Hacker News Reader

Comment by abhiminator | Hacker News Reader

>Island became a magnet for the practice once miners figured out that the place is very cold and that electricity there -- geothermal and hydropower -- costs a lot less ...

This is the next big frontier in data center advancement, imo -- submerged/frigid data center installations. Microsoft's already been playing around with a submersible data center under a project codenamed 'Natick,' while piggybacking off of its extreme portability and flexibility in terms of resources toward R&D, and it's just getting started. Google has already announced plans to do the same. [1]

It also makes sense from a scale/growth standpoint as 50% of earth's population lives within 2 hour drive from their respective coastlines. [2]

[0] https://natick.research.microsoft.com/ [1] https://www.citylab.com/life/2016/02/microsoft-cloud-ocean-p... [2] http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/10/18/how-many-people...

View on HN

>Island became a magnet for the practice once miners figured out that the place is very cold and that electricity there -- geothermal and hydropower -- costs a lot less ...

Issac Arthur speculates that Titan may become a center of cryogenic industry and computing in the late 21st century.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdpRxGjtCo0

Given that immigrants tend to settle in places that resemble their home country, I wonder if Titan might develop an ex-pat Icelandic community? (Isolated. Rugged. Cold. Beautiful in a literal otherworldly sense.)

If you're going to have a submersible data center, you probably want it to be a partially submersible spar buoy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spar_buoy

This gives you all of the benefits of submersion, but makes access easier. It also makes the installation immune to waves, especially rogue waves. So what else involves mooring lots of spar buoys off shore? Offshore wind farms.

> Issac Arthur speculates that Titan may become a center of cryogenic industry and computing in the late 21st century

Who the hell wants to ship stuff 9AU plus or minus just to freeze it? Why not just build a sun shield in orbit with a bunch of black body radiators on the back? Or you know, use conventional refrigeration on Earth. Pretty much anything is better than shipping it out or back from Saturn.

Who the hell wants to ship stuff 9AU plus or minus just to freeze it?

No one. So if you're already out near Titan delta-V wise, Titan is the best place with lots of resources.

Why not just build a sun shield in orbit with a bunch of black body radiators on the back?

That would work. However, the cooling will be of much greater value if it's near other things of value.

Or you know, use conventional refrigeration on Earth.

Which will happen a lot, because there are lots of things of value on Earth.

Pretty much anything is better than shipping it out or back from Saturn.

If you're in the outer solar system, then pretty much anything is better than shipping it from Earth.

If you are in the outer solar system you won't have trouble freezing anything.

"Cyrogenic industry" is freezing stuff. In the outer solar system that is like trying to sell sand at the beach.

It makes a lot more sense to talk about Titan as the gas station of the outer Solar System. Exporting methane for all of the rockets flying around doing stuff.

If you are in the outer solar system you won't have trouble freezing anything.

It's not freezing things, it's cooling things which is key. At a random point in the outer solar system, to have a lot of cooling power, you need to build huge radiators. You need to supply coolant to flow through those radiators. On Titan, you just pump fluid from a lake.

"Cyrogenic industry" is freezing stuff.

Only in the simpleton view. Cryogenic industry is doing stuff that requires low temperatures.

In the outer solar system that is like trying to sell sand at the beach.

Industry doesn't happen at the beach. It happens someplace where there is easy shipment of resources and a source of labor.

It makes a lot more sense to talk about Titan as the gas station of the outer Solar System. Exporting methane for all of the rockets flying around doing stuff.

Which means that there will be industrial infrastructure there for dealing with methane. That in turn means that other uses for that methane will have an economic leg up.

Vacuum is widely known to be a pretty good insulator. Ever had a mug with vacuum insulation? They hold heat/cold very well.

If you're doing industrial-scale processes in outer space, you're going to need some pretty massive radiators. A cold planet with lots of liquid coolant available is much more ideal.

