Which is a synonym for impossible. As far as the latest serious analyses have
shown, data centers in space are a pipe dream. Starlink’s total addressable
market was also shown to be way smaller than expected. The IPO in this case
just signals they’re desperate for liquidity and with no clear path to
profitability, if you discount unlikely, major breakthroughs happening very
soon. They’re changing the rules of stock indexes just to shove SpaceX in.
It goes to show how far the establishment is willing to go to save face. Elon’s
company going under would poke an unpatchable hole in the US entrepreneurial mythology. They can’t afford that right now and they rather crash the whole economy.
Could you link to those serious analyses? The ones I've seen don't portray it as a total impossibility? Scott Manley did a runthrough that seemed reasonably positive on the possibility.
> ... but how do you scale this up right 20 kow used to be enough to power a full rack of computer gear but we're seeing predictions now of 100 kilowatts per rack and that's just one rack in a data center racks right the 48U 19in rack which is you know big and it's just dense with computers how does that fit into a flat satellite well it turns out that like 19in rack is about 50 cm wide it's about 1 m deep per unit and if you've got a 24 1/2 square meter satellite and you take all your one U units and stack them ...
One rack per satellite doesn't seem like it is that compelling of a story.
Put a 100 kW rack in my basement in the winter and hook up the power and I'll be happy to deal with the waste heat for several months (and then ship it to somewhere in the southern hemisphere).
Could you build a data center in space? Yes, absolutely I am sure there are no physical barriers. We have computers in space now, and those computers have telecom links to Earth.
Without even going into the numbers, terrestrial data centers have significant cost advantages. They don't have to spend $$$$$$$ to get to orbit. They can upgrade and/or fix components easily (likely safe to assume a hypothetical orbital DC would plan to never replace anything). They don't have to pay for the full capex of their power generation facilities. Lower-latency Internet. Heat dissipation is a (possibly unsolved?) problem. For every input cost to a data center, moving it to orbit massively increases that cost.
From a pure engineering standpoint: orbital data centers are not optimized to solve any common problem faced by data center operators or users. Permitting can get difficult in parts of the US, but at least permitting is a solved problem.
As it stands, most if not all institutional and journalistic research around this topic I would consider compromised because they’re in some way or another financially interested in this becoming the next big thing. Aravolta included. That’s why most articles will counter each hard constraint with a handful of hopeful speculations.
As for pure scientific analysis, like the Scott Manley one, they tend to entertain themselves too much with the physics and mathematics and forget the economics behind it all.
Take Google’s own paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2511.19468) that estimates that launch costs, just to roughly match data center energy costs on earth, would need to reach 200USD/kg, which requires a 10 fold cost reduction relative to the current launch costs of Falcon 9. And that is to launch a _disposable_ server into orbit, that will disintegrate after a few years and likely have hardware failures well before that.
And these servers are not anything like a “data center”, and they won’t run the applications that we are already scrambling to find demand in earth. No, these would theoretically run some ultra-niche, highly experimental workloads maybe for NASA or the military. That alone can’t possibly justify the investment, at least not for the retail investor that actually expects a positive ROI. Nevertheless the tech elite and their pet journalists are more than happy to sell this fantasy to the average people.
Hell, I’m still waiting for Project Natick to materialize, Microsoft’s data center on the ocean, which makes far, far more sense than data centers on frigging space. Still they didn’t manage to make that one work in any meaningful sense.
Which is a synonym for impossible. As far as the latest serious analyses have shown, data centers in space are a pipe dream. Starlink’s total addressable market was also shown to be way smaller than expected. The IPO in this case just signals they’re desperate for liquidity and with no clear path to profitability, if you discount unlikely, major breakthroughs happening very soon. They’re changing the rules of stock indexes just to shove SpaceX in. It goes to show how far the establishment is willing to go to save face. Elon’s company going under would poke an unpatchable hole in the US entrepreneurial mythology. They can’t afford that right now and they rather crash the whole economy.
Could you link to those serious analyses? The ones I've seen don't portray it as a total impossibility? Scott Manley did a runthrough that seemed reasonably positive on the possibility.
The bit that I wasn't entirely sold on with his analysis was that he was working on 1 satellite per rack
https://youtu.be/FlQYU3m1e80?si=nUMhO-lDny_VpG0D&t=1065
(YouTube auto transcribe)
> ... but how do you scale this up right 20 kow used to be enough to power a full rack of computer gear but we're seeing predictions now of 100 kilowatts per rack and that's just one rack in a data center racks right the 48U 19in rack which is you know big and it's just dense with computers how does that fit into a flat satellite well it turns out that like 19in rack is about 50 cm wide it's about 1 m deep per unit and if you've got a 24 1/2 square meter satellite and you take all your one U units and stack them ...
One rack per satellite doesn't seem like it is that compelling of a story.
Put a 100 kW rack in my basement in the winter and hook up the power and I'll be happy to deal with the waste heat for several months (and then ship it to somewhere in the southern hemisphere).
Could you build a data center in space? Yes, absolutely I am sure there are no physical barriers. We have computers in space now, and those computers have telecom links to Earth.
Without even going into the numbers, terrestrial data centers have significant cost advantages. They don't have to spend $$$$$$$ to get to orbit. They can upgrade and/or fix components easily (likely safe to assume a hypothetical orbital DC would plan to never replace anything). They don't have to pay for the full capex of their power generation facilities. Lower-latency Internet. Heat dissipation is a (possibly unsolved?) problem. For every input cost to a data center, moving it to orbit massively increases that cost.
From a pure engineering standpoint: orbital data centers are not optimized to solve any common problem faced by data center operators or users. Permitting can get difficult in parts of the US, but at least permitting is a solved problem.
8 replies →
Try this one. You need to parse the hard data from all the speculation. So draw your own conclusions.
https://www.aravolta.com/blog/datacenters-in-space
As it stands, most if not all institutional and journalistic research around this topic I would consider compromised because they’re in some way or another financially interested in this becoming the next big thing. Aravolta included. That’s why most articles will counter each hard constraint with a handful of hopeful speculations.
As for pure scientific analysis, like the Scott Manley one, they tend to entertain themselves too much with the physics and mathematics and forget the economics behind it all.
Take Google’s own paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2511.19468) that estimates that launch costs, just to roughly match data center energy costs on earth, would need to reach 200USD/kg, which requires a 10 fold cost reduction relative to the current launch costs of Falcon 9. And that is to launch a _disposable_ server into orbit, that will disintegrate after a few years and likely have hardware failures well before that.
And these servers are not anything like a “data center”, and they won’t run the applications that we are already scrambling to find demand in earth. No, these would theoretically run some ultra-niche, highly experimental workloads maybe for NASA or the military. That alone can’t possibly justify the investment, at least not for the retail investor that actually expects a positive ROI. Nevertheless the tech elite and their pet journalists are more than happy to sell this fantasy to the average people.
Hell, I’m still waiting for Project Natick to materialize, Microsoft’s data center on the ocean, which makes far, far more sense than data centers on frigging space. Still they didn’t manage to make that one work in any meaningful sense.
1 reply →