Also, Pixxel, Skyroot, and Agnikul are targeting orbital data center launches this year for defense applications (which is what the entire ODC story is about). The US NRO already uses India's Pixxel [0] along with Finland's ICEYE (which is now co-manufacturing synthetic aperture sats in India with Agnikul [1]) for hyperspectral scanning.
Edit: can't reply
> But.. why?
Missile Defense and C4ISR [2]. Seconds matter, so most of the newer generation of missile defense systems are experimenting with how to offload compute at the edge to reduce C2 latency.
Most orbital sat startups in the US, China, and India are partially backed by military and intel oriented funds (eg. Starcloud and IQT/In-Q-Tel).
This borders on science fiction. 88,000-and 1-million satellite clusters (as claimed in your link) are hard to take seriously, especially with the possibility of Kessler Syndrome. Also:
1. How do you cool your chips? Vacuum is a thermal insulator, so radiators are required to remove heat. nVidia (or even ASICs) require much and specialised cooling.
2. How does one radiation harden a H100?
3. I'm also seeing where TCO for these are 78x their terrestrial equivalents [0]. Is that financial sustainable?
And there still remain issues with power supply, regulations, and bandwidth. This feels more like a thought experiment rather than an actual serious engineering or business case.
The projections are questionable, but this is something the US and China are experimenting with as well.
1 and 2 are still open questions, but these are not aimed to be commercial grade DCs - this is basically edge compute (think a handful of racks). 3 is not a problem for defense usecases. (EDIT: Discussion here seems to point out that data OP is using might be flawed [1]).
Ignoring the fact that just about every orbital data center startup in the US is funded by IQT and China's CMF has been doing something similar is bad from a defense perspective.
Based on dealflow, these aren't being targeted for consumer usecases in the short-term and whoever has been saying that is misleading.
> especially with the possibility of Kessler Syndrome...
India, Russia, China, and the US don't care about Kessler Syndrome - they have already launched and deployed ASATs. This also comes after India and China had a near collision in 2024 that was treated as an offensive action [0].
Cost is the critical constraint for defense programs. Yes, militaries spend a shit-ton of money, but that's usually in a penny wise and pound foolish way. A dollar spent on your project is a dollar that's not spent on the innumerable things generals think are critical to their future wars like boondoggles, missiles, planes, ships, missile defense systems, etc.
The exception is if you're one of those rare projects. A starlink type constellation or launch capabilities certainly could be, but it's hard to imagine generals getting excited about compute in space just for the sake of it.
This reminds me of the railgun. Basic math and physics tells us that not only would the (very expensive) barrels wear out very quickly, but that it would have had to be fitted on on a nuclear-powered pocket battlecruiser.
Worse, the technology for firing any meaningful payloads from an electric gun (8" Small Diameter Bomb equivalents, guided, airburst, incendiary) simply does not exist.
Same as with Musk's California Vacuum Tunnel (which diverted attention from passenger rail). And his Neuralink. In the 1980s, it was nuclear pumped space-based lasers and Soviet particle beam weapons.
All of the above can be debunked with 2 years undergrad physics and a Casio calculator. Yet they were still taken seriously by high-level politicians and business, some of whom were deeply connected with the military-industrial complex.
People have shrugging of questions like 1 and 2, only for 3 to hit them very hard. But we will see if they can launch 600 of these satellites as they claim.
Carnot's theorem and refridgeration cycles rear their head. Your heat pump still needs power to pump heat uphill., negating any savings from a smaller radiator. And what happens when you shrink a radiator? It becomes a high temperature radiator, meaning the GPU must operate outside its operational tmperature of about 70 degrees C. So small radiator = big pump + extra solar panels and batteries + dead GPU
Also, how do you deal with the added cost and complexity for the solar tracking mechanisms for the "edge-on-to-the-Sun" radiator?
Yes, that was your response. It was a terrible and obviously invalid response, as I explained.
You never explained why the GPU temperature had to increase. Could you explain that now? The GPU would be on the cold side of the heat pump, not the hot side.
> Also, how do you deal with the added cost and complexity for the solar tracking mechanisms for the "edge-on-to-the-Sun" radiator?
We ignore that issue, because we were debunking a bad argument about "the laws of physics". The laws of physics say nothing about budgets or complexity.
I can’t imagine how inefficient a country would be if they tamped down all their magical thinking. FFCS, SMILE, and EUVL are all magical thinking if you ask me. Some of the craziest things humans have ever conceived of.