Melting/vaporizing ice from the Kuiper belt might work OK, but it's also likely to be full of dust and other shit that will clog your cooling system up.

> Vacuum is widely known to be a pretty good insulator.

Tangential question: is there a better one? Is a better one physically possible?

Yes: you still have radiation transferring heat. Multiple layers of opaque (and ideally reflective) material between you and space will increase the insulation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation

Thanks. I wasn't sure this concept would work.

> Titan is the best place with lots of resources.

Ideally, you'd want to manufacture computers and equipment using local materials and Titan's surface is mostly water ice and hydrocarbons. You may get away with graphene-based electronics, using ice as a building material and nuclear power shipped from elsewhere. Every location will eventually evolve manufacturing processes that are adapted to local chemistry (and import what isn't)

Maybe they could make a lot of materials out of carbon fiber/nanotubes/etc...? Dunno about the composition of the crust and what you would be able to mine locally.

"bunch of black body radiators". Yes, a whole bunch of them, as cooling in space is pretty much horrible. Better to stay on Earth, as you suggest.

What if there was a market out where you are on Titan, and you could cool things to liquid methane temperatures by pumping liquid methane from a nearby lake?

S3 glacier extreme?

Just a thought, but sun shield(s) could potentially affect Earth's climate, and not necessarily in a positive way.

This is one of the more extreme proposals for dealing with Climate Change. Basically gigantic panels in orbit that block a percentage of the solar radiation. A similar idea is releasing a layer of very light but highly reflective dust into the upper atmosphere. There are a lot of far reaching consequences of these schemes, but they should be achievable with relatively near-term technology and are probably easier/cheaper than capturing carbon. A band-aid fix to a long term problem.

> Issac Arthur speculates that Titan may become a center of cryogenic industry and computing in the late 21st century.

More like the late 31st century

At the start of the 20th century heavier-than-air flight wasn't possible. By the end of the 20th century we'd put people on the moon, and brought them back alive, multiple times. Inter-continental flight became so routine that it's not even notable.

I wouldn't underestimate the rate of technological progress.

> By the end of the 20th century we'd put people on the moon, and brought them back alive multiple time ... I wouldn't underestimate the rate of technological progress.

That was by 1972 (1). 46 years ago. Since then, no progress on this front. Not even a repeat. This is not an accelerating rate.

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_17

> Since then, no progress on this front. Not even a repeat. This is not an accelerating rate.

Well, one could argue that since then a significant bunch of our top talents have been allocated to generating financial innovations like motgage backed securities and figuring our how to get more people clicking on ads. So if this talent was reallocated to space exploration (which again someone might argue that can't be less stupid way to allocate these resources than click industry) the speed of technological progtess might change dramatically.

Just makes one wonder if there is something fishy how the free market supposedly is the most efficient allocator of resources...

Okay, but whose definition of "efficient" are we using here?

Space sounds exciting, sure, but Earth still has enough resources that there aren't any goods that can be produced in space that can't be produced more cheaply on Earth.

> Okay, but whose definition of "efficient" are we using here?

That's the problem. I have no better definition. I just have a feeling that the current economics 101 doctrine of free markets just might not be the right answer to all resource allocation problems. (I am vague on purpose who defines what is right and what is wrong. I have no answer to that, either. Just my personal opinion.)

As long as people believe that efficiency == profits, I doubt the view will change.

Exactly. Shortly there could well be no living people who've been to the moon. [1]

We went to the moon because we could. A few more people may soon go because they can. But moon bases have been 30 years away something like 70 years. On a purely personal basis, I'd love to see it happen. But realistically, we barely have people in low earth orbit.

It's reasonable to argue that we'll get there. But the burden of proof is on the people arguing it, and the "progress is inevitable" handwave is definitely doesn't cut it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_who_have_walke...

The way I see it is that while it's definitely extremely interesting and cool, the incentives/benefits of having a presence on the moon are limited at best.

