upvote
Yes cooling is difficult. Half the "solar panels" on the ISS aren't solar panels but heat radiation panels. That's the only way you can get rid of it and it's very inefficient so you need a huge surface.
reply
This isn’t true. The radiators on ISS are MUCH smaller than the solar panels. I know it’s every single armchair engineer’s idea that heat rejection is this impossible problem in space, but your own example of ISS proves this is untrue. Radiators are no more of a problem than solar panels.
reply
The radiators are significantly smaller than the PV arrays, but not by a massive ratio; looks like about 1:3.6 based on the published area numbers that I could find.

It looks like the ISS active cooling system has a maximum cooling capacity that could handle the equivalent of a single-digit number of racks (down to 1 for an AI-focused rack).

reply
The heat load of the ISS is a handful of astronauts and some equipment and whatever it absorbs from the sun. Not an entire data center or a nuclear rocket which is where the radiator discussion comes into play.
reply
The heat load is equal to the load from the solar panels, to first order. So actually yeah, you CAN compare the size of solar panels to the size of the radiators.
reply
seems oddly paradoxical. ISS interior at some roughly livable temperature. Exterior is ... freakin' space! Temperature gradient seems as if it should take of it ...

... and then you realize that because it is space, there's almost nothing out there to absorb the heat ...

reply
There's nothing paradoxical about it. There's no such thing as a temperature gradient in a vacuum, there's nothing to hold or measure temperature against. And thus a vacuum is a really good insulator. Which is why a vacuum flask, which ultimately became one of Thermos' most well known products, is used to control temperature both in and outside the lab.
reply
Except a thermos has a really low emissivity, otherwise (if it had high emissivity), it’d be a poor insulator due to thermal radiation, the same reason why ISS’s radiators are much smaller than its solar panels.
reply
there literally is nothing to absorb the heat. Conduction and convection are out, all you got is radiation.

new vc rule: no investing in space startups unless their founders have 1000 hours in KSP and 500 hours in children of a dead earth

reply
I’d settle for at least a high school physics education. This idea seemed insane when I first heard about it a few weeks back. This analysis just makes it that much more crazy.

If YC is hell bent on lighting piles of money on fire, I can think of some more enjoyable ways.

reply
they got the sun synchronous orbit part right.
reply
Radiation is not actually a problem unless you're trying to do super high power nuclear electric propulsion (i.e. in your videogame). Classic armchair engineer mistake, tbh.

Radiators work great in space. Stefan-Boltzmann's law. The ISS's solar panels are MUCH smaller than the radiators. Considering datacenters on Earth have to have massive heat exchangers as well, I really think the bUt wHaT aBoUt rAdiAtOrs is an overblown gotcha, considering every satellite still has to dump heat and works just fine.

reply
The problem is not that radiators don't work. The problem is the need for liquid cooling. The heat prduced per area in the GPU/CPU is much bigger than the cooling capacity per area of your radiator.

Even here on earth, contemporary GPU racks for AI have had to move to liquid cooling because it is the only way to extract enough heat. At 120 kW for 18x 1U servers (GB200 NVL72), the power density is waaay beyond what you can do with air even.

The last time Starcloud was doing the rounds on HN, I estimated that they need to be pumping water at a flow rate of 60 000 liters per second, if you use the numbers in their whitepaper. That's a tenth of the Sacramento river, flowing in space through a network with a million junctions and hoping nothing leaks.

reply
There's a difference between a couple humans (n150W) and say JUST one H200 DGX (8700W).
reply
yes. in general as a rule of thumb your radiator size must scale proportionally to your solar panel size, as parent says:

> The ISS's solar panels are MUCH smaller than the radiators.

reply
A great interactive example of this is the game Oxygen Not Included. By the late game, you're biggest problem is your base getting too hot from the waste heat of all your industry.
reply
If you read the Starcloud whitepaper[1], it claims that massive batteries aren't needed because the satellites would be placed in a dawn-dusk sun-synchronous orbit. Except for occasional lunar eclipses, the solar panels would be in constant sunlight.

The whitepaper also says that they're targeting use cases that don't require low latency or high availability. In short: AI model training and other big offline tasks.

For maintenance, they plan to have a modular architecture that allows upgrading and/or replacing failed/obsolete servers. If launch costs are low enough to allow for launching a datacenter into space, they'll be low enough to allow for launching replacement modules.

