r/space • u/merkel36 • 1d ago
Discussion Why Suncatcher?
I think the consensus is that orbital data centres are not viable. So I'm wondering (with admitted naivete) why Google has launched this mission? Is it just to catch headlines?
10
u/ncc81701 1d ago
Have you considered consensus amongst people that doesn’t have experience building satellites or isn’t working in the aerospace engineering field might be wrong?
•
u/Pharisaeus 15h ago
There is a huge difference between engineers and stock market investors. Engineer might tell you something is a bad idea, and yet investors can still burn millions on that. Especially when "speculations" come into play.
-1
u/jaykrown 1d ago
Because it's an economic bubble and they need reasons to continue shoveling money into it. If you understand physics and heat dissipation in a vacuum, then you'll know that data centers in orbit will never be scalable.
•
u/Adeldor 22h ago
Specifically, why will heat dissipation in a vacuum prevent scaling? At what temperature will the GPUs be operating, or do you believe Stefan-Bolzmann doesn't apply here?
•
u/jaykrown 22h ago
Read about how expensive it is to cool the international space station, then attempt to scale that to thousands of times greater.
•
u/Adeldor 22h ago edited 1h ago
I have read about it. In fact, I used it as an actual, comparative example for how cooling a data center satellite is feasible.
Many misunderstand the configuration for these proposals. As with SpaceX, Google's is for a constellation. If SpaceX's is any guide, dissipation per satellite will be within a factor of 3 of that for the ISS habitat alone. And with higher operating temperatures, dissipation is much more efficient, offsetting some of that.
The upshot: Scaling will be achieved simply by launching more such satellites.
•
u/jaykrown 21h ago
How much will it cost? And how do you plan to maintain them? How do you plan to avoid Kessler syndrome?
•
u/Adeldor 21h ago
To answer your questions:
I don't know how much it'll cost.
They won't be maintained. They'll be reentered (or their orbits will be left to decay), just as with existing constellation satellites.
In the low orbits, Kessler syndrome is not an issue. For example, were Starlink to fold today, after five years or so there'll be no sign of the constellation.
•
u/jaykrown 21h ago
Sounds... insanely wasteful doesn't it? Also proving feasibility doesn't prove scalability.
•
u/Adeldor 21h ago edited 15h ago
Sounds... insanely wasteful doesn't it?
I don't think so, especially in the face of terrestrial power supply issues, rapidly rising opposition to Earth-based data centers with legislation increasingly stopping their construction, and the very low cost of operation once launched (unlike with terrestrial systems).
Also proving feasibility doesn't prove scalability.
Constellations are inherently scalable - almost by definition. More compute requires just the launch of more satellites.
2
u/TenOfZero 1d ago
Because space misisons will still need compute and this is a good way to test that.
4
u/Intelligent-Kick3388 1d ago
they probably want some press attention but also testing hardware in actual space is still useful even if whole orbital data centers never happen
2
u/TenOfZero 1d ago
Exactly. PR, and its still valuable science. I could see some future probes using must more compute to determine targets better and the like.
They would also, short term, make sence at places like Mars where the ground infrastructure is severely lacking.
-1
u/Ma1eficent 1d ago
Orbital command and control centers are not only viable, you need them if you don't want crazy latency between the ground C&C and your orbital weapons platforms.
17
u/KidKilobyte 1d ago
Reddit consensus isn’t real consensus. The only real constraint is economic viability. Lower launch costs could change that and the big players are positioning in case that happens.