Evaporative cooling is the way it happens down on earth - and that shuttles h2o molecules from dense useful clumps like aquifers and rivers to a less useful form spread out in the air. But evaporating h2o isn’t an option in space afaik - since there’s a shortage of air to take up the h2o. In fact I think radiative cooling is the only actual option in space.
Radiative cooling. When something gets hot, it begins to radiate that heat away - black body radiation.
Fucking hell - do you all think ISS is cooled by hopes and prayers?
Starlink V3 sats have to dump ~20kW of pure waste heat just to exist. Going from that to the stated 100kW is an engineering task, not some sort of impossible arcane rite.
That's the neat thing: you don't, or at least not in the megawatt range. A kilowatt can be done with radiative cooling but doesn't get you far with a hypothetical datacenter satellite.
No; if you try to do this you don't launch in the first place because the amount of servers required to be useful can't be cooled within your payload budget.
My job is mostly worrying about cooling paths, maintenance, power, heat transfer, lifetime of GPUs, and high performance networks. NVIDIA partner. I can drive to the datacenter. This stuff BARELY works here on Earth. Especially thermal issues.
Looking forward to watching spacex defeat physics.
Starlink V3 bus already has to dispose of ~20kW of waste heat from the electronics - because RF amps aren't that great at what they do. That's a ~2020 server rack, in SPACE.
Going from that to a 2026 server rack is engineering, not magic.
Evaporative cooling is the way it happens down on earth - and that shuttles h2o molecules from dense useful clumps like aquifers and rivers to a less useful form spread out in the air. But evaporating h2o isn’t an option in space afaik - since there’s a shortage of air to take up the h2o. In fact I think radiative cooling is the only actual option in space.