6 ms·

Sir Richard Branson: Virgin Orbit rocket fails on debut flight

34 points by ZeljkoS 6y ago

elitistphoenix 6y ago
Better title: "Inexperienced Virgin prematurely explodes"
ge96 6y ago
> Take just the example of server farms. We know we could put them in space to harness solar power. That's kind of an interesting thought, cool... but what about maintenance. I guess if you can build something for 40+ years(Voyager probes) then it should be possible. You could use those remote drones to perform maintenance, that would be a neat potential business(those drones/interface). Yeah it doesn't seem logical the distance.
- seanhunter 6y ago
  Surely the key issue that makes this untenable is network latency. That's a hard physical limit no matter how far our technology evolves to work around the myriad other problems with having servers in such an inconvenient location. Maintenance is not a small problem though. Even if you were able to design servers to be robust for 40+ years, your users would have to be content with using 40+ year-old server tech as opposed to the latest and greatest. That's going to be ok for some use-cases but relatively few.
  - ge96 6y ago
    > network latency I realize that's one of the first things that comes to mind. Either you beam power down or you beam compute down/"real time" communication... but I thought you could do something like "ML training" or anything else where the compute process does not need to be shared until it's done. On a side note, are the underwater servers better? I suppose that's easier to get to than space. The communication is there(transatlantic cables perhaps). Another side note, what if we could embed "servers" in an asteroid to hitch a ride... nvm the logistics of doing that. But another way to extend our existence/influence. RTG/solar for power.
  - IAmEveryone 6y ago
    No, the key issue is that launching servers and solar panels into space costs easily 10x as much as the hardware itself.
- andrewflnr 6y ago
  I remember there was a proposal a while back to put mini data centers in the ocean to take advantage of sea water for cooling. The maintenance plan? When a drive or server breaks, just stop using it. Your orchestration software can handle hardware failures, right? The plan for servers in spaaaaace could be similar.
  - sterlind 6y ago
    I think MS did this, from an article I read. The waste heat comment is spot-on (vacuum is a great insulator), not to mention latency/availability (are you in geosynchronous orbit? if not you'll need a very complex handoff) and the sheer exponential cost of lifting racks to orbit (Tsiolkovsky equation isn't going anywhere soon) or the complexity of assembling pods in orbit.. such a bad idea. Sea though, that makes sense. No exponential expenses, free water cooling, literal continental edge colos, cheap real estate in expensive areas. I think it'll catch on with the other big clouds like shipping containers did back in the day.
- nradov 6y ago
  How would they deal with waste heat? The radiators would have to be quite large. Most existing satellites don't consume nearly as much power as an orbital data center would.
  - ge96 6y ago
    The heat thing... can you use a perfectly sealed turbine or no? Sealed as in the water would not escape so it just goes through the rankine cycle... probably not enough to do that... maybe thermopiles(probably not without a cold part).
    - nradov 6y ago
      I haven't done the math but the problem with that approach is that computer chips just aren't hot enough to regenerate much power from the waste heat. Any power efficiency gains would be lost from increased payload weight and the higher risk of mechanical failure.
- lm28469 6y ago
  It's one of these sci-fi fan wet dreams that doesn't make any sense as soon as you start thinking about it. I put it right next to mining asteroids and building a dyson sphere. Once the "woah, cool dude" factor goes away you're left with things that are so much more complex than anything we've done, it almost doesn't make sense to talk about it now. "Hey guys what if we put server farms in space to save a couple thousands dollar of electricity per hour while making everything else hundred of times more complicated and expensive, sounds good ?"
  - Already__Taken 6y ago
    it's something that would only really make sense as a gimmick or absolute problem like diverting political. good luck FBI raiding a private crypto locked data center in space. but that works both ways, maybe there's no problem jamming or stealing stealing like that. and so space piracy is born
- tails4e 6y ago
  It does beg the question of SEU, ie single event upsets, which cause bits of digital circuits to randomly flip, and is much worse at altitude (another nice thing out atmosphere does for us) Circuits must be designed to be rad-hard to be less succeptible to this, increasing cost. Typically space grade ICs are way older and less powerful than the latest commercial offering as a result.
redis_mlc 6y ago
> "Orbit is chasing the growing interest in small spacecraft that are being designed for telecommunications and Earth observation." Kinda skeptical on the business models for SpaceX and Orbit. If SpaceX had enough paying launch clients, they wouldn't be polluting the sky with their own Internet satellites. Oya, almost forgot: time to deorbit the ISS. Take a chain saw on the next trip.

