It's really cool that SpaceX has the ability to put stuff in orbit without it being a billion-dollar event. But I don't see any advantage to having unmaintainable tech in orbit, where all you can do is throw away an entire satellite.
What's the advantage? You can get solar power here on earth. We're not running out of land; we could put them in the middle of nowhere if we wanted, for way less than orbit.
I just can't think of any reason why we'd do this, other than "it's cool". Which, fair, but it seems like a waste.
Well, I don't know if they're doing this, but PV can be much lighter in space. Much of the mass (and cost) of PV on Earth is structure to support it against gravity and weather. In space, a thin film PV array could be as little as a few microns thick (using for example CdTe, which absorbs light much more strongly than silicon).
Combine that with the 5-10x higher production from being in constant unfiltered sunlight, and lack of need for storage, and it could well be much cheaper to make the power in space.
It is much more difficult than that. Starlink is essentially IT infrastructure, which certainly produces heat but nothing on the level of pure compute. Ejecting heat in space is a difficult problem that is currently solved on the ISS with large IR radiators which take up weight and space. The size, weight, power, cost tradeoffs lean heavily in favor of ground-based compute.
Why is that unsustainable? You need to present an argument that is more than just "large number! wave hands!"
It's just like the arguments used by anti-renewable energy forces here on Earth. "Large number (of PV modules and wind turbines and batteries)! Unpossible!"
And no, that launch rate does not "wreck the planet".
I just don't get it.
It's really cool that SpaceX has the ability to put stuff in orbit without it being a billion-dollar event. But I don't see any advantage to having unmaintainable tech in orbit, where all you can do is throw away an entire satellite.
What's the advantage? You can get solar power here on earth. We're not running out of land; we could put them in the middle of nowhere if we wanted, for way less than orbit.
I just can't think of any reason why we'd do this, other than "it's cool". Which, fair, but it seems like a waste.
Well, I don't know if they're doing this, but PV can be much lighter in space. Much of the mass (and cost) of PV on Earth is structure to support it against gravity and weather. In space, a thin film PV array could be as little as a few microns thick (using for example CdTe, which absorbs light much more strongly than silicon).
Combine that with the 5-10x higher production from being in constant unfiltered sunlight, and lack of need for storage, and it could well be much cheaper to make the power in space.
How are you going to get rid on the heat?
And they won't all be in constant unfiltered sunlight some will be in the earth's shadow
By radiation. You know, like every other satellite does.
They will not be, or need not be, in orbits with substantial amounts of shadowed time.
How are they going to deal with the heat dissipation problem?
Why do you think they've suddenly become unable to do straightforward engineering? If they think they can handle that, they likely can.
They already have space-based compute in terms of Starlink and Starshield. Is it much more difficult than that ?
It is much more difficult than that. Starlink is essentially IT infrastructure, which certainly produces heat but nothing on the level of pure compute. Ejecting heat in space is a difficult problem that is currently solved on the ISS with large IR radiators which take up weight and space. The size, weight, power, cost tradeoffs lean heavily in favor of ground-based compute.
According to the authors numbers it'll take at least 20,000 launched to put a million satellite's in orbit
And that's before you consider the issues of operating a DC in space
It's just a a load of nonsense
Why is 20,000 launches a load of nonsense?
20,000 launches is 11 Starship launches a day for 5 years
It's an unsustainable rate and even if we do get to that rate it'll wreck the planet
Why is that unsustainable? You need to present an argument that is more than just "large number! wave hands!"
It's just like the arguments used by anti-renewable energy forces here on Earth. "Large number (of PV modules and wind turbines and batteries)! Unpossible!"
And no, that launch rate does not "wreck the planet".