Radiant heat loss (Score: 5, Insightful) by email@example.com 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: 1) by firstname.lastname@example.org on 2014-03-12 21:10 (#H6) Its been a while since my thermodynamics class in college, does the radiation given off depend upon the difference in temps? I mean, at some point a greater temperature differential would offset the loss of conduction, right?My intuition would expect that an object at 60 C in a room with air at 59 C would cool slower than an object at 60 C in the vacuum of space. Re: Radiant heat loss (Score: 4, Informative) by email@example.com on 2014-03-13 07:13 (#HD) Your intuition would be right for conductive cooling such as air/water cooling, but the amount of heat that is radiated only depends on the temparature of the object, the environment doesn't influence this in any way. Re: Radiant heat loss (Score: 1) by firstname.lastname@example.org on 2014-03-19 04:35 (#NY) In one of Dr.David Brin's lovely Uplift books (and possibly elsewhere in the SF pantheon) radiative cooling was accomplished by using the energy to power a laser. Mind, it was in a close orbit of the Sun, so there was a *lot* of energy to dump, but it's not completely far-fetched to have coherent radiation as a cooling system.