3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoInterestingly, 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.