4 ms·

I don't see how orbital datacenters will ever be able to compete with terrestrial. And assuming that the current mix of electric generation isn't going to becom

I don't see how orbital datacenters will ever be able to compete with terrestrial. And assuming that the current mix of electric generation isn't going to become cleaner over time is an interesting take.

GMoromisato 6mo ago
Current mix of electric generation is not going to get 37 times cleaner in 10 years. That's the ratio we're talking about right now. But I do agree that the economic math is not a slam dunk. A lot of things have to go perfectly right for it to make sense economically. But that's the irony: Orbital datacenters are much cleaner than terrestrial ones, and if we don't deploy them, it will only be because corporations care more about profit than the environment. You would think environmentalists would be the ones pushing for orbital datacenters.
- ben_w 6mo ago
  > Current mix of electric generation is not going to get 37 times cleaner in 10 years. That's the ratio we're talking about right now. Doesn't need to: because data centres are already power-constrained, the correct question is marginal new supply in each case. If you build 25 GW of new data centres (which seems to be roughly the scale being proposed here), the options are (1) build more power plants or (2) have brownouts and/or rolling blackouts. What are those new power plants going to be? Even though Trump hates renewables, they're now the cheapest new power source, which was already necessary to be even considering putting 25 GW of PV onto satellites in the first place. This makes it a question of what's cheaper: over-provisioning and storage, or launch costs?
x-complexity 6mo ago
> I don't see how orbital datacenters will ever be able to compete with terrestrial. An orbital DC makes fiscal sense when the cost to launch one to space is lower than the cost to build one on Earth. Key point: The cost of building on Earth will inevitably trend upwards as more restrictions & costs are (~80% rightfully) placed onto Earth-bound datacenters.
- dingaling 6mo ago
  More restrictions and costs are going to have to be placed on satellites, too. At present it's like railroad building across the Wild West; get some notional national 'permission' and then chuck them up there into a globally-shared space. That's not sustainable as the important orbits become crowded.
- MagicMoonlight 6mo ago
  And that will never be true, so it’s meaningless. It would also be cheaper to build one on the moon, if it was free to build them on the moon.
  - x-complexity 6mo ago
    > And that will never be true, so it’s meaningless. The math is simple: The total cost for building on Earth is X, the total cost for building in space is Y. If X > Y, building in space makes fiscal sense. To say that it never happens, MagicMoonlight, requires X to always be less than Y, which cannot hold true forever. Eventually, X will grow to be more than Y, simply due to (rightfully placed) increased regulations for building on Earth. > It would also be cheaper to build one on the moon, if it was free to build them on the moon. Arguably, that should be the original goal: Build the DC on the moon.

GMoromisato 6mo ago

Current mix of electric generation is not going to get 37 times cleaner in 10 years. That's the ratio we're talking about right now. But I do agree that the economic math is not a slam dunk. A lot of things have to go perfectly right for it to make sense economically. But that's the irony: Orbital datacenters are much cleaner than terrestrial ones, and if we don't deploy them, it will only be because corporations care more about profit than the environment. You would think environmentalists would be the ones pushing for orbital datacenters.

ben_w 6mo ago
> Current mix of electric generation is not going to get 37 times cleaner in 10 years. That's the ratio we're talking about right now. Doesn't need to: because data centres are already power-constrained, the correct question is marginal new supply in each case. If you build 25 GW of new data centres (which seems to be roughly the scale being proposed here), the options are (1) build more power plants or (2) have brownouts and/or rolling blackouts. What are those new power plants going to be? Even though Trump hates renewables, they're now the cheapest new power source, which was already necessary to be even considering putting 25 GW of PV onto satellites in the first place. This makes it a question of what's cheaper: over-provisioning and storage, or launch costs?

x-complexity 6mo ago

> I don't see how orbital datacenters will ever be able to compete with terrestrial. An orbital DC makes fiscal sense when the cost to launch one to space is lower than the cost to build one on Earth. Key point: The cost of building on Earth will inevitably trend upwards as more restrictions & costs are (~80% rightfully) placed onto Earth-bound datacenters.

dingaling 6mo ago
More restrictions and costs are going to have to be placed on satellites, too. At present it's like railroad building across the Wild West; get some notional national 'permission' and then chuck them up there into a globally-shared space. That's not sustainable as the important orbits become crowded.
MagicMoonlight 6mo ago
And that will never be true, so it’s meaningless. It would also be cheaper to build one on the moon, if it was free to build them on the moon.
- x-complexity 6mo ago
  > And that will never be true, so it’s meaningless. The math is simple: The total cost for building on Earth is X, the total cost for building in space is Y. If X > Y, building in space makes fiscal sense. To say that it never happens, MagicMoonlight, requires X to always be less than Y, which cannot hold true forever. Eventually, X will grow to be more than Y, simply due to (rightfully placed) increased regulations for building on Earth. > It would also be cheaper to build one on the moon, if it was free to build them on the moon. Arguably, that should be the original goal: Build the DC on the moon.