All satellites launched from the US are required to have a decommissioning plan and a debris assessment report. In other words: the government must be satisfied that they won't create orbital debris or create a hazard on the ground. Since these satellites would be very large, they'll almost certainly need thrusters that allow them to avoid potential collisions and deorbit in a controlled manner.

Whether or not their business is viable depends on the future cost of launches and the future cost of batteries. If batteries get really cheap, it will be economically feasible to have an off-the-grid datacenter on the ground. There's not much point in launching a datacenter into space if you can power it on the ground 24/7 with solar + batteries. If cost to orbit per kg plummets and the price of batteries remains high, they'll have a chance. If not, they're sunk.

I think they'll most likely fail, but their business could be very lucrative if they succeed. I wouldn't invest, but I can see why some people would.

1. https://starcloudinc.github.io/wp.pdf

reply
You can also drink from a shoe. It's absolutely possible.
reply
And it enjoyed some popularity. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_boot

reply
And there you've cut to the chase.

I was implying an unspoken obvious "but why would you?"

But of course the answer I missed was you don't, you make money from people who, for whatever reason, want to drink from shoes.

reply
> For maintenance, they plan to have a modular architecture that allows upgrading and/or replacing failed/obsolete servers. If launch costs are low enough to allow for launching a datacenter into space, they'll be low enough to allow for launching replacement modules.

This is hiding so, so much complexity behind a simple hand wavy “modular”. I have trained large models on thousands of GPUs, hardware failure happen all the time. Last example in date: an infiniband interface flapping which ultimately had to be physically replaced. What do you do if your DC is in space? Do you just jettison the entire multi million $ DGX pod that contains the faulty 300$ interface before sending a new one? Do you have an army of astronauts + Dragons to do this manually? Do we hope we have achieve super intelligence by then and have robots that can do this for us ?

Waving the “Modular” magic key word doesn’t really cut it for me.

reply
> Whether or not their business is viable depends on the future cost of launches and the future cost of batteries. If batteries get really cheap, it will be economically feasible to have an off-the-grid datacenter on the ground. There's not much point in launching a datacenter into space if you can power it on the ground 24/7 with solar + batteries.

Something tells me that the price of batteries is already cheap enough for terrestrial data centers to make more economic sense than launching a datacenter - which will also need batteries - into space.

reply
Same with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, inventing a detour because it sounds cool and ultimately don't work out because Occam's Razor.
reply
Let me alert all the NIMBY folks, let them know that data centers will be blocking their view of the moon and casting shadows on their backyards.
reply
Just give all those astronomers mockup telescopes with little screens creating the fancy images they want inside them.

They will calm down.

reply
Of course, they're soft targets in space war too, they could generate lots of debris.
reply
Man I read “AI training in a high latency self sufficient satellite orbiting earth” as the start of a Sci-Fi novel…
reply
Just another good proof of paper being an ideal medium for fiction

Any purported advantages have to contend with the fact that sending the modules costs millions of dollars. Tens to hundred millions

reply
Servers outside any legal jurisdiction. Priceless.
reply
International space law (starting with the Outer Space Treaty of 1967) says that nations are responsible for all spacecraft they launch, no matter whether the government or a non-governmental group launches them. So a server farm launched by a Danish company is governed by Danish law just the same as if they were on the ground- and exposed to the same ability to put someone into jail if they don't comply with a legal warrant etc.

This is true even if your company moves the actual launching to, say, a platform in international waters- you (either a corporation or an individual) are still regulated by your home country, and that country is responsible for your actions and has full enforcement rights over you. There is no area beyond legal control, space is not a magic "free from the government" area.

reply
While that's all true, it does hilariously increase the difficulty for the government showing up and seizing your server hardware...
reply
They don't need to do that if they go after your ground station operators.

To escape the law you need to hide or protect something on earth (your ground station(s), downlinks). If you can hide or protect that infrastructure on earth, why bother putting the computers in space?

reply
deleted
reply
Because you need an enormous amount of energy to run the servers. You may hide the downlinks but you still need power.
reply
I'm not sure how you maintain hidden ground stations while providing a commercial service that justifies many $MM in capital and requires state support to get launch permission.
reply
> I'm not sure how you maintain hidden ground stations while providing a commercial service that justifies many $MM in capital and requires state support to get launch permission.

