upvote
Not really. In sun synchronous orbit you can use solar power without battery backup. You can't do that on Earth because of night time.

Remote towns with populations of 43 are exactly the sorts of places that are pushing back on having datacenters in their areas.

And space is the ultimate physical protection. In reality a bigger issue than GPU thefts are protests or leftist groups trying to firebomb you. See the problems the Tesla factory in Germany has had with leftist violence, like setting its electricity pylons on fire (because electric cars "consume natural resources and are not sustainable", lol). The left has become very anti-AI and so the risk of attacks on facilities, especially if built outside the USA, is quite high which in turn means you have to overbuild physical security like high fences.

reply
If all the energy for a space appliance comes from the sun, in steady state they only have to radiate away the same amount that hits them. All long-lived spacecraft manage it.

Whether they can be worth the money it cost to put them in orbit is another story.

reply
> All long-lived spacecraft manage it.

Apples to oranges, long-lived satellites have modest power needs. Doing a back-of-the napkin math on required size of solar array and radiative elements for a single-rack's worth of energy is a sobering exercise for those who are a overly exuberant on the topic. The all-in power estimate for a single GB300 chip is 2.1kW

reply
Well, it can’t use more than it can get from the sun that hits it. So it can’t need to radiate more than that away. So it’s radiator size needs are in proportion to its solar panel size needs, and no worse than that.

Edit: ISS is about 90KW steady state, and the collector to radiator area ratio is about 5:1. Dunno about the mass ratio.

My point is not that space data centers are viable or sensible. Only that the need for cooling is limited. If a terrestrial datacenter was powered only by its rooftop solar panels, cooling it would be trivial. Space is harder, but there just isn’t that much heat to dump.

A simple rock in orbit radiates exactly as much heat as hits it from the sun, on average.

reply
> Well, it can’t use more than it can get from the sun that hits it. So it can’t need to radiate more than that away

You are correct that the first law of thermodynamics dictates the energy, but anyone who has parked a car in the sun will tell you, the temperature where the absorption/dissipation equilibrium is achieved is often incompatible with the survival of the cargo.

edit to your edit:

> Edit: ISS is about 90KW steady state, and the collector to radiator area ratio is about 5:1. Dunno about the mass ratio.

Cool; that's about half the wattage of one modern full-height Nvidia AI rack (172kW) - you need two ISSes to service just 1 rack; extrapolate that to a data center's worth of racks and see if the math is mathing. The ISS is about the size of a(n American) football field.

reply
Again, just to remind you, I didn’t claim space datacenters are economically rational.
reply
My original claim, in its entirety, was that on earth "You'll also get much better cooling for free via convection."
reply
You sure will. My contribution is that you don’t need much better cooling.
reply
The average temperature of a rock, car, or the ISS in low earth orbit is about -18C.
reply
It's this huge misconception that space is super cold. A better mind model is that space doesn't have much of a temperature at all just cause there's nothing there. Vacuum doesn't have a temperature.

You won't immediately freeze if you enter space without a suit. You'll die almost immediately, but it will be because your blood will begin to boil because of the lack of pressure kinda like an extreme form of divers sickness - it's just not the cold that'll get you first.

reply
That’s all true. But stuff in space has a temperature, and once I’d been dead a while in LEO, mine would be -18C.
reply
Well yes, but what matters is how hot that rock gets. Some rocks melt or vaporise in space (see comets).
reply
That’s right, and it’s not very hot: -18C on average.

You know space rocks where we live don’t melt because the Earth and moon don’t melt.

reply
deleted
reply
It's not a technical problem. It's a people problem. Every data center project over the last year has experienced some form of pushback no matter where they're built
reply
By definition, a data center in space is remote, self-reliant on electrical power and doesn't use potable water. These features require technical solutions before they become practical, and once one has cracked those challenges, they have disarmed all the push-back arguments people have raised against data centers. It's telling that the data centers want to build-out near population centers, i.e. where someone else has paid for fiber, grid and water infrastructure; it's a good old fashioned raid of the commons. This is why no-one is pushing for building data centers in locales with 0.2 people/sq mile with no one to subsidize the costs.
reply