Full-flow staged combustion is a rather logical - and not even particularly useful, we're talking about small percentage points - extension of staged flow combustion, and staged combustion is a rather obvious change to open-cycle schema - and I'm hyperbolizing just a little bit here.
Yes, it brings effects, and it's a cool technology. But saying that at least idea - or results - are fundamentally changing rocket engines... I think that's a stretch.
There’s nothing logical about trying to make non-oxidizing metal that can handle thousands of degrees of temperature, hundreds of bars of pressure, and a nearly pure-oxygen environment? The US essentially made fun of the Soviets for even trying. If you think it’s logical, you don’t understand the tech at all. It’s a borderline miracle, let alone simply “logical”.
Literal rocket scientists spent decades and careers saying it was a waste of time, and random people with zero expertise try to downplay it. I’ll never understand being THIS cocky is a subject one has clearly never touched.
Soviets were world leaders in liquid fuel rocket engines. They used oxygen-rich preburners in e.g very successful line of engines starting with RD-170. It was possible decades ago. And no downplaying.
It doesn't have to be modern to be a miracle. The steam engine is one, too! I think this is still true of FFCS rockets, but maybe we're just wondering at different things in this world :)
> 1. How do you cool your chips? Vacuum is a thermal insulator, so radiators are required to remove heat.
This is space 101 and honestly, at this point, I consider bringing this up as disqualifying from giving criticism on the topic.
> nVidia (or even ASICs) require much and specialised cooling.
Whatever. They generate N kW of heat, you need to shed N kW of heat, and you need to fit that within your budget. End of worry.
Pro tip: if you can slice your problem so that individual satellite needs to shed less than M kW of heat, where M corresponds to how much heat some existing, deployed satellite platform handles, you can just do your initial design around that satellite platform, replacing the "business payload" with yours.
This is e.g. how the unfairly criticized recent "satellite swarm TPUs" paper from Google handled it. Everyone who brought up cooling revealed themselves as not having read the first page and not having thought about it seriously for more than 30 seconds.
> 2. How does one radiation harden a H100?
See that paper for some ideas and considerations, as this is part of what they focused on, after solving cooling by sizing the per-satellite payload power needs to Starlink.
Yeah, there's no solution for heat dissolution at this time.
You can run a few cpus in space, you are a few seconds closer to the data to figure out something basic, but you cant do that much calculation. If you do much cpu intensive stuff, you just get hot quickly and you can't dissipate the heat. I'm sure new ways to cool down will be developed, but there's not even any experimental techniques, right?
ISS collects ~250 kW solar power. All of that needs eventually to be dissipated - the energy removed by communication radiowaves is small. ISS routinely handles this thermal question for decades.
There is nothing magical with cooling in space. Just a different environment - a rather well studied already, we send satellites to space for some 70 years almost. Saying there is no solution is incorrect - we have options, we have numbers, we can point to concrete questions and answers.
(1) seems to be the big question to me. Surely it would be much cheaper to simply stick a data centre up in the mountains somewhere, low enough to be fairly easy to reach but high enough to be nice and chilly?
You need your chip to not completely fail. Latch-up can destroy things. A complete failure of a SERDES may dramatically reduce the utility of the whole system.
It is in fact possible to have the Kessler syndrome in LEO, the debris doesn't just immediately fall out of the sky so in practice you just need to put more satellites into a specific orbit to reach the critical density where one satellite breaking leads to a runaway chain reaction.
Can’t two solid object with equal kinetic energy collide in such a way that most of the energy goes into one of them, giving it a velocity that boosts its orbit while the other one has lower velocity and de-orbits?
Or one object explode into two fragments, equal and opposite relative velocity, again pushing the one half into a higher orbit and de-orbiting the other half?
(Honest question, math major, never took orbital mechanics or played KSP much).
> Can’t two solid object with equal kinetic energy collide in such a way that most of the energy goes into one of them, giving it a velocity that boosts its orbit while the other one has lower velocity and de-orbits?
Sure, you can. Imagine shooting a bullet into a tungsten cube. The cube will go into a higher orbit, and the bullet will bounce back (and maybe de-orbit).
But the kicker here is that for this to work, the bullet has to be in a _higher_ orbit than the cube initially. So the end result is still fewer objects in higher orbits.
Another option is momentum transfer via elastic deformation - you shoot a bullet into a 45-degree facet of that tungsten cube, and the bullet then ricochets into a higher orbit. It ultimately works by momentarily storing the energy of the projectile as a plastic deformation of the facet. So it can't accelerate more than a few small fragments.
