[elbasti]

Your daily reminder that there is no scenario in which putting data centers in space is easier than putting them in Texas, or Morocco, or literally anywhere else.

The only problem that "data centers in space" solves is the problem of trying to scale a rocket company where the potential demand for rocket launches is simply not that big.

[geertj]

The problem putting them in space solves is the approx 5X more solar energy without needing batteries for day and night cycles, along with some smaller wins due to less structural support needed due to microgravity.

[xnx]

> The problem putting them in space solves is

There are a lot of problems that can be solved by creating 20 other, much bigger, problems.

[geertj]

You are creating 20 other engineering problems but not 20 other physics problems. You cannot put those in the same bucket.

It remains to be seen how efficiently those engineering problems can be solved, but none of the commentators here have any real insight about that (myself included). My money is on the ingenuity of the engineers that are working these problems.

[Geof25]

And then it creates problem with radiation (energy dense particles travelling close to the speed of light ripping holes into 2nm chips) and heat (it turns out that coffee stays hot in a thermos for very long time)

[panick21_]

Structural support. A few sheets of steel is what we are trying to safe money on?

So the money we are saving is commodity solar, commodity steel and community battery (or any other form of power).

And instead of those things we add, insane engineering complexity, insane complex heating, insanely complex maintenance or standing backup, insanely expensive transportation and insanely complex operations and insanely complex communications?

[IshKebab]

100kW of solar and a massive battery is going to be easily cheaper than a 20kW satellite. Especially in somewhere like Texas.

[Zardoz84]

Good luck with heat management.