this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2025
17 points (87.0% liked)

Hardware

4355 readers
177 users here now

All things related to technology hardware, with a focus on computing hardware.

Rules (Click to Expand):

  1. Follow the Lemmy.world Rules - https://mastodon.world/about

  2. Be kind. No bullying, harassment, racism, sexism etc. against other users.

  3. No Spam, illegal content, or NSFW content.

  4. Please stay on topic, adjacent topics (e.g. software) are fine if they are strongly relevant to technology hardware. Another example would be business news for hardware-focused companies.

  5. Please try and post original sources when possible (as opposed to summaries).

  6. If posting an archived version of the article, please include a URL link to the original article in the body of the post.

Some other hardware communities across Lemmy:

Icon by "icon lauk" under CC BY 3.0

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world
17
An in-space construction firm says it can help build massive data centers in orbit (arstechnica.com)
submitted 6 days ago by Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world to c/hardware@lemmy.world
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

Let's do math.

Let's say the "space datacenter" peaks at 500 megawatts, seeing how Earth ones apparently peak around this. But that includes stuff like waste heat from power generation, the cooling and comms system, eveything on the spacecraft.

Lets say we want the coolant at 60C, so the computing stuff stays under 80C, as I am trying to give this system the benefit of the doubt. And lets assume the radiator is quite efficient and ignore mere engineering concerns, and give it an overall emissivity of 0.8.

From Project Rho:

Radiator area = P / (ε * σ * T^4)

Radiator area = (10 ^ 8 W) / ((0.8 emissivity) * (5.670374419 *10^-8, boltzman constant) * (333 Kelvin ^ 4, the same as 60C))

...That's a radiator two thirds of a mile across.

Let's, again, toss practicality out the window and say the "weight" of the whole thing is similar to a 6 mm aluminum panel, which seems like an unreasonable feat of engineering. After all, we gotta pump liquid through the thing, and unfold it somehow. But lets go with it.

That's 5400 cubic meters of aluminum. That's 5.6 * 10^6 kilograms. Picture a cargo ship flattened into a disk; that's the order of mass we're talking about.

At 20,000 kg per flight... that's 112 Falcon Heavy flights to low earth orbit, or ~$10 billion dollars. Just to get our impossible radiator into orbit, and nothing else. Lets say launch costs get 10X cheaper, somehow, and that's still a billion dollars.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That’s 5400 cubic meters of aluminum. That’s 5.6 * 10^6 kilograms. Picture a cargo ship flattened into a disk; that’s the order of mass we’re talking about.

Deorbiting it would probably make for an exciting show. Also, I wonder how much aluminum you can dump into the atmosphere before you have effects.

kagis

Oooh.

https://csl.noaa.gov/news/2025/427_0428.html

Within 15 years, plummeting satellites could release enough aluminum to alter winds, temps in the stratosphere

Estimates suggest satellite debris could rival the amount of naturally occurring meteor dust in the atmosphere by 2040.

At that rate, a satellite would burn up in the atmosphere every one to two days, depositing 10,000 metric tons of alumina in the upper atmosphere. That's equivalent to about 150 space shuttles vaporizing in the atmosphere every year.

The new study, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, suggests that much alumina could alter polar vortex speeds, heat up parts of the mesosphere by as much as 1.5 degrees Celsius, and impact the ozone layer. The metal aerosols and other particles vaporized from falling satellites would likely circulate in the stratosphere for several years, according to the authors.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

That's fascinating.

Spacecraft have a lot of exotic material in them, right? I guess aluminum is the big one by mass, but I bet there’s enough of others for interesting effects, too.

[–] PiraHxCx@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Well, in 2022 Qtar spent $220b to have some football matches in the desert... and didn't the cost of launching stuff on orbit substantially decreased in the last decade? Again, give a few decades, technology makes everything easier. If you were making that same math just ten years ago, your 10x cheaper would be higher than your current estimate.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

But why?

This was a totally unrealistic estimate, it’s probably more like trillions of R&D and launches. But even if it’s not, why on Earth would anyone spend that money when it’s so easy to and cheap to put data centers on Earth? We have tons of land! We have tons of space for making energy! And ocean! We can swap the servers out when they go obsolete in a few years! What’s the benefit to putting this same stuff in space?

It’s like discussing orbital, beamed solar power when land-based solar arrays are dirt cheap, yet barely getting funded as is. It’s an interesting thought experiment on using the higher solar flux, yes, and it abruptly ends when you start to consider practicality.

[–] PiraHxCx@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Right now Japan is finding easier to have outsourced people operating robots in convenience stores than hiring some local... like, when you add the cost of the robot, its maintenance, and you still have to pay someone to operate it... I also don't know why.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

That’s pretty interesting. I guess the candidate pool may be close to zero (and highly unreliable) in certain places.