Radiant heat loss (Score: 5, Insightful) by firstname.lastname@example.org on 2014-03-12 20:38 (#H4) Except that in space you only have heat loss due to radiation rather than conduction, which is quite a bit more efficient.Add to that the cost of upgrading obsolete servers, and I don't (forgive the pun) see this taking off anytime soon. Re: Radiant heat loss (Score: 2, Interesting) by email@example.com on 2014-03-12 21:06 (#H5) Yeah, you end up expending a lot of resources in order to get the servers up there. Then they eventually fall from orbit and burn up. There's not even the chance of recycling/reusing the old parts. Re: Radiant heat loss (Score: 1) by firstname.lastname@example.org on 2014-03-19 04:31 (#NV) I think your context can be expanded a bit by adding a few years to the timeline. I can see the cost per kilogram going down considerably across the next few years. They will also only fall from orbit if you're launching them into LEO. A higher orbit would encounter less exospheric drag and could stay up for a very long time.Not that LEO would be all bad; you could tune the orbit such that older servers would fall and burn out at a targeted time, as a means for disposing of obsolescent gear.Go a little further out into the future, and there's a **lot** of silicon in the inner Solar system; no need to pick the deepest gravity well for your factory, is there?Personally, I like the thought of a planetary server network, up where the RF isn't attenuated by atmosphere.