34 points by ZeljkoS 6y ago

Better title: "Inexperienced Virgin prematurely explodes"

ge96 6y ago

> Take just the example of server farms. We know we could put them in space to harness solar power. That's kind of an interesting thought, cool... but what about maintenance. I guess if you can build something for 40+ years(Voyager probes) then it should be possible. You could use those remote drones to perform maintenance, that would be a neat potential business(those drones/interface). Yeah it doesn't seem logical the distance.

seanhunter 6y ago
Surely the key issue that makes this untenable is network latency. That's a hard physical limit no matter how far our technology evolves to work around the myriad other problems with having servers in such an inconvenient location. Maintenance is not a small problem though. Even if you were able to design servers to be robust for 40+ years, your users would have to be content with using 40+ year-old server tech as opposed to the latest and greatest. That's going to be ok for some use-cases but relatively few.
- ge96 6y ago
  > network latency I realize that's one of the first things that comes to mind. Either you beam power down or you beam compute down/"real time" communication... but I thought you could do something like "ML training" or anything else where the compute process does not need to be shared until it's done. On a side note, are the underwater servers better? I suppose that's easier to get to than space. The communication is there(transatlantic cables perhaps). Another side note, what if we could embed "servers" in an asteroid to hitch a ride... nvm the logistics of doing that. But another way to extend our existence/influence. RTG/solar for power.
- IAmEveryone 6y ago
  No, the key issue is that launching servers and solar panels into space costs easily 10x as much as the hardware itself.
andrewflnr 6y ago
I remember there was a proposal a while back to put mini data centers in the ocean to take advantage of sea water for cooling. The maintenance plan? When a drive or server breaks, just stop using it. Your orchestration software can handle hardware failures, right? The plan for servers in spaaaaace could be similar.
- sterlind 6y ago
  I think MS did this, from an article I read. The waste heat comment is spot-on (vacuum is a great insulator), not to mention latency/availability (are you in geosynchronous orbit? if not you'll need a very complex handoff) and the sheer exponential cost of lifting racks to orbit (Tsiolkovsky equation isn't going anywhere soon) or the complexity of assembling pods in orbit.. such a bad idea. Sea though, that makes sense. No exponential expenses, free water cooling, literal continental edge colos, cheap real estate in expensive areas. I think it'll catch on with the other big clouds like shipping containers did back in the day.
nradov 6y ago
How would they deal with waste heat? The radiators would have to be quite large. Most existing satellites don't consume nearly as much power as an orbital data center would.
- ge96 6y ago
  The heat thing... can you use a perfectly sealed turbine or no? Sealed as in the water would not escape so it just goes through the rankine cycle... probably not enough to do that... maybe thermopiles(probably not without a cold part).
  - nradov 6y ago
    I haven't done the math but the problem with that approach is that computer chips just aren't hot enough to regenerate much power from the waste heat. Any power efficiency gains would be lost from increased payload weight and the higher risk of mechanical failure.
lm28469 6y ago
It's one of these sci-fi fan wet dreams that doesn't make any sense as soon as you start thinking about it. I put it right next to mining asteroids and building a dyson sphere. Once the "woah, cool dude" factor goes away you're left with things that are so much more complex than anything we've done, it almost doesn't make sense to talk about it now. "Hey guys what if we put server farms in space to save a couple thousands dollar of electricity per hour while making everything else hundred of times more complicated and expensive, sounds good ?"
- Already__Taken 6y ago
  it's something that would only really make sense as a gimmick or absolute problem like diverting political. good luck FBI raiding a private crypto locked data center in space. but that works both ways, maybe there's no problem jamming or stealing stealing like that. and so space piracy is born
tails4e 6y ago
It does beg the question of SEU, ie single event upsets, which cause bits of digital circuits to randomly flip, and is much worse at altitude (another nice thing out atmosphere does for us) Circuits must be designed to be rad-hard to be less succeptible to this, increasing cost. Typically space grade ICs are way older and less powerful than the latest commercial offering as a result.

redis_mlc 6y ago

> "Orbit is chasing the growing interest in small spacecraft that are being designed for telecommunications and Earth observation." Kinda skeptical on the business models for SpaceX and Orbit. If SpaceX had enough paying launch clients, they wouldn't be polluting the sky with their own Internet satellites. Oya, almost forgot: time to deorbit the ISS. Take a chain saw on the next trip.