Daniel Schien <[email protected]> wrote: > I assume any object in orbit will be hidden from the sun some of the > time. So, the machines will require some pretty big battery to go up > with them.
Why would we do that? Make the orbits polar/sun-synchronous.
While GEO is pretty busy, I wonder if there are other interesting orbits.
Obviously, Lagrange points are one set, but are there half-GEO or 2xGEO
orbits that are somehow useful?
One point I got from Geoff Houston's talk on PING which I didn't understand
clearly before was that LEO wasn't just close to use, but that it was much
better protected from radiation.
> "Data centers are big energy consumers – between 2% and 3% of all
> global consumption – a rate that is doubling every year."
Back in 2000 the coal industry did a "study" that explained how coal was
critical to Internet growth. Their modelling assumed every home router used
the same power as a Cisco 7000 series 14U router.
> The latest was IEA estimating it to be around 220-320 TWh (out of
> 30,000) in 2021 data and growing between 10-60% over 6 years in total
> (so let's than 10 CAGR). But it's certainly not doubling every
> year. That's just completely wrong.
+1
A related number is density: what's the power required/gigaflop?
And when will countries start rating themselves by gigaflops rather than tons
of steel or barrels of oil?
{You down the street from Bistol Aerospace?}
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Starlink mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