Sure we have the means but we don't have an economically strong answer to "why should we do it"; the most of we have is "it might present some good research opportunities".

Until some breakthrough comes around that needs it or until the costs of running operations on Earth become massive we're stuck here.

There were large economic incentives in developing air travel and there is almost no economic incentive in manned space travel. Unless we have a reason to go to the Moon, nobody will pay the bill.

Having said that, SpaceX is reducing the cost of putting people on the Moon to values never before imagined possible. If the bill is much lower, someone may consider to pay it and a whole lot of interesting activities become economically viable (even for governments who want to study the Moon). Sadly, for data processing needs, the Moon doesn't look like a great heatsink.

Does SpaceX currently operate anything that can make a round trip to the moon and back? LEO for sure, but Luna? They’ve definitely done an impressive job of bringing the price per kilo launched into LEO down, but that may not translate to a journey of many orders of magnitude beyond that.

If your round trip includes landing on the moon, not even close. Otherwise yes. The current vehicles would also be capable of putting a theoretical third party lander on the moon that could return, but not one is developing such a lander (and it would be fairly weight constrained, ~2/3rds the mass of Apollo).

The really exciting thing for the moon/mars isn't what SpaceX has already has finished hardware doing though (lowering launch costs by, optimistically, an order of magnitude), but what they are actively in the process of doing. Developing a ship and rocket that they claim will be able to put on the order of 100 tons on the moon... lowering launch costs by multiple orders of magnitude.

Given their track record, the money they are (visibly) spending on this goal, and the fact that what they say they are going to do seems possible, it is reasonable to think that there is a good chance they will succeed.

That really is exciting, and I agree with your assessment of their ability to deliver. Maybe we’ll really see some developing industry in space in the next few decades... amazing. Even if it’s just vacuum industry, welding and such, it could open the way for solar power collection in space, light-sail probes, more advanced telescopes, and down the road, asteroid mining.

100 tons is fucking massive! Even my kerbals have trouble launching such payloads, when we can do that I see no problem colonizing the solar system.

100 tons is a factory. Even if all you do is to refine metals from regolith and stash them in piles outside, you'll have raw materials for a colony that don't need to be shipped from Earth, which drives costs down to, perhaps, the point of making it viable. Again, a local chemistry for the industrial processes will need to be developed.

Nobody thought Florida was inhabitable until it was. All it takes is one scientific or engineering breakthrough that stands on the right shoulders and it makes sense to build bases off Earth.

The first settlement will probably be a retirement community for millionaires fleeing the chaos on Earth. Billionaires will build and run it.

Good idea, we can send them on the B Ark.

It's millennials and younger who most closely fit those roles.

No, that’s how we all die from a disease contracted from an unexpectedly dirty telephone.

I know of no millennials who have telephone sanitation skills.

Not everything can be usefully measured with one easy metric, as in Moore's Law. In the case of something like colonization, the proper metrics are economic, not technological benchmarks. You could just as well cherry pick from The Age of Discovery, say from 1260 to 1360 and make the same statement: "X years ago. Since then, no progress on this front. Not even a repeat. This is not an accelerating rate."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Discovery#Medieval_trav...

However, if you look at metrics of economic activity across spans 200, 400, and 600 years after that, you get a far different picture. So basically, your point is intellectually bankrupt. It's based on too little data and uses an entirely inadequate metric.

I was with you until "your point is intellectually bankrupt" which is unnecessarily insulting and also wrong.

I would welcome a return to deep space, but there has been no progress towards it recently. The dates are correct.

It might be true that this is not strong enough evidence against either, and that it still remains an open question if recent technological advances on Earth will translate into a return to space, but that's as far as it goes. There's nothing inevitable about it, it depends on what people want.

I was with you until "your point is intellectually bankrupt" which is unnecessarily insulting

This is part of being an intellectual: I can insult your point all day. That's perfectly fine. Taking that personally -- not good form.

there has been no progress towards it recently. The dates are correct.

