"Data centers in space" is a concept that could actually work, study finds

[Skye Jacobs]

Forward-looking: Data centers, the crux of all things digital, are also enormous energy and water hogs. While the industry has been putting in place more sustainable operating practices, they don't touch the eco-friendly benefits offered by another idea: data centers that operate in space. A new European study has found that not only is this concept technically feasible, but it could also eventually deliver a significant return on investment.

The demand for data centers is surging, thanks in large part to the explosion of AI. Unfortunately, this growth comes with enormous pressure on energy supplies and resources. Data centers are responding by implementing new technologies to reduce the energy required to power and cool their servers. However, one initiative takes things much further – into space, to be precise.

Thales Alenia Space, a joint venture between aerospace-and-defense companies Thales of France and Leonardo of Italy just unveiled the ASCEND (Advanced Space Cloud for European Net zero emission and Data sovereignty) study that looked at the feasibility of space-based data centers. One advantage was immediately apparent: space data centers would not need water to cool them.

"The idea [is] to take off part of the energy demand for data centers and to send them in space in order to benefit from infinite energy, which is solar energy," said Damien Dumestier, manager of the project.

The study compared the environmental impacts of both space-based and Earth-based data centers as well as exploring whether operating such a center in orbit was even technologically feasible.

The project would require the development of a launcher that is ten times less emissive over its lifecycle, which the study found to be possible. ArianeGroup, one of the 12 companies participating in the study, is working on this aspect of the project, with the first eco-launcher set to be ready by 2035.

Modular space infrastructures would be assembled in orbit using robotic technologies provided by the European Commission's EROSS IOD (European Robotic Orbital Support Services in Orbit Demonstrator), led by Thales Alenia Space. This project is scheduled to fly its first mission in 2026. These facilities would orbit at an altitude of around 870 miles, or three times the altitude of the International Space Station.

Dumestier said that ASCEND aims to deploy 13 space data center building blocks with a total capacity of 10 megawatts in 2036. Each building block includes capacity for its own data center service and is launched within one space vehicle. Ultimately, the objective is to deploy 1,300 building blocks by 2050 to achieve 1 gigawatt of capacity.

The study also found that space-based data centers are economically viable, with the potential for a return on investment of several billion euros by 2050.

The case for space-based data centers has caught the attention of others as well. Microsoft is collaborating with Loft Orbital and other companies on such a potential project to "lay the groundwork for future data management solutions in space," according to a spokesperson from Redmond.

Permalink to story:

"Data centers in space" is a concept that could actually work, study finds

 

[NumberNine]

I like this from every angle except security.

Easier to transmit data than raw power, so bring the servers to the power.

Just like a watermill is built by the river...

 

[GeforcerFX]

I figured Amazon would go into this area with project kuiper. Having satellites in orbit for communication it would also make sense to host servers in orbit as well since you won't have to pay as much for bandwidth on the ground. With them being the largest web host out there as well it kinda goes hand in hand.

 

[nitebird]

Can't image it being cheaper or greener than ocean wave powered submerged data centers... easier to connect and service too

 

[bclaymiles]

With an average lifecycle of five years for datacenter servers, this seems just downright silly. Add to that the danger of serious data corruption from cosmic rays, and the necessity of building out significant redundancy for servers that either die or 'wedge' during that lifetime, it sounds downright (so the word I used apparently hits the censoring threshold. Suffice to say that the word implies 'lacking in intelligence to an egregious or even comical degree'.

 

[WhoCaresAnymore]

Hey John. What happened to our data center? Sorry a]mate, Russians shot it down. It’s burning on re-entry as we speak.

 

[Vanderlinde]

So,

How do you imply a hands-on when hardware fails?

On top of that, you cant just launch consumer or enterprise grade hardware into space. There's too much variables to even start with, one utterly and most important: space radiation.

Chips, memory, storage, radiation can do weird stuff and it's no secret many satellites or even space stations carry ancient Militarized hardware (286 grade) due to their resilience against radiation.

Problem is when new hardware is released that is more efficient, most DC's just install more of the same and not actually lower their power target. Trying to maximize any profit.

That train will go on, and with EV's coming up it will be quite the problem.

 

[Rudyduu]

How do they plan on cooling these datacenters in the vacuum of space?

 

[GeforcerFX]

How do they plan on cooling these datacenters in the vacuum of space?

Thermal Radiation, the same way we cool everything in space. You use reflective materials on the craft to reflect radiation from the sun and you have heat exchanges that you run in the spacecrafts shadow ( or planetary shadow) to radiate heat away from the craft.

 

[Endymio]

... this seems just downright silly. Add to that the danger of serious data corruption from cosmic rays...

GCR (galactic cosmic radiation) exposure varies widely by latitude, due to how the earth's magnetosphere works. A satellite in a circular LEO, below the Van Allen Belts and near the equator actually receives less GCR than a high latitude on the earth's surface.

 

[Rudyduu]

Thermal Radiation, the same way we cool everything in space. You use reflective materials on the craft to reflect radiation from the sun and you have heat exchanges that you run in the spacecrafts shadow ( or planetary shadow) to radiate heat away from the craft.

I don't think anyone has put that much heat into space. I don't think it will be as easy as doing what they've done in the past with much smaller heat loads.

 

[RaXelliX]

How do they plan on cooling these datacenters in the vacuum of space?

Im more curious about transfer speeds in space. Even Starlink satellites that are on low earth orbit can do ~300MB/s at best. ISS is even higher and these supposed data center would be 3 times higher than ISS. Further reducing speeds. That's the benefit of ground based data centers - fast connection where a lot of people can access it once. That wont be the case in space. I suppose this could instead be beneficial for future Moon base or Mars missions because this space data center is much closer to them than earth based ones.

 

[Endymio]

Im more curious about transfer speeds in space. Even Starlink satellites that are on low earth orbit can do ~300MB/s at best.

You're confusing single-channel bandwidth with the total capacity of each satellite, which is approximately 20 GB/sec. And those satellites could have been designed for even higher bandwidth, but there was no point in so doing.

As for orbital distance, this is more a function of transmit power and receiving dish size. One would assume a terrestrial base station would be used to communicate with these satellites, with dish sizes far above what you see on a Starlink home receiver.

I suppose this could instead be beneficial for future Moon base or Mars missions because this space data center is much closer to them than earth based ones.

Eh? For exactly half its orbit, such a data center would be *further* away -- and occluded by the earth itself. And when you're talking about a maximum Earth-Mars distance of 250 million miles, adding or subtracting 800 miles doesn't change much.

 

[GeforcerFX]

Im more curious about transfer speeds in space. Even Starlink satellites that are on low earth orbit can do ~300MB/s at best. ISS is even higher and these supposed data center would be 3 times higher than ISS. Further reducing speeds. That's the benefit of ground based data centers - fast connection where a lot of people can access it once. That wont be the case in space. I suppose this could instead be beneficial for future Moon base or Mars missions because this space data center is much closer to them than earth based ones.

Echostar's newest geostationary can do 500 gigabit's p/s and that thing is chilling 25,500 miles above us.