> Now, input power. Sunlight in orbit ~1,360 W/m², assume ~22% cell efficiency, we got 300 W/m². So each 1 MW compute, 3,300 m² of solar panel and minimum 1,200–1,500 m² of radiator.
We need > 2x more solar panels than we need radiators. Doesn't this imply radiation isn't really the limiting factor here?
Getting the energy back from the solar panel is easy via copper cables. Getting the heat back out there to the radiators is a bit harder, you needed fluids and pumps and heat exchangers which have lots of moving parts and need maintenance.
Doing it in a cost and weight effective way is still a big deal, because if it's not within ~10x the cost of ground based data centers, not enough people will use it to justify building it.
It’s obvious that radiation isn’t the limiting factor, since, as you note, there’s no reason a satellite shouldn’t be able to radiate at least as fast as it gets power from the sun. I don’t know how this became a meme.
Yeah, I suppose another way to look at it is that ALL satellites have to radiate the energy they get from the sun (since 99+% of electricity used by electronics gets radiated off as heat). A datacenter is no different. All that is different is that quantity of energy both in and out, the ratios are identical.
We need > 2x more solar panels than we need radiators. Doesn't this imply radiation isn't really the limiting factor here?