The article makes several big assumptions that are questionable (experimental cooling can scale, permit issues on land will only become worse, etc). But more importantly, their analysis of the risks of placing a data center in orbit is completely off. They mention that it costs tens of millions to launch a missile to destroy a satellite, and it might be cheaper to simply replace it (based on launch costs). But one strike can hit many targets, those targets may contain hardware costing multiple times the value of their launch, and you will be out of compute while you scramble to launch a replacement. We can also assume that placing big fat valuable targets in space would have many actors wondering how to make it cheaper to destroy them.

For those reasons alone, and because compute will become more and more strategic for defense, I find it very hard to believe that data centers in space will represent even 5% of all compute in the next 10 years. I think a higher proportion will rather be underground or in bunkers than in space.

Space is like the deep ocean, you never really know what's lurking in the shadows. A well placed pebble, a pellet of paint or a beam of microwaves could ruin a fragile satellite without being none the wiser.

If you want a safer datacenter you put it underground and you can safely assume that if it's hit by a bunker buster you have much much bigger problems.

> We can also assume that placing big fat valuable targets in space would have many actors wondering how to make it cheaper to destroy them.

Yup. See True Anomaly, among others.

you just need one missile, maybe 2-3.

space debris will ruin the rest.

Defense compute can move to bunkers, but that is probably small percentage of overall need