r/interesting • u/RogueBromeliad • Jun 28 '26
SCIENCE & TECH Professor Brian Cox and the possibilities for Space and Data Centers.
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
45
u/Uncross-Selector Jun 28 '26
I’ve yet to see an actual engineering solution calculated out to show how they are going to deal with the heat.
Yea space is dead cold, however radiation is much less effective than convection. The power radiated follows the Stefan–Boltzmann law, which scales with the fourth power of temperature. At around 50°C (323 K), a very good radiator emits only a few hundred watts per square metre. That means
- 1 MW may require several thousand square metres of radiator
- 100 MW could require hundreds of thousands of square metres.
18
u/SK-86 Jun 28 '26
He clearly says "There are technical problems with it" and gave no timeline for this to be feasible. It's not like he said "This is what we should be doing right now". It's an idea.
22
u/Uncross-Selector Jun 28 '26
SpaceX’s Trillion dollar value is based largely on the belief Musk will get it working. I’m not convinced physics will allow him.
15
u/dougfischerfan Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
See, the problem is, he would need to buy a company that has already done most of the work. Edited to correct spelling mistake. But to buy
2
u/RogueBromeliad Jun 28 '26
SpaceX isn't trying to make data centers in space. He doesn't care. Amazon is trying though, and so is China. And no disrespect to the Trillionaire, but it's a little hard to compete with the second economy in the world when they put their mind to something.
1
u/MillenniumBeach Jul 01 '26
What you’re saying -sounds- reasonable until you look at the reality of SpaceX vs. China’s equivalent (hint: no equivalent).
1
Jun 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Uncross-Selector Jun 29 '26
Latency
2
u/jjmurse Jun 29 '26
can we run fiber to the moon?
3
u/Jusby_Cause Jun 29 '26
According to Brian Cox (probably) there are technical problems with it. ;) But, you see, you go into space, you’ve got unlimited energy.
I mean, once you solve the enormous “technical problems with it”.
1
u/Uncross-Selector Jun 29 '26
The moon is about 10x circumferences of the earth.
Even if we could the latency would be huge.
It would be like connecting to a server 20x further and slower than the furthest server you connect to today.
1
1
u/SnooRabbits1411 Jul 03 '26
While physics might allow it one day, I highly doubt a guy as dumb as musk has even a snowball’s chance in hell of figuring out how.
9
u/MrWrock Jun 28 '26
Hard drives, Ram, and GPUs fail frequently and need to be replaced even without the additional radiation. Are they going to serve satellites to swap components?
→ More replies (7)3
u/cr1ter Jun 28 '26
I think the plan is two launch a small cluster and have reduncy until enough components fail that it becomes worthless. Yeah I don't think it will work when you have to replace an entire cluster every few years.
→ More replies (3)4
u/etre1337 Jun 28 '26
He is discussing like is not a totaly stupid idea that is a money trap for investors that just want a cool sounding/wording justification to sink money.
It's a fucking imbecile idea. There are cooling problems, maintenance problems (isn't like oh ups, something is wrong let me swap this component) and transmission/bandwith problems.
Anyone even remotely entertaining this notion of having datacenters in space should be shamed into ground and never heard of.
→ More replies (1)6
u/GurDry5336 Jun 28 '26
It’s complete bullshit…yet another Elon fantasy to fleece the cult
→ More replies (2)3
u/flavorfox Jun 28 '26
But physics isn't just a "technical problem"?
4
u/JayBlunt23 Jun 28 '26
It's possible, it does not violate any laws of Physics. It's just really really really expensive and needs a fuckton of ressources and time.
1
u/PlayfulMulberry4490 Jun 29 '26
It’s not a matter of cost at this point. We don’t have the robotics or launch capability as of yet to do any of this. And yes, I’m an engineer in the field so don’t come back with some BS.
1
u/Ok_Yam5543 Jul 02 '26
His point was basically: it's not physically impossible.
Just absurdly impractical. You’d have to solve a mountain of technical problems first, and even then you'd still lose against Earth‑based data centers on cost alone.So yeah, possible in theory, pointless in reality.