Is my borderline childish understanding of basic physics THAT off because I cannot see the value or utility (beyond a small smear of niche edge cases) of space-based compute?
- ed, disclosure: You seem to have edited your response whilst I was typing mine, adding in valuable links. Thanks!
> Is my borderline childish understanding of basic physics THAT off because I cannot see the value or utility (beyond a small smear of niche edge cases) of space-based compute?
In the real world, "physics" is not necessarily the gating factor. There is a major concern about the environmental footprint of terrestrial data centers, to the point where major U.S. states are enacting moratoriums: https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/first-statewide-moratorium-.... These legal and social roadblocks must be accounted for in analyzing the viability of orbital data centers.
If the "physics" tells you that your satellite cannot radiate heat away from your nVidia GPU cluster because each H100 needs 1.1 meter square of radiator, then opinions do not matter. The same applies to power supply and bandwidth.
> Another way to think about it: An SSPP spacecraft with a 60-meter-by-60-meter surface area made using today’s space PV-cell technology would cost $36 million and weigh nearly 9,000 pounds, or almost as much as a Ford F-450 truck. With the ultra-lightweight PV-cell technology Atwater envisions, it would cost just $450,000 and weigh about 300 pounds, or about as much as an IKEA three-seat sofa
That’s megawatt-level solar power under 5 tons using today’s leading edge technology. Starship super heavy can launch 100 tons into LEO.
As to bandwidth, Starlink V3 backhaul capacity is 1 terabit. Microwave radio frequencies have an insane amount of bandwidth.
The Caltech Concept is just that — a concept. No prototype, no tests, no manufacturing, no results. When they achieve this order of magnitude improvement on a prototype scale, that's when we should take them seriously.
ISS today generates and radiates away about 120 KW of energy with its old tech 3250 sq m of panels panels and it's current radiators. That's what 3 H100 racks need
There may be an economic challenge - which seems to be the sort of problem mass manufacturing can solve very well.
There may be a compute model & latency problem, how do you organize model training when racks are much further apart than in traditional data centres (although speed of light is 50% faster in vacuum than glass fibre). But that's algorithms.
Relative to everything else in orbit, powering a rack of compute and some comms per satellite seems not really to be a physics problem.
The cost of replacement is exorbitant for commercial usecases, but is acceptable for defense usecases.
The issue is too many people are looking at the commercial usecase while ignoring the defense usecase that is what is actually driving the conversation and dealflow in this segment.
First, it assumes the radiator is at the same temperature as the GPU. But radiators become dramatically more effective as temperature increases, with radiated power increasing as the fourth power of absolute temperature. So a heat pump that drives the radiator at higher temperature could make the radiator far smaller. More power would be required (and the radiator would have to radiate this energy too) but the radiator could become much smaller.
The other problem is assuming the radiator is intercepting sunlight. But it can be shaded by reflective films or kept edge-on to the Sun.
> Ok, there are at least two bad assumptions there.
> First, it assumes the radiator is at the same temperature as the GPU. But radiators become dramatically more effective as temperature increases, with radiated power increasing as the fourth power of absolute temperature. So a heat pump that drives the radiator at higher temperature could make the radiator far smaller.
Carnot's theorem and refridgeration cycles rear their head. Your heat pump still needs power to pump heat uphill., negating any savings from a smaller radiator. And what happens when you shrink a radiator? It becomes a high temperature radiator, meaning the GPU must operate outside its operational tmperature of about 70 degrees C. So small radiator = big pump + extra solar panels and batteries + dead GPU
Also, how do you deal with the added cost and complexity for the solar tracking mechanisms for the "edge-on-to-the-Sun" radiator?
>Also, how do you deal with the added cost and complexity for the solar tracking mechanisms for the "edge-on-to-the-Sun" radiator?
Almost every satellite needs attitude control, so this isn't something out of the ordinary. I'm not sure solar tracking mechanisms really fall into the "expensive" or "complex" categories in 2026.
It's not just space, it's mass. A solar panel can be made very low in mass. The physical limit comes from the absorption of light in a thin layer of semiconductor. For CdTe, this would be about 1 micron. PV in space could be gossamer thin sheets of thin film semiconductors, with tremendous power/mass.
> Carnot's theorem and refridgeration cycles rear their head. Your heat pump still needs power to pump heat uphill., negating any savings from a smaller radiator. And what happens when you shrink a radiator? It becomes a high temperature radiator, meaning the GPU must operate outside its operational tmperature of about 70 degrees C.