If you were an alien observing earth from orbit, you could have made the same observation ("no progress towards it recently") about ocean going exploration at multiple points, prior to it changing history irrevocably and then exploding in economic and political importance.

There's nothing inevitable about it, it depends on what people want.

In that case, it's likely to happen.

"This is part of being an intellectual: I can insult your point all day. That's perfectly fine. Taking that personally -- not good form."

Not at all. You can criticize any point all day and if someone takes that personal it is indeed not a good form. But "insulting" a point gives the impression (at least to me, and apparently to others) of insulting the person behind it, as you cannot insult a point, only a person. Quite the opposite of "beeing an intellectual".

But "insulting" a point gives the impression (at least to me, and apparently to others) of insulting the person behind it, as you cannot insult a point, only a person.

Why in the world is saying that a point is intellectually bankrupt "insulting" a point versus criticizing it? The point is made that, "This numerical circumstance doesn't indicate exponential growth." However, an analogous numerical circumstance happened at a number of points, and was followed by exponential growth. Clearly, there is something else needed for justification.

gives the impression (at least to me, and apparently to others)

So factually, no one has done anything but criticize a point, and your reaction is all about your feels, by your own admission. If you want to defend the intellectual merits of the point, then actually defend the intellectual merits of the point. This tactic of acting offended, then offering nothing more is wearing thin. I should hope that going forward from 2018, people will generally recognize that kind of activity for what it is.

> Why in the world is saying that a point is intellectually bankrupt "insulting" a point versus criticizing it?

Because “intellectually bankrupt” doesn’t mean anything. It’s just strong words for the sake of pushing around people’s emotions.

Otherwise “wrong” will suffice.

If we’re not arguing in good faith, then “intellectually bankrupt” is fine, and it can be used right alongside any other insult or epithet you’d like to feel the sizzle of.

Because “intellectually bankrupt” doesn’t mean anything.

It means baseless. The point has only a semblance of a basis. "Ooooo, 50 years seems like a long gap." If you try to make relevant historical comparisons, no, that's way too little data with way too little relevance.

Otherwise “wrong” will suffice.

No, you can be wrong, but still have a basis. Just having a semblance of a basis, relying on naive impressions doesn't cut it. That's “intellectually bankrupt.”

If we’re not arguing in good faith, then “intellectually bankrupt” is fine

Not addressing the point and claiming offense isn't arguing in good faith.

Say “baseless” then, if that’s what you mean.

Both of the words “intellect” and “bankrupt” have strong personal connotations. I think you want them to mean something different than what they do.

If you want to be taken seriously, you might get out of that attitude.

I am not your original "enemy" like you probably see him, I am someone else who tried to explain to you, that you were acting childish. Only that I worded it differently.

Oh an "getting an impression" is not the same as "getting the feeling". But probably wasted words on a self-righteous guy, like you are. Seriously, "insulting a point" ... come on, that is and will remain, laughable. Grownups, can admit, that they went over the line here and there, no big deal. But you make something one out of it. And yes, with the last paragraph, I came down to your level a bit. So I just stop the "conversation" here.

Seriously, "insulting a point" ... come on, that is and will remain, laughable.

This is my point, exactly. It is laughable. If someone is going to spout some facts, as if they mean something, but they don't, then why not call it out? 50 year pauses before crossing profound conceptual gulfs aren't that unusual in history. Here's another one: The gap between the discovery of the light's spectrum and the implications of blackbody radiation. Also, what do exponential curves look like at the beginning? For modest exponents, they generally look flat. The point made didn't account for key points for understanding exponential progress. It was intellectually bankrupt.

Grownups, can admit, that they went over the line here and there, no big deal.

Grownups can admit when they're factually wrong, and they can shake off a few words on the internet that aren't even directed at them personally. Taking the pose of offense while then avoiding the factual and logical issues reveals something else entirely.