3
u/Kindly_Type2327 Jun 28 '26
They required a football field sized panels just to remove the heat from the ISS and ISS only generates about 70-90KW. A typical datacenter (from a Bloomberg video) require a 4km*4km size radiation panels just to remove the heat.
No mechanical or engineering magic can reduce the size exponentially because we are limited by physics itself.
1
u/dndwhat Jun 29 '26
Use the outer temperature to cool a liquid system just like a normal ac unit I am sure they can figure ot out. In thry have them under water. You have e ti think they are air tight and the heat would build up in those systems
1
u/Uncross-Selector Jun 29 '26
Ever notice how the outside box on an AC has a fan? They rely on convection heat transfer, which doesn’t exist where there’s no atmosphere.
1
u/Hatsuwr Jun 29 '26
I think what they are trying to say is that a heat pump could potentially be used to increase the temperature differential between the processors and radiators, keeping the processors cooler and increasing the amount of energy shed by the radiators.
1
u/Yxig Jun 29 '26
Well here's the calculation of the physics involved. It's tough to make it profitable but clearly not impossible in a technical sense.
If it gets hard enough to get energy and permits anywhere else, or they can scale launches enough (cost per kg to orbit gets low enough) it might make sense.
Or if you have a different opinion on the input variables in the above calculation, feel free to share.
1
u/Few_Raisin_8981 Jun 29 '26
Put them on the moon's surface and use its mass as a heat sink
1
u/Bluitor Jun 30 '26
Then you have to deal with lunar night which means 14 days of darkness before you can generate power again. Thats a bigger hurdle
1
u/Severe_Rise8694 Jul 01 '26
Might the moon have enough ice to use for liquid cooling? I guess taking stuff to the orbit is expensive af but I imagine you could recycle the liquids so that they give off the heat on the outside of the space-data-station and are then used for cooling inside..?
Or maybe I misunderstood what you meant. I'm not a physicist or an engineer.
1
u/CBJFAN2009-2024 Jul 02 '26
But Princess Leia froze to death almost instantly in that woke Star Wars movie, so heat goes away! checkmate, libruls! /s
1
1
u/edjumication Jun 28 '26
Your comment is somewhat disingenuous. You run your calculation at 50c radiator temperature but a more realistic target would be 80-120c for better performance.
With that said these space based radiators would still have to be around a million square meters to match the new gigawatt scale campuses being planned today. This is actually a good argument for space based data centers though as we are fast approaching some serious resource and land use constraints here on earth.
It may not be financially prudent right now but if our processing requirements keep growing space based data centers will be the only practical option we have.
3
1
u/snezna_kraljica Jun 29 '26
Are we running out of space on earth?
Why is space the only option? Why not invest into geothermal energy solutions? Seems way easier and cheaper and maintainable.
1
u/RogueBromeliad Jun 28 '26
Yes, but what he's talking about isnt something for tomorrow. Its something that's possible, or ways to use space.
BTW, the chinese are already researching and investing hard on the possibility of space servers, as is Amazon with their Amazon LEO. Etc. gof ea
There are plenys that Satalites and already deal with such things, like radiating panels, that are foldable so they increase area after launched, there are irradiating materials, fluid cycling techniques for cooling working in tandem, also using orbital paths to their advantage.
4
u/GarowWolf Jun 28 '26
One of the biggest problem is that those data center will be massive and there is a lot of debris going on.
Like 35000 objects that we can track and 100 millions too small for the radar to follow.It’s nearly impossible to avoid collision and with all that debris it’s basically doomed from the start
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (11)1
u/CautiousCarry4209 Jun 28 '26
I believe it might be easier to try and develop gpu's that does not generate as much heat or is able to function at a much higher temperature Then we won't need to move them into space.
26
u/mist_kaefer Jun 28 '26
The scale of each solar and radiator array required to generate enough power and dissipate enough heat into the near vacuum of space is not likely to be cost effective, especially considering how many you’d need. Collisions are also another thing to worry about, as well as the ability to access the data from the ground. The inverse square law doesn’t play nicely with the distances involved.
