The article evaluates the economic viability of orbital data centers compared to terrestrial ones. It emphasizes the need to address a fundamental question: why would computing power in low Earth orbit (LEO) be more valuable than on the ground? The author argues that much of the discussion around space-based computing is driven by excitement rather than solid economic rationale. Current narratives often overlook the significant challenges and costs involved in getting hardware into orbit, which can lead to unrealistic expectations. The economic analysis presents a stark contrast between the costs associated with orbital solar power ($31.2 billion) versus terrestrial alternatives ($14.8 billion). The author constructed a model to assess the cost per watt for usable power from both sources, emphasizing transparency by sharing the underlying assumptions and inviting others to adjust them for discussion. Key findings suggest that while space-based compute isn't impossible, it faces harsh economic realities. Achieving competitive pricing with terrestrial data centers requires aggressive assumptions that may only be feasible for a select few organizations, particularly SpaceX. The piece critiques the current discourse, which often lacks rigorous analysis, and highlights the importance of vertical integration in space ventures. The author sees SpaceX as a leading contender to revolutionize space-based computing by drastically reducing launch costs. However, the author remains cautious, stressing that the economic gap between orbital and terrestrial systems is not just a minor issue; it's a significant barrier that needs addressing for any successful deployment of orbital data centers.