You are not getting it. I was never insulted by your words. I was just trying to explain to you, that you were insulting others - and therefore the opposite of being intellectual you claim to be.

But if you like, stay where you are. But just one last hint, buy a punching ball or something similar to blow off steam. Your aggression, masked as "intellectualism" is a bit ridiculus.

You are not getting it. I was never insulted by your words.

No one should have been insulted by my words. If someone thinks you made a bad point, and you disagree, you might be a bit frustrated or exasperated. The only way someone having their feelings hurt makes sense when their point is called "intellectually bankrupt," is either if that person is emotionally fragile or if they think the objection might be valid.

I was just trying to explain to you, that you were insulting others

One can't be ruled by people claiming to take offense.

Your aggression, masked as "intellectualism" is a bit ridiculus.

This form of aggression which claims offense would be ridiculous, were it not such a pervasive thing in 2018. I'm not going to stand for it. It's really nothing more than cheap emotional blackmail masquerading as morality.

>ocean going exploration

Bad example. Believe it or not, exploration wasn't invented in the 1400s. Groups have had strong command of the Pacific and Indian oceans for much much much longer.

Bad example.

No. That supports my point, actually. Graph out the economic activity and wealth associated with that ocean travel. There is a dramatic change which starts around 1400.

Groups have had strong command of the Pacific and Indian oceans for much much much longer.

Those groups have also shown regressions and pauses in exploration and travel.

> Since then, no progress on this front.

But we're sending probes on Mars now; and Mars is a lot more interesting than the Moon.

I wouldn't underestimate the uninterestingness of space either. People could probably place a datacenter at Titan today. But nobody will, and for good reasons.

I don't have any narrative for why people will colonize space, but it will probably be done for sending people there, because exporting stuff for Earth isn't really reasonable.

We don't know if it grows logarithmicly or exponentially, though

If we go by wealth generated and population supported, it would appear to go exponentially.

If it took only 250 years to go from outposts to the late 20th century US, I very much doubt it will take us 1000 years to a solar system-wide civilization as portrayed in The Expanse. If you subscribe to the exponential nature of civilization changes, then it becomes doubtful Homo sapiens will be around in 100 years!

On the other hand, it's fifty years since we went to Moon and in the meantime we haven't even set-up a tent there. We assume that we'll have the technology for deep space exploration but we tend to forget the logistics nightmare of any such endeavor.

On the other hand, it's fifty years since we went to Moon and in the meantime we haven't even set-up a tent there.

In the early fits and starts of the exploration of Earth, there were multiple spans of 50 years where progress was seemingly abandoned and nothing happened.

We assume that we'll have the technology for deep space exploration but we tend to forget the logistics nightmare of any such endeavor.

Environmental technology will be harder than we thought at first, then we'll get the hang of it. Some people will die along the way. Then it will improve exponentially, as economic impetus comes into play.

Unless you know a lot that no one serious claims to know, then this is a statement of what you hope for and maybe personally believe, but for which no evidence exists. The sheer bulk of unknown unknowns in environmental tech, not to mention other assumptions you’ve been making about industry in space and more, are too numerous and prevalent to allow for confident statements either way. You may be right that humanity’s destiny is in the far reaches of the solar system, but it could go many other ways. Maybe we’ll die in the dirt, or maybe we’ll thrive in completely different ways. For all that you know, rather than personally wish to believe, our future may more closely resemble something like a Dyson Swarm constructed by drones rather than hurling ourselves into the dim and cold reaches of space. Maybe we’ll figure out a mutually amicable way to control population rates and make the Earth a Paradise, and leave space for robots. Who knows? Not me, not you.

All of which is to say, please stop passing off something that is less than a hunch as an argument. The core of science is skepticism and a demand for evidence, while the core of pop science is an inverse relationship between knowledge and enthusiasm. Claiming to know what will happen in 50 years is a joke, in 100 years delusion, and in 1000 years religion. There are so many branches and twists and turns, both positive and negative and just plain unforeseen that futurism is crap.