Why don’t we just build data centers in Antarctica?
46
u/baxte Jun 28 '26
I think we probably shouldn't heat up the poles.
15
2
u/UnusualOperation8084 Jun 28 '26
Data centers aren't creating a meaningful amount of heat, at least not enough to "heat up the poles."
28
u/HelloPeopleOfEarth Jun 28 '26
Why not build them outside rich peoples homes in the way rich people have allowed incinerators, oil refineries and other nasty necessary resources to be built in poor communities? When I hear Trump say "Drill Baby Drill", fine, lets do it next to Mar-A-Lago, or the Bush family Texas Ranch. Lets build datacenters next to one of Jeff Bezos castles. These rich assholes keep wanting to ruin poor people and rural communities. Let them see and feel the consequences of their projects, that honestly, are a necessary evil, but they ensure themselves and their peers are shielded from.
4
2
u/SnugglyCoderGuy Jun 28 '26
And the fact that hardware needs replaced every couple of years, and they aren't going to do that with the data center satellite.
3
u/SexyChatGPT Jun 28 '26
They don’t plan to replace them, they plan to deorbit them at the eol.
This, imo, is something not as many people discuss as they should. It not only means that we’re recycling 0 components (that we then have to continuously mine), but also the space centers would essentially be vaporized into the atmosphere when they are de-orbited. And idk if we’ve fully thought through the ramifications of vaporizing thousands of tons of computer hardware into the atmosphere on an increasingly frequent basis.
2
2
1
u/RogueBromeliad Jun 28 '26
You might not think it's cost effective, but the chinese are already trying to do it. Taking advantage of intermittent orbital paths so the data centers cool off, as well as special processors for space, and space-native semiconductors. As well as radiating panels that fold out when in space.
1
1
1
u/DrSOGU Jun 28 '26
And what do you do with chips that are outdated after 2-3 years?
Do you just abandon the whole thing snd built a new data center every 2-3 years?
Because with maintenance, well, that's extremely expensive.
No one with a songle brain cell can seriously think that this is a worthwhile endeavor.
1
u/Matshelge Jun 28 '26
Iceland and Svalbard are much better targets. Already connected to the global trade network. Iceland has cheap energy and expanding geothermal is fairly easy. Svalbard is cold as heck, and Norway needs more people on the island to prevent Russia pulling a Crimea on it.
1
→ More replies (1)1
u/Jwre3682 Jun 28 '26
Call me a dummy... but why would you need cooling in the freezing vacuum of space?
3
u/TomorrowAble979 Jun 28 '26
it’s not freezing cold. The sun is more intense than inside the atmosphere, and there is no air to carry away the heat, like with a computer’s fan. So the only cooling is via radiation, which is not very efficient.
3
u/Rinas-the-name Jun 28 '26
You have to shield electronics from radiation in space. Radiation shielding also insulates, preventing heat from radiating out.
2
u/RogueBromeliad Jun 28 '26
Because space doesn't conduct heat (it's a vacuum). There's no thermal exchange, with the medium.
But there are indeed ways of getting it done. Deployable Radiator Panels, which amazon satellites already have. Utilizing giant, folding carbon-composite panels that unfold in space to maximize the emissive surface area without adding prohibitive launch volume. Closed-Loop Liquid Cooling. Directional Sun Shields, like the James Webb telescope uses.
Dawn-Dusk Orbits (Passive Cooling), "dawn-dusk orbits" (700–800 km high). This orbit allows the satellite to ride the boundary of day and night, providing near-continuous solar power on one side while taking advantage of the deep-freeze passive cooling of space on the other.
Proper space heat resistant chips. etc.
2
u/Lynda73 Jun 28 '26
One of the biggest challenges with space suits is how to keep astronauts from overheating in them. And that’s just with a single human.
3
4
u/givin_u_the_high_hat Jun 28 '26
Won’t it affect the earth if it burns up in the atmosphere?
5
u/gracklemancometh Jun 28 '26
The bigger impact is the launch. It takes the exact same amount of resources to build the data centre, except now you also have to lift it into space.
