3 ms·

Now I'm just thinking of the logistics of running a datacenter in space. Energy and cooling seem like easily solved problems (solar and, well, space as solution

Now I'm just thinking of the logistics of running a datacenter in space. Energy and cooling seem like easily solved problems (solar and, well, space as solutions respectively) but I'm sure upload/download isn't great. That said SpaceX's satellite internet stuff was promising gigabit speeds IIRC. And obviously the shielding would be an issue.

scrumper 8y ago
Cooling's not that easy in space, quite the opposite. You're limited to radiative cooling. Cooling the ISS itself is quite a challenge. This is good on the basics: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3702/does-the-iss-need-more-heating-or-more-cooling https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3702/does-the-iss-...
toast0 8y ago
Upload and download capacity shouldn't be too bad. SpaceX was promising gigabit to multiple customers. Latency will be an issue though --- assuming you want geostationary for stability of routing and ease of aiming dishes. The SpaceX system was quoted with pretty good latency numbers, but has the added complexity of multiple satellites and everything moving. I've grown used to knowing which servers are nearby which other servers. From a practical side, remote hands is going to be expensive, and who are you going to impress with all the fancy security in your lobby etc.
- plopz 8y ago
  Wikipedia says SpaceX is planning on two groups of satellites at 340km and 1200km, so it would be low Earth orbit rather than geostationary, which is how you solve the latency problem.
  - toast0 8y ago
    Yeah, and that's fine for comms satellites. It's not so great for a 'datacenter in space' because now your data is variable latency.
KineticLensman 8y ago
> Energy and cooling seem like easily solved problems Unfortunately, there are a few orders of magnitude difference between the ISS and a data centre. The ISS solar panels produce up to 120 kilowatts [0], assuming the station is in the sun. A large data centre can use power upwards of 30 GWh [1]. Launching nuclear reactors is also somewhat controversial. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_system_of_the_International_Space_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_system_of_the_Inter... [1] https://www.techuk.org/images/programmes/DataCentres/Data_Centres_and_Power.pdf https://www.techuk.org/images/programmes/DataCentres/Data_Ce...
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  Interestingly, the ISS solar panels are actually below Earth-surface power efficiency despite getting ~33% more incoming energy per area. It looks like the biggest reason (other than "it's 20+ year old tech") is that triple-junction panels weren't used to save weight. Rather than optimizing power-per-inch or power-per-manufacturing-cost like we would on Earth, NASA was targeting power-per-ounce, which meant gathering only the highest-power wavelengths. Add to that some issues with panel degradation from radiation, and it's a surprisingly tough way to gather energy long-term. Short of sci-fi stuff like a space elevator or extraplanetary manufacturing, I'm not sure how solvable this is. Does anyone know of ways of getting high power output in space other than nuclear?
  - KineticLensman 8y ago
    > Does anyone know of ways of getting high power output in space other than nuclear? The only thing we have at the moment is chemical rocket fuel. This is obviously impractical for an orbiting data centre because of the continuous, high launch costs.
JamesCoyne 8y ago
Large scale cooling in space is "solved" but it is not easy. The ISS cools itself with radiators using ammonia. https://www.nasa.gov/content/cooling-system-keeps-space-station-safe-productive https://www.nasa.gov/content/cooling-system-keeps-space-stat... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_Active_Thermal_Control_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_Active_Thermal_Contro... The mind boggles trying to imagine what a data-center sized cooling system designed to reject heat solely through radiation and optimized principally for weight looks like.

scrumper 8y ago

Cooling's not that easy in space, quite the opposite. You're limited to radiative cooling. Cooling the ISS itself is quite a challenge. This is good on the basics: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3702/does-the-iss-need-more-heating-or-more-cooling https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3702/does-the-iss-...

toast0 8y ago

Upload and download capacity shouldn't be too bad. SpaceX was promising gigabit to multiple customers. Latency will be an issue though --- assuming you want geostationary for stability of routing and ease of aiming dishes. The SpaceX system was quoted with pretty good latency numbers, but has the added complexity of multiple satellites and everything moving. I've grown used to knowing which servers are nearby which other servers. From a practical side, remote hands is going to be expensive, and who are you going to impress with all the fancy security in your lobby etc.

plopz 8y ago
Wikipedia says SpaceX is planning on two groups of satellites at 340km and 1200km, so it would be low Earth orbit rather than geostationary, which is how you solve the latency problem.
- toast0 8y ago
  Yeah, and that's fine for comms satellites. It's not so great for a 'datacenter in space' because now your data is variable latency.

KineticLensman 8y ago

> Energy and cooling seem like easily solved problems Unfortunately, there are a few orders of magnitude difference between the ISS and a data centre. The ISS solar panels produce up to 120 kilowatts [0], assuming the station is in the sun. A large data centre can use power upwards of 30 GWh [1]. Launching nuclear reactors is also somewhat controversial. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_system_of_the_International_Space_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_system_of_the_Inter... [1] https://www.techuk.org/images/programmes/DataCentres/Data_Centres_and_Power.pdf https://www.techuk.org/images/programmes/DataCentres/Data_Ce...

Bartweiss 8y ago
Interestingly, the ISS solar panels are actually below Earth-surface power efficiency despite getting ~33% more incoming energy per area. It looks like the biggest reason (other than "it's 20+ year old tech") is that triple-junction panels weren't used to save weight. Rather than optimizing power-per-inch or power-per-manufacturing-cost like we would on Earth, NASA was targeting power-per-ounce, which meant gathering only the highest-power wavelengths. Add to that some issues with panel degradation from radiation, and it's a surprisingly tough way to gather energy long-term. Short of sci-fi stuff like a space elevator or extraplanetary manufacturing, I'm not sure how solvable this is. Does anyone know of ways of getting high power output in space other than nuclear?
- KineticLensman 8y ago
  > Does anyone know of ways of getting high power output in space other than nuclear? The only thing we have at the moment is chemical rocket fuel. This is obviously impractical for an orbiting data centre because of the continuous, high launch costs.

JamesCoyne 8y ago

Large scale cooling in space is "solved" but it is not easy. The ISS cools itself with radiators using ammonia. https://www.nasa.gov/content/cooling-system-keeps-space-station-safe-productive https://www.nasa.gov/content/cooling-system-keeps-space-stat... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_Active_Thermal_Control_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_Active_Thermal_Contro... The mind boggles trying to imagine what a data-center sized cooling system designed to reject heat solely through radiation and optimized principally for weight looks like.