Who said that Starcloud's business model is about commercial services? At https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44397026 I rather speculate that Starcloud's business model is about getting big money defense contracts.

reply
Yeah exactly. We’re riffing on how implausible that is, right?
reply
deleted
reply
ASAT missiles have existed since the 80s and multiple countries have demonstrated the capability to destroy something in space.

Meanwhile, you, the actual human being the government wants to coerce, are still on the earth, where someone can grab you and beat you with a wrench

reply
Maybe not so much... they'll just grab you. Obligatory XKCD.

https://xkcd.com/538/

Unless you go up there with it and a literal lifetime supply? Although I guess if you don't take much it's still a lifetime supply...

reply
What if you’re a stateless person? (Not an easy status to acquire these days, but any US citizen can just renounce their citizenship without getting a new one, for example.)
reply
Being stateless has an end result of "literally anyone can fuck with you" more than "no one can fuck with you".
reply
nations are responsible for all spacecraft they launch, no matter whether the government or a non-governmental group launches them.

Nations come and go. In my lifetime, the world map has changed dozens of times. Incorporate in a country that doesn't look like it's going to be around very long. More than likely, the people running it will be happy to take your money.

reply
Generally though, countries don’t disappear: they have a predecessor and a successor.
reply
A successor may take possession of the land, but that doesn't mean it will also take responsibility for the previous government's liabilities.
reply
That is why international treaties come with implicit or explicit enforcement options
reply
That is not how international law works, you don't get to say "we are a new country and therefore not bound by treaties that earlier forms did."

This principle was established when Nazis were convicted for war crimes at Nuremburg for violating treaties that their predecessor state the Weimar Republic signed, even after the Nazi's repudiated those treaties and claimed they were signed by an illegitimate state, and that they were a new Reich, not like the Wiemar Republic.

Basically if territory changes hand to an existing state that state will obviously still have obligations, and if a new state is formed, then generally it is assumed to still carry the obligations of the previous state. There is no "one weird trick" to avoid international law. I assure you that the diplomats and lawyers 80 years ago thought of these possibilities. They saw what resulted from the Soviet and Nazi mutual POW slaughters, and set up international law so no one could ignore it.

reply
Those kinds of countries don't tend to be the kinds of countries with active space programs.

And more critically - they have successor states.

The Russian Federation is treated as the successor to the USSR in most cases (much to the chagrin of the rest of the CIS) and Serbia is treated as the successor to Yugoslavia (much to the chagrin of the rest)

reply
:-) I appreciate your snark and the ad campaign reference.

But if international waters isn't enough (and much cheaper) then I don't think space will either. Man's imagination for legal control knows no bounds.

You wait (maybe not, it's a long wait...), if humankind ever does get out to the stars, the legal claims of the major nations on the universe will have preceded them.

reply
The 'Principality of Sealand', anywhere else on the high seas or Antarctica have their issues with practicality too, but considerably less likelihood of background radiation flipping bits...
reply
Unless the company blasts its HQ and all its employees into space, no, they are very much subject to the jurisdiction of the countries they operate in. The physical location of the data center is irrelevant.
reply
Exactly. Government entities have a funny habit of making their own decisions about what (and who) is and is not subject to their jurisdiction.
reply
[Mild spoilers for _Critical Mass_ by Daniel Suarez below]

> Servers outside any legal jurisdiction

Others have weighed in on the accuracy of this, with a couple pointing out that the people are still on the ground. There's a thread in _Critical Mass_ by Daniel Suarez that winds up dealing with this issue in a complex set of overlapping ways.

Pretty good stuff, I don't think the book will be as good as the prior book in the series. (I'm only about halfway through.)

reply
I know there's the fantasy of orbital CSAM storage able to beam obscenity to any point on the ground with zero accountability, but that is not going to survive real world politics.
reply
Given that most of the major powers have satellite shootdown ability this isn't worth all that much if you're causing enough trouble.
reply
Shooting down a satellite is a major step that creates a mess of space junk, angering everybody.

Plus you can just have a couple of politicians from each major power park their money on that satellite.

reply
>Shooting down a satellite is a major step that creates a mess of space junk, angering everybody.

unless everybody is angry at satellite in which case it is a price everybody is even eager to pay.

>Plus you can just have a couple of politicians from each major power park their money on that satellite.

I've long had the idea that there are fashions in corruption and a point at which to be corrupt just becomes too gauche and most politicians go back to being honest.

This explains the highly variant history of extreme corruption in democracies.