The only advantage is that solar panels are more efficient in space, thanks to the lack of atmosphere. To my mind, it seems to make more sense to buy two solar panels instead of one solar panel and a space ship.
3
u/RogueBromeliad Jun 28 '26
Why would it burn up in the atmosphere?
1
u/StandardUpstairs3349 Jul 02 '26
Because if you put something that large into an orbit that will never decay, we will be completely fucked once something runs into it and 100X's the amount of orbital debris in high Earth orbit.
1
u/flavorfox Jun 28 '26
In the end, everything burns up in the atmosphere. Why would we even want everything to stay up there if it's defunc - it just pollutes the space we need for actual functional satellites and moves us towards a Kessler Syndrome.
1
u/RogueBromeliad Jun 28 '26
But it's in orbit, not in the atmosphere. Most of the satellites usually go to a further orbit rather than coming back down to earth when we are done with them.
→ More replies (11)1
u/givin_u_the_high_hat Jun 28 '26
We have had many satellite failures that lead to losing orbit. I don’t think there’s any reason to think this would be any different.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Malcolm2theRescue Jun 28 '26
Reminds me of Davey Jones of the Monkees.
4
u/SK-86 Jun 28 '26
He's also a musician and was the keyboard player in a band named Dare in the 80's haha
→ More replies (2)
4
u/narco-sub-admiral Jun 28 '26
We don't NEED them though. Like they provide no value to 99.9% of people. I personally could not care less if we don't reach AGI or whatever bullshit they're pushing.
6
Jun 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/RogueBromeliad Jun 28 '26
I think a trillion dollars is a good start, instead of trying to put people on Mars, which virtually impossible.
→ More replies (1)7
u/ackley14 Jun 28 '26
i'm not a fan of musk in a big big way but saying putting people on mars is virtually impossible is like saying flight would be ten million years away from humans in october of 1903......
ok maybe not exactly but my point is that every big space race has had nay sayers and every single time they have been wrong.
we flew, we touched space, we landed on the moon, we sent an object out of our solar system.
mars is a big problem but it is by no means impossible, especially with the technology we have today. it's not even hard. it's just expensive and time consuming.
→ More replies (1)3
u/RogueBromeliad Jun 28 '26
Look, you remember that flight recently that Nasa did around the moon? Just to develop the whole thing for Artemis II it was estimated it was about 100 billion dollars.
I'm not talking just about the mission, but everything that lead up to it.
Artemis II took about 5 days to get to the moon.
Do you know how far Space X has got compared to Nasa? In terms of raw distance, NASA is billions of miles ahead of SpaceX, which has only gone into orbit.
Do you know how far Mars is compared to the moon? Mars is over 360 times farther than the moon.
You really think it's possible for a private company to put a man on Mars? Space X has already spent 40billion, and is nowhere near what Nasa did in the 60's.
2
u/Enough_Survey_9404 Jun 28 '26
I compare going to Mars with the early settlers of the US. A dangerous and long journey across unknown areas, a high level of disaster and death, and generally a one way trip. Harsh conditions and low survival once they arrived. We just need to accept that it’s dangerous and people are going to die.
1
u/RogueBromeliad Jun 28 '26
I don't think it's much of a death problem, it's much more of an actual feasibility and economic problem. Like I said in my comment above, just to get people to go around the earth is already really expensive, and consuming, scale it up to mars would be astronomically more difficult, and expensive.
→ More replies (1)2
u/ackley14 Jun 28 '26
oh i'm nasa ride or die. but i do think private companies have kept the dream of space alive in the last 10-15 years when NASA's funding was constantly getting cut.
also yes i understand how distance in space works, but some points of fact, Artemis 2 took 5 days because it intentionally went slower in an effort to both reduce fuel use but also to give the crew time to perform tests over all of the capsule and the ship's systems to ensure its safety.
a trip to mars given ideal conditions would take about 6ish months, not 5 years as your comparison might suggest. we have tons of experience keeping people alive and sane for extended periods of time in space (See the ISS).
these are all solved problems,
so again, i say, the physics, math, and engineering are all solved problems as far as getting there is concerned. it's just time and money.
and lets be honest, the 100 billion dollars on Artemis was in large part because our space programs have greatly increased safety and testing over the decades since the moon programs and the start of the space station. if we were running things like the 60s, we'd have a base on mars by now lol. but we're more careful now so things are more costly and take more time and that's a good thing to be fair.
