Put a radiator in the shadow of the satellite. The radiator size needed is similar to the solar panel size. Look at the International Space Station; the solar panels are larger than the radiators, and the occupants are far more heat sensitive than semiconductors. The hotter the radiator, the better it radiates.
With a max of one million satellites in the constellation, if Space X targets the same 5 year lifespan of its current satellites, that would be 4,000 launches a year.
In 2020, Space X had 25 launches, then 31 in 2021, then 61, then 96, then 136, and last year launched 167. That's an average of around 50% more per year. At that rate, to get to the 24x increase needed to launch faster than the constellation can support, they'll only need to keep on that trajectory for eight more years.
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.
The advantage is that it's not in anyone's backyard. No where in the US is in-the-middle-of-nowhere enough for developers to avoid backlash. If it weren't for that, orbital data centers would not be cost effective. In the real world, they likely are, especially as the cost of launching satellites has plummeted.
It's the same boat as nuclear power plants. There's no economical reason to build small modular independent nuclear reactors. It makes much more financial sense to combine as much infrastructure as possible, even when the reaction chambers themselves are small and modular, like a CANDU reactor. Yet, getting approval for a few small things is much easier than one big thing, and getting approval is what's preventing nuclear power from being cost effective, so the most cost effective option is to spend more on infrastructure, so you can much, much less getting approval.
6 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 26.1 ms ] threadAnd that's before you consider the issues of operating a DC in space
It's just a a load of nonsense
In 2020, Space X had 25 launches, then 31 in 2021, then 61, then 96, then 136, and last year launched 167. That's an average of around 50% more per year. At that rate, to get to the 24x increase needed to launch faster than the constellation can support, they'll only need to keep on that trajectory for eight more years.
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.
It's the same boat as nuclear power plants. There's no economical reason to build small modular independent nuclear reactors. It makes much more financial sense to combine as much infrastructure as possible, even when the reaction chambers themselves are small and modular, like a CANDU reactor. Yet, getting approval for a few small things is much easier than one big thing, and getting approval is what's preventing nuclear power from being cost effective, so the most cost effective option is to spend more on infrastructure, so you can much, much less getting approval.