Sorry, that's all nonsense. Yes, the extra power needs to be radiated. But the advantage of operating at high temperature is so extreme that the more effective radiation will overwhelm that unless the heat pump is extraordinarily inefficient. If the heat pump would be perfect, operating at the Carnot limit, then if it doubled the absolute radiator temperature it would double the amount of energy to be radiated, but the area of the radiator would decrease by a factor of (2^4)/(2) = 8.
As for the second point, no, this does not require the GPU to operate at higher temperature. What made you conclude it would?
> Also, how do you deal with the added cost and complexity for the solar tracking mechanisms for the "edge-on-to-the-Sun" radiator?
I don't need to; I'm just debunking a bad argument. What you are doing there is called "moving the goalposts". But satellites normally have means of orienting PV toward the Sun. So, maybe have the radiator perpendicular to those? Those claiming the idea violates the laws of physics and using solar absoption on the radiator as part of the argument need to show no such scheme can work, even in principle.
Could you please stop breaking the site guidelines? Your account has been posting flamebait lately, and here you crossed into personal attack. Not cool. You can make your substantive points without any of that.
When someone else is wrong (or you feel they are), two options that work are to continue to respectfully provide correct information, or to stop replying. Getting into denunciation, spats, etc. is not a good option.
The numbers are easy to run, and the added power consumption is no joke. It’s even worse if your heat pump fails to achieve Carnot efficiency. Never mind that heat pumps can be heavy and may be completely destroyed by even a tiny micrometeoroid strike.
Yes, it needs more solar power. But solar panels should be much lighter than radiators, potentially vastly lighter. Even if Carnot efficiency is not approached there is plenty of room for improvement in the size of the radiators.
The other neat thing is that in space, the background temperatures are a lot lower than Earth due to lack of atmosphere, and available potentially more often than 1/2 the day cycle depending how high you're prepared to orbit.
If I understand correctly, NY is concerned about the power and water consumption.
1. How do they get power in space? (solar) Do the same on earth at 1/100 the cost (or build 50x the number of solar to account for atmospheric loss and you will still come out ahead)
2. How do they get water in space (they don't). Whatever they do in space to not need water, do the same on earth!
3. People don't like living near datacenters - put them in remote areas hundreds of miles away from people, after all space datacenters won't have employees . Again, at 1/100 or 1/1000 the cost.
The point is that while power and water is scarce in space, the NY state has no jurisdiction there. It might literally be easier to build data center in space than it is to overcome social and political pressure in NY.
It's extremely unlikely that companies will find no locations that let them build zero power zero water data centers. And bulk AI stuff isn't latency sensitive either so the acceptable build radius is huge.
Most locations that could provide guaranteed power for western companies with stable governments are also full of NIMBY or NGO who could easily blockade those datacenters. Then you'll have to run to offgrid locations where you have to build 24hr battery for solar with closed loop cooling. Is 24hr battery+solar on earth cheaper than LEO satellites in constant sun without batteries? That's the question that would make or break satellite datacenters, as political climate against AI datacenters is increasingly getting bad with increasing electricity prices.
Exactly. This whole thing is not about being able to build whatever they can afford, it’s about being in a (stupid) race to build it as fast as possible.
> Is my borderline childish understanding of basic physics THAT off because I cannot see the value or utility (beyond a small smear of niche edge cases) of space-based compute?
Don't worry, most of the people online didn't get the memo on this.
One of the major selling points of orbital compute is power supply - more specifically, it turns out that, compared to beaming power from space, it's projected to be cheaper to move compute upwell instead - atmosphere losses for beamed power are just too big. Of course this doesn't matter if you can get cheap, clean power from elsewhere (e.g. nuclear).
This is in general data center case. Here, GP says the motivation is reducing C2 RTT, which makes sense for military applications.
The unit economic tradeoffs aren't quite that straightforward (beamed power is lossy enough to require more panels[1], but solar cells and satellite structures have longer useful lives than inference chips so over longer time periods you likely end up launching more stuff into space with disposable datacentres anyway[2], particularly given the datacentres also need bigger radiators. Other issues which favour power being beamed to the ground are not exposing those expensive chips to radiation, and being able to replace them on cycles dictated by inference chip innovation or end-of-life rather than fixed cycles depending on a satellite propellant budget...
The other comparison point is of course plain old terrestrial power sources, including energy storage in the mix if it relies heavily on solar power without a sufficiently global grid. Not having to launch into space buys a lot of power.
