this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2026
625 points (97.0% liked)

Technology

86646 readers
3769 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] orclev@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It still doesn't make sense because of the power density. The size of the solar array you would need is completely impractical. Even a "large foldable solar panel" isn't going to cut it. Most satellites are relatively low power and even then the size of the solar arrays they have relative to the volume of the satellite is massive. Something as energy hungry as a data center pretty much demands a "small" nuclear generator to power it and the practicality of getting that into orbit nevermind the issues when it eventually de-orbits makes that a nonstarter.

[–] Womble@piefed.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Starlink sats are of the order of 20-50kW, an AI focused rack in a data centre is on the order of 100kW, powering the things is definitely feasible.

Unlike:

  • cooling them
  • rad hardening them
  • replacing components as they fail
  • data up/downlink or interconnect

All of which are somewhere between horrible and impossible for data centres in space.