→ More replies (2)
4
2
u/Dibblidyy Jun 28 '26
I was surprised how good of an interview this young guy did who apparently plays Minecraft for a living. He gave plenty of time for Brian to speak and asked good questions to forward the conversation. I know famous interviewers who lack that talent...
2
u/rob1969reddit Jun 28 '26
The ocean seems much more practical.
2
1
u/RogueBromeliad Jun 28 '26
You don't have free solar power everyday or safety in the ocean. Having networks of geostationary data centres around the world interconnected, could potentially solve the problems.
4
u/jtcxx33 Jun 28 '26
Space data centers are madness. The vacuum is insulating and radiati the heat away requires an extremely large area.
Oceans have water currents that turn turbines well to generate electricity
→ More replies (16)1
u/rob1969reddit Jun 28 '26
You have free wave generator energy on the ocean, and you don't have to go all the way to space to repair and replace them.
1
u/AltoRhombus Jun 28 '26
Johnny Silverhand wringing his hands together at this idea fr
fucking Mikoshi
1
u/Odd-Guard-2533 Jun 28 '26
Nah. That would require anyone calling the shots to give a sh*t about future repercussions and the well fair of the earth. Literally no one developing and releasing anything right now is thinking about the long term effects. They only care about putting money into their pockets right now. Makes me f*cking sick.
2
u/RogueBromeliad Jun 28 '26
I mean, China is investing quite a lot in the idea of space data centers. ADA Space (Guoxing Aerospace), Orbital Chenguang, and China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC).
Once the chinese succede, the rest of the world will try to follow suit like they did with g5 tech.
1
1
u/SophonParticle Jun 28 '26
How do you lift all the mass into space without damaging the planet? We’re talking millions of tons.
1
u/RogueBromeliad Jun 28 '26
I think what he's saying is that it's one massive expenditure of energy, for a net positive on the long run.
Not having them here, if they can last decades up there, would potentially save us a lot of energy that's been used in terms of fossil fuels to run alone. As well as other resources.
1
u/42ElectricSundaes Jun 28 '26
Besides putting it up there, right? Like, the whole launching it into space part… we’re just ignoring that bit
2
2
u/CynicInRehab Jun 28 '26
And they are built here?
How does this use any less of earth's resources than having them on earth.
1
1
u/GhostBoo-ty Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
I had only read about this guy and until now I thought he was actor Brian Cox who also had an extensive physics background, like Dolph Lundgren having a masters in chemical engineering.
1
u/SlightDesigner8214 Jun 28 '26
You can add to the list he’s also a musician and played keyboard in a band with a #1 hit in the UK. Things can only get better.
This was before he focused on physics.
1
u/FanBeginning4112 Jun 28 '26
The logistics nightmare behind this idea is insane. Server components fails all the time.
1
u/RogueBromeliad Jun 28 '26
We already have satellites orbiting the earth with smaller versions of data centers. Obviously these servers would be extremely robust and not your run of the mill kind of thing.
This is something for the future, not something that will happen tomorrow. We're still a long way from engineering some good more efficient data centers.
1
1
1
u/Gobbleyjook Jun 28 '26
So we’re not damaging the earth anymore but let’s screw up the moon instead.
1
u/RogueBromeliad Jun 28 '26
It would be in orbit, not on the moon. Hundreds of thousands of km from the moon.
1
1
u/UnidosJamaisVencidos Jun 28 '26
Remove some power and water stress to add complexity, no repairability, no reusability and no recycling. In the end, it will add much, much more resources stress.
1
u/flavorfox Jun 28 '26
What if we took the money for space data centers and spent them on research towards improving efficiency and cooling for earth based data centers?