At any rate while the idea that the cure for any government interference is to be sufficiently corrupt sounds foolproof in theory I'm not sure it actually works out.

If I was a major politician and you had my competitors park their money on your satellite it would become interesting for me to get rid of it. Indeed if you had me and my competitors on the satellite I might start thinking how do I conceal getting my money out of here and then wait for best moment to ram measure through to blow up satellite.

reply
By that logic, politicians around the world would make it illegal for themselves to trade stock on their insider knowledge. I'm not holding my breath.

See: https://unusualwhales.com/politics. Some of these politicians on both sides are very good and consistent stock pickers indeed.

reply
huh?..

I'm sorry but what logic is it you're referring to here? Is it the idea that there are fashions in corruption? If so by that logic we are probably in an era of high corruption.

Is it the idea that if I were a corrupt politician and I had equally corrupt enemies I would use my knowledge of their corruption to dirty trick them? Because ... dirty tricking them and getting them to lose all their finance at one time is not quite the same as passing a law making it difficult for everyone to get more finance from hereon out.

I'm not following exactly what logic of mine you think you've defeated with observing that there are a lot of corrupt politicians nowadays?

reply
Who would be willing to provide connectivity to servers that are exploiting being outside legal jurisdiction for some kind of value?
reply
Dozens upon dozens of illicit shady bulletproof hosting providers.

2026, we will get ransomware from space!

The RaaS groups have hundreds of millions of dollars so in theory they actually could get something like that setup if they wanted.

reply
> 2026, we will get ransomware from space!

Ahem, cloud ransomware.

reply
Anyone with a ground station aimed at the datacenter satellite.
reply
Would be cheaper to do in international waters, even if you needed security to protect it.
reply
Pretty worthless unless the execs live in space too.
reply
Why? Its not like we put execs in jail for allowing their companies to do terrible things under their watch.
reply
The best argument I've heard for data centres in space startups is it's a excuse to do engineering work on components other space companies might want to buy (radiators, shielding, rad-hardened chips, data transfer, space batteries) which are too unsexy to attract the same level of FOMO investment...
reply
Yes, and also just because a space data center isn’t useful today doesn’t mean it won’t be required tomorrow. When all the computing is between the ground and some nearby satellites, of course the tradeoffs won’t be worth it.

But what about when we’re making multi-year journeys to Mars and we need a relay network of “space data centers” talking to each other, caching content, etc?

We may as well get ahead of the problems we’ll face and solve them in a low-stakes environment now, rather than waiting to discover some novel failure scenario when we’re nearing Mars…

reply
> what about when we’re making multi-year journeys to Mars and we need a relay network of “space data centers” talking to each other, caching content, etc?

How would this work? Planets orbit at different speeds, so you can't build a chain of relays to another planet. I can imagine these things orbiting planets, but is that worth it compared to ground-based systems?

reply
We'd build it then? The problems of a space data center are extremely generic and only worth solving when you actually need one. Which would never be in low earth orbit.
reply
You need less batteries in orbit than on the ground since you're only in shade for at most like 40 minutes. And it's all far more predictable.

Cooling isn't actually any more difficult than on Earth. You use large radiators and radiate to deep space. The radiators are much smaller than the solar arrays. "Oh but thermos bottles--" thermos bottles use a very low emissivity coating. Space radiators use a high emissivity coating. Literally every satellite manages to deal with heat rejection just fine, and with radiators (if needed) much smaller than the solar arrays.

Latency is potentially an issue if in a high orbit, but in LEO can be very small.

Equipment upgrades and maintenance is impossible? Literally, what is ISS, where this is done all the time?

Radiation shielding isn't free, but it's not necessarily that expensive either.

Orbital maintainence is not a serious problem with low cost launch.

The upside is effectively unlimited energy. No other place can give you terawatts of power. At that scale, this can be cheaper than terrestrially.

reply
> The radiators are much smaller than the solar arrays.

Modern solar panels are way more efficient than the ancient ones in ISS, at least 10x. The cooling radiators are smaller than solar panels because they are stacked and therefore effectively 5x efficient.

Unless there are at least 2x performance improvements on the cooling system, the cooling system would have to be larger than solar panels in a modern deployment.

reply
This is false. It’s pretty straightforward to prove using Stefan-Boltzmann. Radiating from both sides at 300K, a square radiator that’s 1 meter on a side emits 920W.

