this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2026
58 points (93.9% liked)
Technology
81869 readers
5040 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You would need to launch so ridiculously much into orbit. The ISS is rounded up 200 kW of solar power. 0.2 MW. Say you want the equivalent of a gigawatt data center. 1000 MW. Yeah, that's about 5000 ISS sizes objects. It needs a bunch more cooling, and a data center doesn't need habital zones, so a pretty barebones ISS. Launch 3 roughly ISS sized objects per day and you're done in 4.5 years. Somehow I don't really see that as a realistic plan.
The current solar panel system of the ISS weights about 8 tonnes, the Falcon Heavy can deliver 63 tonnes to LEO. That's about 715 launches of the Falcon Heavy, assuming space solar panel W/kg hasn't improved since then, that Starship never becomes commercially viable, and doesn't include batteries, cooling, or the working components. This still isn't in the range of feasible for a data center, but could be an option for microgravity industry. The value of a more successful or precise silicon crystal production method, for instance, may make it worthwhile.