The sheer bulk of unknown unknowns in environmental tech

Is why I would bet that lots of people will die while we're getting the hang of it.

You may be right that humanity’s destiny is in the far reaches of the solar system, but it could go many other ways. Maybe we’ll die in the dirt

Tell you what: If we all end up dead, I'll buy you drinks! But if I'm not wrong, you can owe me my net worth, rounded down to the nearest billion.

All of which is to say, please stop passing off something that is less than a hunch as an argument

Call it what you like. I call it a conviction.

Claiming to know what will happen in 50 years is a joke, in 100 years delusion, and in 1000 years religion.

Don't sweat it. I'm not about to judge you morally and strap you to a tree over it.

There are so many branches and twists and turns, both positive and negative and just plain unforeseen that futurism is crap.

How about, "Science Fiction?"

It is more due to politics than engineering or logistics. We should have working linear aerospike engines by now. But that project got cancelled(see X-33). We should have had multiple generations of spaceplanes, one half-assed and costly brick did fly, the other was canceled. Many other promising projects met the same fate. We had time, technology and even the logistics in place for incremental development. Instead, 'we' threw a bunch of money down the drain and have nothing to show for it. So we are back to basics, but at least we made a useful leap forward (SpaceX re-usability). Once costs are low enough, new applications will come up, which may become a self-reinforcing cycle. That's what I hope for, at least.

I think in the 50 years, we've found it's more cost effective with a better return on value (and ultimately safer for all humans involved) to just shoot a robot into space equipped with a camera.

The whole Red Scare/Space Domination rhetoric was a Big Thing. The United States was sure that: sending something into space meant you could hit a target anywhere else in the world (with quite a bit of validation). If you do remember, it was because we essentially stole tech/scientists (willingly, or at least intelligently from a political and "i'm going to not be locked up in the gulag" point of view) from the Nazis at the end of the WWII that we were even able to get into space.

It was a craaaaaazy time.

I grew up having nightmares of nuclear holocaust as a child.

I've only read the books, not seen the TV version, but the Expanse universe relies on the "Epstein Drive" as a magical plot device to ignore any inconveniences of intra-system travel.

This alone makes it pure science-fantasy that is unlikely to happen on any timescale and unsuitable as a guide to what our future holds.

The Epstein drive is great for generating gravity directly from acceleration, but electric propulsion that's much less efficient than fiction would be just fine. If you can go to Mars in weeks and to Saturn in months using electric propulsion and a relatively small nuclear power plant on your rotating ship and do multiple trips without the need to stop by a large chunk of ice and hydrocarbons to make more propellant, then the kind of multi-planetary society depicted in The Expanse becomes viable.

What it's not is self-starting. Why would someone want to move permanently to the Moon? I can imagine a community starting around scientific research, first government-sponsored, then, maybe, if costs can be driven down enough (thinking SpaceX and lots of hardware reused from previous missions - maybe a couple cyclers that can be replenished/refurbished while in transit) universities in partnership with governments and then, eventually, we'd have critical mass for partners and others unrelated to scientific research to bootstrap a functional society. If manufacturing of equipment can be automated in part and done on the Moon, then using the Moon as a stepping stone to more research on Mars is viable too. In that scenario, I'd consider paying my own ticket.

But, still, we need to bootstrap it with a government sponsored research station that can grow into a self-sustaining colony.

Why would someone want to move permanently to the Moon?

You'd have to be crazy to want to do that. Fortunately, Sol system is inhabited by humans.

> Why would someone want to move permanently to the Moon?

Jobs. Aluminium-based refueling stations? Research? Cheap real state? I don't know, get cheap flights there, and people will find something useful to do.

How about Heinlein's take? It starts out as a godforsaken penal colony, but then turns into a libertarian paradise for the self reliant.