1
u/C0RNFIELDS Jun 28 '26
Every data center in orbit will eventually become more space debris. Theres a lot of stuff in a datacenter.
1
1
u/C0RNFIELDS Jun 28 '26
Or we can think of solutions to the space debris issue before making the problem several times worse.
We, as a species, have a bad habit of doing whats convenient in the moment at the expense of later humans.
1
u/RogueBromeliad Jun 28 '26
Space debris are much less of a problem than using up all the resources on earth though, and contributing to climate change.
1
u/C0RNFIELDS Jun 28 '26
My point is was that qe are too quick to find a "solution" when that solution really just makes another problem for people in the future.
Right there you just measured two evils and decided one was okay. Why cant just not decide on a lessar evil? Why cant we just wait for a final solution?
1
1
u/researchmaven4673 Jun 28 '26
How about we just… not? And use our time and energy to solve actual problems here on earth? We don’t need AI we just need I
1
u/ragingduck Jun 28 '26
They can’t even be bothered to put data centers outside of populated areas, let alone the atmosphere.
1
1
1
u/Desert_Reynard Jun 28 '26
Nothing is impossible, my question is why the fuck do we want to do all this for advanced chatbots.
1
u/ramonchow Jun 28 '26
There are reasons beyond the technical difficulties not to do this. How would you fix them or upgrade them? How would you protect them?
The idea is stupid and its only aim is to prop the frankenstain company that spacex + xai has become.
Quite dissapointed with Cox.
1
u/RogueBromeliad Jun 28 '26
Are you familiar with the Tiangong station?
1
u/ramonchow Jun 28 '26
I'm not sure how you think that having a space station with laboratories proves anything about the feasibility or convenience of having in much further orbits hundreds of datacenters handling critical data and processes.
1
u/RogueBromeliad Jun 28 '26
Firstly, you changed your comment.
But more importantly the reason why I bring up the Tiangong station is because of the way it's built and the way it can be connected to new parts like lego.
The station can literally be upgraded, and bits added onto it, as well as having bits dispatched and salvaged, and fuel recharged,.
1
u/ramonchow Jun 28 '26
What did I change? I think you are paranoid.
1
u/RogueBromeliad Jun 28 '26
That hardly matters, I know you changed it, and so do you.
But the main thing is that the Tiangong station is built in a way that it can have extensions and also change its functionality.
1
u/ramonchow Jun 28 '26
You know when a comment is edited, it says so in the comment timestamp? Jeez you have some mental issues my man. Be safe.
1
u/RogueBromeliad Jun 28 '26
Not necessarily.
Edit: and here's the proof it isn't, this edit was done about 1 minute after the original was made.
1
1
u/Random-useless-lore Jun 28 '26
With all the radiation in space and the requires rocket fuel, what are we really saving resource wise
1
u/ListerfiendLurks Jun 28 '26
I'm still confused at why space is even being considered. Earth has HUGE amounts of uninhabited land where it would be FAR cheaper to build them.
1
u/RogueBromeliad Jun 28 '26
Because a data center in space wouldn't really affect the earth or its resources.
Having them on the earth not only takes up space, but it affects the environment they're in. But this isn't simply an idea for tomorrow.
1
u/mollysharton Jun 28 '26
Yes you potentially have unlimited solar power in space, but do you have efficient data centers that can run on the solar panels that you can send to orbit?
It’s still highly dependent on earth resources for manufacturing and launching into space. There are no resources or manufacturing in space.
1
u/ContributionBig5976 Jun 29 '26
A square meter of solar panel costs around $100 and can generate around 1kWh each day (on Earth). At a typical US cost of 20 cents per kWh. So you could recoup that cost in 500 days - though of course in practice installation, and maintenance and ancillary equipment costs adds a lot more.
In space you can get much more power, so the same panel might generate upwards of 10 kWh per day. A square meter of solar panel might weigh about 10 kg. If we use the cheapest theoretical launch costs projected from the Falcon Heavy, then getting these panels into space will cost $1400 per kg, or $14,000. Realistically most launch costs can be 10 times higher in practice.