Additionally, you wouldn’t use cutting edge 35% triple junction cells for a space datacenter, you’d use silicon cells like Starlink and ISS use. 22% efficient with 90% full factor, given 1350W/m^2 and thus 270W/m^2, to provide enough power for that radiator you’d need a solar panel 3.4 times as big, and that’s if you were in 24/7 sunshine. If you’re in a low orbit that’s obscured almost half the time, it’s 6-7 times as big.

Why do people keep making these obviously wrong claims when a paragraph of arithmetic shows they’re wrong? Do the math.

reply
We’re probably thinking of it the wrong way. Instead of a single datacenter it’s more likely we build constellations and then change the way we write software.

There will probably be a lot more edge computing in the future. 20 years ago engineers scoffed at the idea of deploying code into a dozen regions (If you didn’t have a massive datacenter footprint) but now startups do it casually like it’s no big deal. Space infrastructure will probably have some parallels.

reply
That sounds like the Guoxing Aerospace / ADA Space “Three-Body Computing Constellation”, currently at 12 satellites (out of a planned 2,800).

The Chinese project involves a larger number of less powerful inference-only nodes for edge computing, compared to Starcloud's training-capable hyperscale data centers.

[1] Andrew Jones. "China launches first of 2,800 satellites for AI space computing constellation". Spacenews, May 14, 2025. https://spacenews.com/china-launches-first-of-2800-satellite... [2] Ling Xin. "China launches satellites to start building the world’s first supercomputer in orbit". South China Morning Post, May 15, 2025. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3310506/chin... [3] Ben Turner. "China is building a constellation of AI supercomputers in space — and just launched the first pieces". June 2, 2025. https://www.livescience.com/technology/computing/china-is-bu...

reply
> 20 years ago engineers scoffed at the idea of deploying code into a dozen regions (If you didn’t have a massive datacenter footprint) but now startups do it casually like it’s no big deal.

Are there many startups actually taking real advantage of edge computing? Smaller B2B places don't really need it, larger ones can just spin up per-region clusters.... and then for 2C stuff you're mainly looking at static asset stuff which is just CDNs?

Who's out there using edge computing to good effect?

reply
Sounds like a great investment for SoftBank
reply
I think the upside is that it’s VC fodder. I imagine their thinking went about as far as “wow, what if we like….did AI…but in space?!”
reply
reliable energy is the only (maybe valid) reason. you can get yourself into a sun synchronous dawn dusk orbit and avoid shading by the earth.
reply
Bandwidth - negligible
reply
Re: reliable energy. Even in low earth orbit, isn't sunlight plentiful? My layman's guess says it's in direct sun 80-95% of the time, with deterministic shade.
reply
It's super reliable, provided you've got the stored energy for the reliable periods of downtime (or a sun synchronous orbit). Energy storage is a solved problem, but you need rather a lot of it for a datacentre and that's all mass which is very expensive to launch and to replace at the end of its usable lifetime. Same goes for most of the other problems brought up
reply
Exactly this. It's not that it's a difficult problem, but it is a high mass-budget problem. Which makes it an expensive problem. Which makes it a difficult problem.
reply
You answered it yourself, a sun synchronous orbit negates the need for large battery systems.
reply
That would make communicating with bits on Earth kind of painful though; I suppose that would work for a server that serves other sun-synchronous objects, but that seems like a rather small market.
reply
Maybe.

If starcloud integrated with something like starlink, using the laser inter satellite links to distribute ground comms across a network of satellites, then the datacenter maintaining a direct link to a base station is probably a non-issue for most purposes.

reply
You can have sun synchronous around an earth orbit. L1 would do nicely
reply
Depends on your orbit, but you need to be prepared to rotate into Earth's shadow seamlessly.
reply
> There's no upside, it's only downsides as far as I can tell.

It's outside of any jurisdiction, this is a dream come true for a libertarian oligarch.

reply
It's not, all objects in space fall under the jurisdiction of the country that launched the rocket.
reply
You're making lots of assumptions. They can put like 1000 Raspberrypi's which don't need all that much cooling and relatively little energy requirements.

For your other concerns, the risks are worth it for customers because of the main reward: No laws or governments in space! Technically, the datacenter company could be found liable but not for traffic, only for take-down refusals. Physical security is the most important security. For a lot of potential clients, simply making sure human access to the device is difficult is worth data-loss,latency and reliability issues.

reply