Here's the most compelling reason for starting settlement off planet: Polities that exist in a larger context will come to dominate human culture. A solar system wide culture based on relatively primitive, inefficient O'Neill colony habitats could still support a human population in the trillions with only known resources, solar power, and only small extrapolations from current technology.

It's cheaper to reverse-engineer the brain and rewire it into a fully adapted citizen than to send a person to the Moon with supplies for a week.

> Aluminium-based refueling stations?

To refuel what?

> Cheap real state?

Location, location, location. Shipping people and goods is expensive. Latencies for data are terrible.

> I've only read the books, not seen the TV version, but the Expanse universe relies on the "Epstein Drive" as a magical plot device to ignore any inconveniences of intra-system travel.

That's because they are operating on a much grander scale and there are plot constraints(it would be too slow and boring otherwise).

It doesn't take an Epstein drive to move stuff (or people) to and from Mars. Transit time will be very inconvenient, as wekk as launch windows. But this is not too different from early sea-based exploration on Earth, voyages would take months at a time.

Now, if you want to go to Saturn and back in reasonable timeframes (or even further), then yes, that's beyond current capability.

EDIT: The TV version is amazing. You should watch it. The attention to detail, while not perfect, is outstanding.

The Americas were only several months of travel from Europe though, much more desirable and nowhere near as hostile.

> The Expanse

Science fiction and especially science fantasy tend to be pretty inaccurate when it comes to predicting anything.

The Americas were only several months of travel from Europe though, much more desirable and nowhere near as hostile.

Scales for all of those things will be far different in space. Venus, Mars, Ceres, and Titan are quite cozy by those standards. Travel to Mars in 3 months may become routine in our lifetimes.

Science fiction and especially science fantasy tend to be pretty inaccurate when it comes to predicting anything.

Yes. You wouldn't spin Ceres for "gravity" and Epstein drives are just as fantastical as Warp drives if you start to account for waste heat.

If we had Nuclear Fusion and Androids, would it still take another 1000 years to seed the Solar System? I don't know, just asking...

You'll probably have to ask the Androids.

> Google has announced plans to do the same.

Citation needed? IMHO putting a datacentre under water is a horrible idea, why not pump the water 10 meters higher and cool a DC near the shoreline?

Continuously pumping sea water is expensive to maintain, the primary reason being marine biology. I once saw mussels grew inside a boat engine.

Second reason, land on shorelines is expensive. Many people dream about living on a seaside (except for people who did, practically speaking the idea is not that great, humidity, noise). Also many other businesses require shorelines, beaches, marinas, ports.

Pumping water from a lake seems more reasonable..

>why not pump the water 10 meters higher and cool a DC near the shoreline?

Google's already doing that -- http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/09/15/googl...

As for the Google's undersea data center plans, I'm unable to find a citation for you at the moment, but I'm fairly certain that it's in the works.

That sea water cooling DC recently became available as the GCP region europe-north1: "Our high-tech cooling system, which uses sea water from the Gulf of Finland, reduces energy use and is the first of its kind." https://cloud.google.com/about/locations/finland/

Exactly. Full submersion seems to add a lot of complication for little gain over just submersing your heat exchangers. I guess you can avoid some moving parts (and heat generation) by letting wave action circulate your cooling fluid, but that's a small fraction of the energy needed to run a datacenter.

The tradeoff is the need for watertight seals all around your datacenter (including the doors and cable access), dealing with corrosion over a larger surface area, accessibility problems, dealing with marine life (barnacles!), anchoring it against storms, environmental impact, and so on.

IMHO it is a silly idea and won't prove practical in the long run.

Or just put it somewhere that's very dry and very windy and use air-cooling? There are a couple of cold deserts that fit the bill that aren't too far latency-wise from users and are nice for solar power.

Apart from water and electronics don't mix. Think how easy it would be to sabotage an underwater data centre, you only need a single hole and let the ocean do the rest. Not to mention the maintenance nightmare of getting in and out of the place. The risks outweigh the benefits.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com