"It really seems like anyone with some renders and a white paper written by someone being gassed up by an overly agreeable AI can get VC funding these days."
The radiators are rated at 14kw a pair. There is other cooling mechanisms that are used and you are using the combined total. This scale and resource requirements become quickly ridiculous for launching that many radiator arrays alone.
Your math is all over the place. And this isnt any kind of scientific.
And raising the temperature factually increase the radiators capability to the 4th power, and the ISS runs at a cooler temperature than these GPUs need to run at, thus these radiators will be smaller. (edit: NASA source For a given amount of waste heat, the lower the rejection temperature, the larger the required radiating
surface. For radiation heat transfer, the quantity of heat rejected is proportional to the fourth power of
temperature; therefore, the area requirements increase rapidly as the temperature decreases. T)
I’ve been pretty consistent in this entire post on the 70kW but max rated for 84kW, but i might have been wrong about the 84 part mixing that up with something else.
I’ve been consistent with the AI datacenter being - 125kw avg, 150kw peak as well. 2x ISS before accounting for temperature difference is 140kW which is < 2x average, but not quite peak which is 2.15x.
There is no way these will be bigger than 2x what the ISS has.
Edit: Looks like you were working off of older data
the EATCS provides a substantial upgrade in heat rejection capacity from the 14kW capability of the Early External Active Thermal Control System (EEATCS).
The radiators are rated at 14kw a pair. There is other cooling mechanisms that are used and you are using the combined total. This scale and resource requirements become quickly ridiculous for launching that many radiator arrays alone.
Your math is all over the place. And this isnt any kind of scientific.
Straight from NASA
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/473486main_iss_atcs_overview.pdf
And raising the temperature factually increase the radiators capability to the 4th power, and the ISS runs at a cooler temperature than these GPUs need to run at, thus these radiators will be smaller. (edit: NASA source For a given amount of waste heat, the lower the rejection temperature, the larger the required radiating surface. For radiation heat transfer, the quantity of heat rejected is proportional to the fourth power of temperature; therefore, the area requirements increase rapidly as the temperature decreases. T)
I’ve been pretty consistent in this entire post on the 70kW but max rated for 84kW, but i might have been wrong about the 84 part mixing that up with something else.
I’ve been consistent with the AI datacenter being - 125kw avg, 150kw peak as well. 2x ISS before accounting for temperature difference is 140kW which is < 2x average, but not quite peak which is 2.15x.
There is no way these will be bigger than 2x what the ISS has.
Edit: e.g post saying 84 & 70
https://lemmy.world/post/48895224/24572272
https://lemmy.world/post/48895224/24559267
Edit: Looks like you were working off of older data
Thank you for the update on the EATCS system.