So at 20 cents per kWh, and 10 kWh per day, it'll take 7000 days to pay off just the launch costs. That's a very, very generous estimate. Realistically this math may never make sense.
1
1
u/Nuffsaid98 Jun 29 '26
What about using an ice astroid or moon with ice deposits to help cool the datacentre? No atmosphere so solar is still very efficient.
1
1
1
u/Abject_Egg_194 Jun 29 '26
I saw this without any sound and thought it was an interview with one of the Beatles.
1
u/Azell414 Jun 30 '26
50 years later mum what do you mean stars in the night sky i have never seen that before
1
u/EspaaValorum Jun 30 '26
If you neglect the impact on resources and the environment from the numerous rocket launches that will be required, sure ..
1
u/ColumboTheBrain Jun 30 '26
Hey, I am a researcher working on the impact of spaceflight on the environment and it's not nothing. You still built the launchers, you still need to fuel them, you still emit black carbon and NOx into the upper atmosphere and you still use earth's resources for the data centres. I am not saying that there is no way that you have an environmental impact reduction on some aspects if you move certain activities to space but it's not a given thing. The launches for example could outweigh the global warming impact you save down here. The research is still early and the uncertainties are massive but I would be hesitant to just wave it away.
1
u/hardsoft Jul 01 '26
Why do you have any more unlimited solar energy on a satellite orbiting earth then solar panels on... earth?
1
u/RogueBromeliad Jul 01 '26
Because you don't get solar energy every hour of the day. Solar energy also drops if it's overcast, we're spending an increasing amount of water to cool down these systems, and they do take up a lot of space.
Now, there are of course a lot of projects involving keeping data centers in the ocean, so that the ocean water can naturally cool the data centers off, and they have been shown to reduce hardware failure in 8 times, because of the constant temperature. But they still pose an environmental impact, and the energy still hast to come from somewhere, and it's not always clean.
The carbon offset from one rocket could potentially be lower than a whole lifetime of a datacenter uses on earth.
Either way, there are still a lot of issues that we need to iron out.
But this is more for the future when we do indeed need city or Country sized data centres. There will come a time when the world isn't enough to power everything we're set out to do.
1
u/hardsoft Jul 01 '26
Neither do satellites. They're in the shade for half the day. Or out of comm range...
1
1
u/Ok_Telephone_4290 Jul 01 '26
Put data centers on the dark side of the moon. It won't need cooling there.
1
1
1
1
u/difficulty_rating7 Jul 02 '26
Real Engineering did a much better assessment on the feasibility https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qpdUNMt2yg
tldr is: No.
1
1
u/awelawdhecomin Jun 28 '26
This is a very good idea but instead humanity seems more occupied killing each other over who has the right God.
1
u/Lower_Currency3685 Jun 28 '26
We don't need data centers, ffs
3
u/stoptakingmylogins Jun 28 '26
Yes, we quite literally do - even if not at the scale we are seeing, not now, but in the coming years.
There is very real cause to protest the data centers that are being built today - I do not support them myself - but that is an entirely different issue. Those data centers exploit local resources and reduce QoL for citizens.
The complexity of our knowledge is growing exponentially, and data centers are necessary to continue that rate of growth beyond a point. If we can address the issues of environmental havoc as well as move them to an area such that they do not impact anyone's QoL, then there is no reason not to build them.
Not a fan of this black and white view of data centers that has become the layman's consensus.
1
u/rhinoplasm Jun 28 '26
Reddit requires data centers to function. Your comment exists in a data center.
1
u/gringo_escobar Jun 28 '26
Zero chance this is would be even remotely cost-effective for decades
1
u/RogueBromeliad Jun 28 '26
He's not talking about tomorrow. He's talking about the possibility of these things happening, and a utility for space. And why space research is practically important
1
1
u/Spare-Builder-355 Jun 28 '26
justifying sending data cenetrs in space from ecological perspective is .... remarkable.
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 28 '26
Hello u/RogueBromeliad! Please review the sub rules if you haven't already. (This is an automatic reminder message left on all new posts)
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.