Jeff Bezos envisions space-based data centers in 10 to 20 years — could allow for natural cooling and more effective solar power

Google
(Image credit: Google)

Jeff Bezos predicts that within the next 10 to 20 years, extremely large-scale data centers will be constructed in orbit, where continuous access to solar power and relatively easy cooling could allow them to surpass Earth-based facilities in efficiency and cost, reports Reuters. However, building a data center in space will require a number of breakthroughs as it is commercially unfeasible today. 

"One of the things that is going to happen in the next — it is hard to know exactly when, it is 10+ years, and I bet it is not more than 20 years — we are going to start building these giant gigawatt data centers in space," said the Amazon and Blue Origin founder during a discussion with Ferrari chairman John Elkann at Italian Tech Week in Turin, Italy. 

According to Bezos, outer space provides a solar power source that is not subject to atmospheric or weather disruptions. Without clouds, rain, or night cycles, energy collection becomes far more consistent, which makes solar power practical for 24/7 applications. Meanwhile, temperatures in space vary from -120 degrees celsius in direct sunlight to -270 C in the shadow, which greatly simplifies cooling. This could make orbital clusters ideal for intensive computational tasks like AI model training, which demand constant and massive power input.  

It is technically feasible to generate about 1 GW of continuous electrical power in Earth orbit using solar panels, but the scale is immense, creating massive difficulties. 

Solar constant on earth is around 1,366W/m2, it should be around the same on the Earth orbit. High-efficiency triple-junction solar cells can convert about 35% of that into electricity, and after accounting for system-level losses like wiring, thermal inefficiency, and other factors, the net usable output is typically 300 – 410 W/m² depending on various factors. That means the project would need 2.4 to 3.3 million square meters of solar panel area — roughly equivalent to a square array between 1.56 and 1.82 km per side. Such an array would likely weigh 9,000 – 11,250 metric tons just for the photovoltaic material, not including structural supports, power routing, and control electronics. 

Lifting 9,000 – 11,250 metric tons of space-grade solar panels into low Earth orbit (LEO) using today's best commercial launch vehicles — such as SpaceX's Falcon Heavy with an up to 64 metric tons payload — would cost between $13.7 and $17.1 billion at an optimistic ~$1,520/kg, assuming near-max efficiency in payload mass per launch. However, at a more conservative cost of over $2,000/kg, that cost will increase to $25+ billions and will require well over 150 launches only for solar panels. 

In addition, nearly all of the input power becomes heat, which must be radiated into space, which means millions of square meters of radiators to handle 1+ GW of thermal load. How much will such radiators weigh and how much will cost lifting them to space is something that remains to be seen, but since radiators tend to weigh more than solar panels, we are talking about tens of billions of dollars here.

Last but not least, actual AI servers equipment also weighs tens of thousands of metric tons and costs tens of billions of dollars even on earth. 

TOPICS
Anton Shilov
Contributing Writer

Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.

  • User of Computers
    This makes no sense for a number of reasons. Where are you putting all of that heat? Surely it's not dissipating into the surrounding vacuum because... oh wait... you can't. Also, where are you getting all the power? Unless you have massive arrays of (heavy, ludicrously expensive to transport) batteries to back up the entire dc for hours at a time when the sun is in shadow, it's going to black out frequently. Yet another constraint is the data transfer. How on Earth (or off of it, really) are you going to get all that data off the ground?


    all in all, I want what he's smoking.
    Reply
  • twotwotwo
    What 'User of Computers' said: power and cooling are worse up there! Bezos (and Sam Altman) tell this story because it implies that this time, growth isn't a curve that spikes up and flattens out like every other industry, it's unbounded forever. And that's attractive because it justifies incessantly growing valuations.

    It's a little twisted but maybe it's less scary if they're actively, knowingly deceptive rather than confused, 'cause it may be worse for our future for people with such poor understanding of the underlying realities to be directing how the world's resources are used.
    Reply
  • JeffreyP55
    Admin said:
    Jeff Bezos envisions gigawatt-scale orbital data centers within 10–20 years, powered by continuous solar energy and space-based cooling, but the concept remains commercially unviable today due to the immense cost and complexity of deploying thousands of tons of hardware, solar panels, and radiators into orbit.

    Jeff Bezos envisions space-based data centers in 10 to 20 years — could allow for natural cooling and more effective solar power : Read more
    I envision Jeff Bezos growing his hair back.
    Reply
  • Eximo
    You would use a polar orbit that keeps it in the sun 100% of the time. Doesn't need to orbit the equator.

    But yes, radiation for heat dissipation would be a hefty bottleneck, not insurmountable, just more tonnage to space, but once in place, operating costs are zero.
    Reply
  • Jame5
    Without convection, you have no way to shed generated heat efficiently. Air cooling is good, liquid cooling is better. Vacuum cooling is... not really a thing?

    But I'm not into material science. Maybe there are cool tricks I don't know.
    Reply
  • zsydeepsky
    Eximo said:
    You would use a polar orbit that keeps it in the sun 100% of the time. Doesn't need to orbit the equator.

    But yes, radiation for heat dissipation would be a hefty bottleneck, not insurmountable, just more tonnage to space, but once in place, operating costs are zero.

    Besides the heat problem (in a vacuum, heat can only be dissipated through thermal radiation), you also forgot to consider (other types of) radiation from the Sun and space.


    Electronics on Earth are protected by Earth's magnetic field, but once you are in orbit...god bless you. The Sun has an 11-year activity cycle. Unless it is an extreme flare explosion that is directed towards Earth, the computers on Earth normally won't be affected. But in space...like just recently, in 2022, Starlink lost 38 satellites due to solar activity.

    In fact, all satellites, except the micro-satellites that are designed not to last, are all built with anti-radiation electronic components, because there are full of high-energy rays & electronic storms in space, and they will cause bit-flips which will lead to program errors, or just directly kill the hardware. Even so, we still have a bunch of satellites that got wrecked by radiation in space, such as GEOS-6(1989), Anik E2(1994), Telstar 401(1997), Galaxy IV(1998), ASCA(2000), etc.

    I don't think Nvidia or AMD has any product line that was designed for a space environment, so they will function like a greenhouse flower that lives outside the greenhouse. I doubt how long they can endure, especially when they are already fragile on Earth. Like Meta stated in their Llama3 paper, their data center with 16384 H100 cards encountered 466 hardware failures during 54 days of training. If you put this data center in orbit, then I can only imagine the crazy failure rates it would have.

    And furthermore, how do you swap the failed hardware? It's in the god-dam orbit, are you going to send astronauts up there to swap the broken cards? Or another entirely new, unverified automated maintenance system? Are you sure the operating cost is going to be zero? Or many zeros?




    For this news, I can only conclude that Jeff Bezos really wants to prop up the valuation of his Blue Origin so he can be "the richest man on Earth" again; he would say anything that can achieve that, no matter how ridiculous that is.
    Reply