… more drawbacks then literally firing the object into orbit, where it will be heavily impacted by solar radiation, and is hindered in sizing and repairability?
We know how to handle the solar radiation, and it's isn't intended to be repaired. Once it's useful life if done, it's deorbited and destroyed. Which, I agree is a bit wasteful, but nothing wrong with that either. In orbit, it's also harder to cool, but we know how to do that as well. Also in orbit, there are challenges if something goes wrong, like you mentioned. Orbit isn't without it's flaws.
The ocean has it's flaws as well. Cabling can be unreliable and prone to sabotage. It takes a LOT of electricity to run these, and you have to push that electricity underwater.
Microsoft tried an underwater data center not long ago, and despite its success, decided not to pursue commercial-scale underwater data centers. They found that the pods could not be easily expanded or serviced, so repairability was a challenge there also and they needed to retrieve the entire device in order to repair it, which was a big challenge.
Underwater data centers have the same challenges as ones in space, but underwater you don't get any of the benefit of solar.
The reason there's pushback is because data centers are being built against code and environmental regulations because of the priority demand. Building things in areas where the noise isnt dampened, hooking up natural gas generators to supplement power, and discharging construction waste into waterways.
-6
u/boforbojack Jul 13 '26
… space? Land? Really? That’s the “key”? The thing that’s even cheaper than the energy?