> - Power available 24/7 for "free"

The Sun is visible from Earth as well, the last time I checked.

In LEO you don't get power 24/7 because you are only 500km above the Earth. Yes the Sun is more attenuated on Earth but what we care about is $/W not raw wattage, and Earth certainly has cheaper $/W than space.

> - coms w/o interruption using existing infra

I'm perplexed how comms might be easier in space than on Earth where you can just run a cable.

> - Rideshare (SPX can build out capacity while other lifts pay some of the bill for lift)

On Earth you don't need to rideshare because you don't have to ride a rocket.

> - Nonregulation

Space is more regulated than Earth. The only way to get to space is via a rocket which is the same as an ICBM. Governments regulate the process of building ICBMs and what payloads can ride on them.

If you want non-regulation then go to international waters or find a bribable government.

> - Very low latency to "places of interest far from USA mountains"

The latency is not terrible in LEO but it's nowhere near as good as on Earth.

We're losing the direct chain of thought here. My assertion is that "Nonexistence of Mountaintop DC is not a counter-example to space DC". That's it. The reasons were spelled out.

Your points: "Mountaintop" is how comms is easier in space vs on earth. Starlink already serves many rural areas simply b/c it is easier to go to/from space in some places than "running a cable". "Latency is nowhere near as good as on earth" is just false. "Mountaintop" is why. But more broadly, my most recent vacation cabin has higher latency than starlink offers. Case closed I guess?

And one more on latency: I was referring to latency in areas of interest far from USA mountaintops / USA in general. You might want to peruse the DARPA programs on low latency in-situ, closed loop comms for in theater (sometimes space based) compute. Something close to the action.

Power: "Mountaintop" is how space has a better power case than earth. Not all of earth. Mountaintop earth. top level comment was talking about a wind turbine on a mountaintop. That's an attempt at 24h power which is very likely strictly worse.

You can step back and make larger arguments, but this thread is narrower.

"Space is more regulated than Earth". Yes, again, you're talking about wider counts of regulation. Just go look around at the pushback to data centers and you'll see some of the case for DC in space. The path to getting equipment into space is clean - just get permits and launch same as SPX does for starlink. The path to building a data center on a mountaintop probably encounters at least some non-paperwork pushback that's likely to trip big political fights. That's it. Are there a lot of mountaintops that are sufficiently cold to warrant "cooling" arguments that are not part of large state/federal parks?

So going back to the thread - if you believe that a mountaintop datacenter is a counter example to the feasibility of a space-based data center, then I think you're making a category error on some of the above criteria. Your comments don't dissuade me at all about that because they don't address either side of that argument.