't terribly practical. Yes, we can deal with heat. The trouble is cost, and dealing with high energy radiation both flipping bits and corrupting the silicon.
I'll add another to the list of relevant links in the comments: https://spectrum.ieee.org/orbital-data-centers-heat
See also https://andrewmccalip.com/space-datacenters with some models and numbers you can play with.
[dead]
There was also this[1] analysis in late 2025 from a former NASA engineer that looked at the impracticability.
[1] https://taranis.ie/datacenters-in-space-are-a-terrible-horri...