Hacker News Reader

Comment by OneDonOne | Hacker News Reader

> Ok, there are at least two bad assumptions there.

> First, it assumes the radiator is at the same temperature as the GPU. But radiators become dramatically more effective as temperature increases, with radiated power increasing as the fourth power of absolute temperature. So a heat pump that drives the radiator at higher temperature could make the radiator far smaller.

Carnot's theorem and refridgeration cycles rear their head. Your heat pump still needs power to pump heat uphill., negating any savings from a smaller radiator. And what happens when you shrink a radiator? It becomes a high temperature radiator, meaning the GPU must operate outside its operational tmperature of about 70 degrees C. So small radiator = big pump + extra solar panels and batteries + dead GPU

Also, how do you deal with the added cost and complexity for the solar tracking mechanisms for the "edge-on-to-the-Sun" radiator?

View on HN

>Also, how do you deal with the added cost and complexity for the solar tracking mechanisms for the "edge-on-to-the-Sun" radiator?

Almost every satellite needs attitude control, so this isn't something out of the ordinary. I'm not sure solar tracking mechanisms really fall into the "expensive" or "complex" categories in 2026.

Why do you need batteries? Why do you think the solar panels to run the heat pump require as much space as you save on the radiator?

And GPUs operate just fine at 90°C

It's not just space, it's mass. A solar panel can be made very low in mass. The physical limit comes from the absorption of light in a thin layer of semiconductor. For CdTe, this would be about 1 micron. PV in space could be gossamer thin sheets of thin film semiconductors, with tremendous power/mass.

> Carnot's theorem and refridgeration cycles rear their head. Your heat pump still needs power to pump heat uphill., negating any savings from a smaller radiator. And what happens when you shrink a radiator? It becomes a high temperature radiator, meaning the GPU must operate outside its operational tmperature of about 70 degrees C.

Sorry, that's all nonsense. Yes, the extra power needs to be radiated. But the advantage of operating at high temperature is so extreme that the more effective radiation will overwhelm that unless the heat pump is extraordinarily inefficient. If the heat pump would be perfect, operating at the Carnot limit, then if it doubled the absolute radiator temperature it would double the amount of energy to be radiated, but the area of the radiator would decrease by a factor of (2^4)/(2) = 8.

As for the second point, no, this does not require the GPU to operate at higher temperature. What made you conclude it would?

> Also, how do you deal with the added cost and complexity for the solar tracking mechanisms for the "edge-on-to-the-Sun" radiator?

I don't need to; I'm just debunking a bad argument. What you are doing there is called "moving the goalposts". But satellites normally have means of orienting PV toward the Sun. So, maybe have the radiator perpendicular to those? Those claiming the idea violates the laws of physics and using solar absoption on the radiator as part of the argument need to show no such scheme can work, even in principle.

Again,

Smaller radiator = bigger heat pump + more batteries and solar panels

Satellites have a mass and power budgets. Your scheme only looks at temperature. If you want to build infinitely large AI Data satellites, go ahead.

[flagged]

The numbers are easy to run, and the added power consumption is no joke. It’s even worse if your heat pump fails to achieve Carnot efficiency. Never mind that heat pumps can be heavy and may be completely destroyed by even a tiny micrometeoroid strike.

Yes, it needs more solar power. But solar panels should be much lighter than radiators, potentially vastly lighter. Even if Carnot efficiency is not approached there is plenty of room for improvement in the size of the radiators.

Could you please stop breaking the site guidelines? Your account has been posting flamebait lately, and here you crossed into personal attack. Not cool. You can make your substantive points without any of that.

When someone else is wrong (or you feel they are), two options that work are to continue to respectfully provide correct information, or to stop replying. Getting into denunciation, spats, etc. is not a good option.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Why do you need batteries? There are no clouds in space

Reply on news.ycombinator.com