---
type: source
title: "Four Things We'd Need to Put Data Centers in Space — MIT Technology Review"
author: "MIT Technology Review (@techreview)"
url: https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/04/03/1135073/four-things-wed-need-to-put-data-centers-in-space/
date: 2026-04-03
domain: space-development
secondary_domains: []
format: article
status: unprocessed
priority: high
tags: [orbital-data-centers, feasibility, debris, orbital-capacity, launch-cost, thermal-management, MIT]
---

## Content

MIT Technology Review's structured technical assessment of orbital data center requirements, published April 3, 2026 — the most rigorous mainstream technical summary found.

**Four Requirements Identified:**

**1. Space debris protection:**
Large solar arrays would quickly suffer damage from small debris and meteorites, degrading solar panel performance over time and creating additional debris. ODC satellites are disproportionately large targets.

**2. Safe operation and communication:**
Operating 1M satellites in LEO may be impossible to do safely unless all satellites can communicate to maneuver around each other. The orbital coordination problem at 1M scale has no precedent.

**3. Orbital capacity limits:**
MIT TR cites: "You can fit roughly 4,000-5,000 satellites in one orbital shell." Across all LEO shells, maximum capacity: ~240,000 satellites total. SpaceX's 1M satellite plan exceeds total LEO capacity by **4x**. Blue Origin's 51,600 represents ~22% of total LEO capacity for one company.

**4. Launch cost and frequency:**
Economic viability requires cheap launch at high frequency. Starship is the enabling vehicle but remains to be proven at the necessary cadence.

**Additional technical context from the article:**
- Space-rated multi-junction solar cells: 100-200x more expensive per watt than terrestrial panels, but 30-40% efficiency (vs. ~20% terrestrial silicon)
- A panel in space produces ~5x the electricity of the same panel on Earth (no atmosphere, no weather, most orbits have no day-night cycle)

## Agent Notes
**Why this matters:** This is the clearest concise summary of the binding constraints. The orbital capacity limit (240,000 max across all LEO shells) is the hardest physical constraint — it's not a cost problem, not a technology problem, it's geometry. SpaceX is filing for 4x the maximum possible.

**What surprised me:** The 4,000-5,000 satellites per orbital shell figure. This is independent of launch capacity — you simply cannot fit more than this in one shell without catastrophic collision risk. SpaceX's 1M satellite plan requires ~200 orbital shells all operating simultaneously. That's the entire usable LEO volume for one use case.

**What I expected but didn't find:** The article doesn't quantify the solar array mass penalty (what fraction of satellite mass goes to power generation vs. compute). This is a critical design driver.

**KB connections:** orbital debris is a classic commons tragedy where individual launch incentives are private but collision risk is externalized — MIT's debris concern is the Kessler syndrome risk made concrete. A 1M satellite ODC constellation that starts generating debris becomes a shared risk for ALL operators, not just SpaceX.

**Extraction hints:**
- CLAIM CANDIDATE: Total LEO orbital shell capacity is approximately 240,000 satellites across all usable shells, setting a hard physical ceiling on constellation scale independent of launch capability or economics.
- This is a constraint on BOTH SpaceX (1M proposal) and Blue Origin (51,600) — though Blue Origin is within physical limits, SpaceX is not.

## Curator Notes
PRIMARY CONNECTION: orbital debris is a classic commons tragedy — the orbital capacity limit is the strongest version of the debris argument.
WHY ARCHIVED: The MIT TR article is the most credible and concise technical constraint summary in the public domain. The 240,000 satellite ceiling is the key extractable claim.
EXTRACTION HINT: Focus on the orbital capacity ceiling as an independent, physics-based constraint that doesn't depend on any economic or technical feasibility arguments.