C2 RTT times and edge computation of large datasets collected in space make much more sense since unit economics aren't the driving factor, but are unlikely to need datacentres on the same scale as inference compute for the general population (another reason why this use case makes more sense)
[1]but I think the underrated problem with beamed power isn't just the low maturity of the technology, but that as soon as you start talking about sending power to earth via RF or laser you're going to encounter political opposition that makes objections to terrestrial datacentres seem tame....
[2]chips can in theory be replaced on orbit, but the "million satellite" filings are disposable. Replenishing propellant for a few large power stations, potentially on longer cycles, is a simpler task.
> but solar cells and satellite structures have longer useful lives than inference chips
The limiting factor on the lifetime of any satellite is fuel. Especially for large structures that are influenced a lot by atmospheric drag and solar wind.
Sure, but periodically refilling a propellant tank for a few large SBSP structure on-orbit involves less complexity than replacing racks of inference chips distributed across constellations of satellites as proposed by current filings. Which is why the latter structures are designed to be disposable and the former not.
SPSP proposals tend to operate in higher orbits than ODC proposals too, as they're less affected by latency and radiation, so their station-keeping requirements are less propellant-intensive.
Non-exclusive use of farmland or wasteland (or even - at least until maintenance complexity is considered - offshore) isn't a major barrier; we have many many miles of wires and pylons crossing farmland for regular terrestrial grids already. A rectenna looks more like a mesh than a set of panels: the idea is that the visible light spectrum passes through and the target microwave frequencies don't, so unlike a photovoltaic solar farm the land underneath is fine for farming. Nominally the land is safe to be occupied or passed through by humans too, although they might take some convincing. It becomes a problem when people start trying to get the rectennae banned...
Never. As the post you apparently quoted without reading said, we're talking about a rectenna composed of pylons and wires structured as a mesh that doesn't interrupt farming and can theoretically be offshore, not panels here
Space based solar power has much bigger challenges in gaining acceptance, proving the physics works in real world conditions and delivering on its promises than the theoretical possibility that there is absolutely no unoccupied region of land or sea
We could. The usual stumbling block is how to ship fissile material upwell without the risk of a launch failure spreading highly radioactive material over several countries.
> What's the power loss from beaming down power?
I think it's about 10% from atmosphere alone, but you have to add losses from other components in the system, including light -> current -> RF and RF -> current legs, and I've seen estimates ranging from 15% to 40% efficiency end to end; this random article includes breakdown with estimates, that multiplies down to 37.5% efficiency end-to-end.
Also to spell out another non-obvious aspect of beamed power, it turns out that it's not the efficiency that's the limiting factor per se, but land - you can improve efficiency by building larger rectennas, but it gets very expensive very quickly once you consider paying for land under them.
Everybody keeps talking about cheap, clean power. But where I live the price of power has gone up dramatically in recent years. Free power (well, marginally free, anyway) is a major plus.
In France, where we have relatively cheap and clean energy, they plan to build GW DCs with GWs setups of diesel backup generators. When these will run, the pollution will be staggering.
My concern is more in the realms of cooling. I know there's the potential for lots of 'free' energy up there, but how do you then ensure your space-based array of GPU farms bleed all of the resultant heat?
This is like "how do you ensure you can bring back home all the groceries you bought" kind of problem. Space 101. We know how much heat we can bleed off, how, and how fast, and this gives us bounds on how much power we can use, and that is the starting point - you design everything around that.
From a Defense perspective, it's acceptable if multiple ODC fails and you have to re-launch another one. This is why these are being treated as part of a mesh. These aren't supposed to be a commercial DC and are intended to be a mesh of multiple racks in orbit.
The fact that the US, China, Russia, and India have already deployed ASATs means a Kessler effect if a question of when and not if.
It's funny, people here said the same thing about Starlink. "Sure, it's technically possible, but you could only lose money by doing something like that. There's just no market for it."
At 1GW scale, I'd agree. But if you need around 40-50 racks to do image processing and alerting, that's largely a solved problem.
The whole thesis around ODCs is to basically mass deploy a bunch of replaceable racks en masse and consistently, such that any geospatial intel can be processed at the edge.
Edit: can't reply
> But.. why?
Missile Defense and C4ISR [2]. Seconds matter, so most of the newer generation of missile defense systems are experimenting with how to offload compute at the edge to reduce C2 latency.
Most orbital sat startups in the US, China, and India are partially backed by military and intel oriented funds (eg. Starcloud and IQT/In-Q-Tel).
-----
[0] - https://www.nro.gov/news-media-featured-stories/news-media-p...
[1] - https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/agnikul-cosmos-iceye...
[2] - https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/book-MISSION-SUDA...