Hacker News Reader

Is it an advantage though ? One of the main objections in the article is exactly that.

There's no atmosphere that helps with heat loss through convection, there's nowhere to shed heat through conduction, all you have is radiation. It is a serious engineering challenge for spacecrafts to getting rid of the little heat they generate, and avoid being overheated by the sun.

View on HN

I think it is an advantage, the question is just how big, and assume we look only at ongoing operation cost.

- Earth temperatures are variable, and radiation only works at night

- The required radiator area is much smaller for the space installation

- The engineering is simple: CPU -> cooler -> liquid -> pipe -> radiator. We're assuming no constraint on capex so we can omit heat pumps

Radiators on earth mainly do it to air, there's no air in space.

A typical CPU heatsink dissipates 10-30% of heat through radiation, and the rest through convection. In space you're in a vacuum so you can't disipated heat through convection.

You need to rework your physical equipment quite substantially to make up for the fact you can't shed 70-90% of the heat in the same manner as you can down here on Earth

Reply on news.ycombinator.com