Gartner Calls Orbital Data Centers the Peak of Insanity
Analyst firm Gartner has taken a strong stand against the hype surrounding data centers placed in orbit. In a recent report, distinguished vice president and analyst Bill Ray declares that such facilities will not handle data processing for Earth-based applications for decades, if ever. He describes the current enthusiasm as having reached the peak of insanity, pointing out that companies are pouring resources into concepts that simply do not make economic sense. The core issue lies in the massive challenges that make orbital setups far less practical than alternatives right here on our planet.
One of the biggest hurdles is the sheer cost of getting hardware into space. Launch expenses remain prohibitively high, and the specialized components needed to survive the harsh environment drive prices even further up. For instance, solar panels suitable for space can cost around one thousand times more than their terrestrial counterparts. Extreme temperature swings, ranging from minus one hundred seventy degrees Celsius to one hundred twenty-six degrees Celsius, demand rugged, expensive engineering that standard Earth equipment simply does not require. These factors combine to create an economic model that analysts like Ray see as fundamentally broken for serving everyday computing needs.
Cooling presents another enormous technical barrier in the vacuum of space. Without air or water to dissipate heat efficiently, orbital data centers must rely on complex systems like ammonia pipes to transfer thermal energy to external radiators, much like those used on the International Space Station. This approach is far less effective and more intricate than the air or liquid cooling common in ground-based facilities. Maintenance adds yet another layer of difficulty, since sending repair teams into orbit is not a realistic option with current technology. Any malfunction could render an expensive satellite useless for extended periods.
Data transmission reliability also falls short for practical use. While laser-based communication offers potential speed, atmospheric interference from clouds often disrupts connections and leads to inconsistent performance. This unreliability makes orbital centers poorly suited for the low-latency, high-bandwidth demands of most terrestrial applications, especially those driven by artificial intelligence and cloud services. Ray argues that these limitations mean space-based computing will likely remain niche, perhaps serving needs that originate in space itself rather than feeding back to Earth users.
Instead of chasing orbital dreams, the focus should shift to more viable options already available or emerging on the ground. Underwater data centers, for example, benefit from natural ocean cooling and stable environments. Remote terrestrial locations in places like the Arctic, Iceland, or even deserts in Saudi Arabia offer abundant renewable energy, low land costs, and fewer regulatory hurdles. These approaches deliver the scale and efficiency required to meet surging demand without venturing into space’s unforgiving conditions. Ray urges companies to redirect their investments toward these proven or near-term solutions.
The conversation around orbital data centers highlights how exciting ideas can sometimes outpace practical realities. While innovation in space technology continues to advance, the economics and engineering realities paint a clear picture for now. Terrestrial and underwater alternatives stand ready to handle the bulk of our growing computing needs far more effectively.
What do you think about the future of data centers in space versus on Earth, share your thoughts in the comments.
