There are currently about 12600 satellites in orbit. As a result on average every day 3 fall out of space, dumping metals and other nasties into the upper atmosphere.

If we continue that rate of satellite loss, 1 in 4200, and extrapolate it to 1,000,000. That would be ~238 satellites PER DAY, falling out of the sky and spreading the materials they are made up of in the upper atmosphere. With some more substantial chunks hitting the surface, and possibly people.

That's just bonkers

1/n

This of course completely overlooks all other practicalities of orbital datacentres, that makes putting high power computing in orbit. Which for a summary include: too much radiation noise making the systems unstable (see Wikipedia for "single even upset"), cooling when you have to dump heat into a vacuum, low data bandwidth (compared to a fibre on earth), latency, and shear fucking cost.

It's an absolutely fucking stupid idea. And I'm angry I have to spend my Sunday debunking this shit.

2/2

Postscript: and before the cult of space Karen start with the "so you're an expert in orbital computing this week are you?" Well. One of my first jobs out of uni involved designing an onboard control system for a satellite. My design has literally been to space. I know what I'm talking about on this one.

@quixoticgeek There's also the Kessler Syndrome cascading debris risk that the boffins at ESA and EUMETSAT were worrying about 15 years ago (yes, I worked at the latter in Darmstadt).

Once we get there it's goodbye LEO for thé foreseeable future.

@davep good bye orbit. Who's gonna want to risk launching through a debris shell to get into orbit? What radio signals are we gonna get through the noise?
@quixoticgeek Yup, that too. Russian roulette for every launch isn't a great idea.
@quixoticgeek looping in @sundogplanets for someone with more up to date and better understanding of the whole thing than me.