upvote
That's actually not a concern I'd have, because hardware that has been sufficiently tested and burned in tends not to fail for a very long time.

I've done builds that ran for 5+ years with virtually no physical attention, just continual degradation as hardware is taken out of service. There's also not much money to recover from 5+ year-old hardware.

I used to run AI inference GPU servers in road vehicles, which is probably an even harsher environment than a single rocket launch, and the vibration problems are real but solvable.

reply
GPUs depreciate super fast. It might last 5-7 years but it's already outdated at 2-3

Also space has more radiation

reply
5 years is a Starlink's typical lifetime. Data center satellite lifetimes will probably be shorter. Demise sooner, replace more often. GPUs get more energy efficient every year and leaving the slower, hungrier chips up there much longer than 3 years seems wasteful given the cheap cost of launch.

I think this could be done at an interesting scale even on Falcon 9 alone. If Starship does even 20% of its early design goals, it'll beat Falcon 9 and we could see orbital servers being demised and replaced every 3 years, maybe even 2, for ones with abnormally high failure rates.

Now, whether or not this will all make money in the end has a lot to do with what's going on down here on terra firma and how long it takes to get useful capacity into orbit.

(It's taken 7 years to get Starlink capacity enough for serving 10M customers. Verizon FiOS did 10M in 5 years. AT&T Fiber took 4-5 years to deploy to 10M. So, space isn't a lot slower than terrestrial.)

reply
Starlink rushed when they put the satellites in orbit, AT&T did the opposite. They did the bare minimum. So terrestrial was faster without really trying
reply
> space isn't a lot slower than terrestrial

But it depreciates faster. That fiber run is lasting for 50 years, not 5. You need 10x the installation capacity just to keep up.

reply
uhh no I dont think the road vehicle is harsher than a rocket launch
reply
The Microsoft design of filling an airtight submersible structure with argon and dropping it to the bottom of the ocean floor is the alternative design - you’re not looking to do repairs but amortize the low cost of failures across the value you extract.

The biggest issue with space is not repairability but heat - when you’re in a vacuum the only way to disperse heat is through black body radiation and that’s horribly slow compared with normal mechanisms. It means you need giant physical structures whose sole job is to accept heat from the processing core and radiate it away and have so much more material that you can radiate it at the speed you generate. It’s a huge unsolved physics problem which is why everyone is skeptical.

reply
It’s not an unsolved physics problem. Every satellite in space has to deal with it and even the ISS deals with it by having massive radiator arrays that face perpendicular to the sun.

The problem with data centers in space is one of materials science and engineering: how to make radiators large enough and effective enough to cool it while also being economically feasible, both in terms of construction and getting them up there in the first place.

We can make a space data center right now. It would just be terrible and expensive.

reply
The physics problem regarding radiator arrays isn't unsolved, but it's not a problem that scales up gracefully. Small-scale radiators could get by via passive cooling, but large-scale radiators need active cooling, and now you need fluid, pipes, and pumps that all represent additional launch mass and points of failure (and the pumps are generating heat of their own, so now you need more radiators...).
reply
I think it's not necessarily about being the cheapest option, but a more politically acceptable one. I don't think you're going to get people protesting a data center in space considering it won't be next to their house, won't use water, and won't lead to increased electricity rates. I could see companies paying a premium to keep the political heat associated with traditional data centers off their backs.
reply
It's so, so cheap to buy tap water and dump it on the heat exchange.
reply
With well considered engineering it doesn't even need to be tap water. If you have a closed loop thermal conductor that interacts with the components themselves you can then use really trashy contaminated water that just needs to be clean enough not to actively erode the heat transfer mechanism. We have setups like this all the time that use condensed air via cooling towers or salt water immersed heat sinks to discharge energy - it's more expensive than tap water but it isn't technically complex. So if it ever becomes unpalatable (likely due to politics) to use tap water there are some readily available alternatives.

The big win of being in space is just a worse alternative to using an intermediary heat transfer medium.

reply
Isn't the problem also that because of radiation, processors in space either need to have larger feature sizes OR additional shielding / redundancy? Seems like a pretty high price to pay for slightly cheaper energy...
reply
Ars had an article that cited some HPE testing on the international space station that said regular hardware is _probably_ fine up to about 5 years

Definitely not definitive but it's plausible current hardware could survive with minimal modification

reply
hm but "fine" as in probably won't die?

my question was more whether the hardware would need extra redundancy or shielding in order to not have unacceptably high error rates

reply
There's a radiation section in the article, I'll let you draw your own conclusions

https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/07/how-hard-is-it-to-buil...

reply