14 ms·

Datacenters in space aren't going to work

• Infinity315 10mo ago
  So many ideas involving AI just seems to be built off of sci-fi (not in a good way), including this one. Like sci-fi, there are little practical considerations made.
  • 0_____0 10mo ago
    Sci-fi isn't even really about the tech. It's about what happens to us, humans, when the tech changes in dramatic ways. Sci-fi authors dream up types of technology that create new social orders, factions, rifts, types of interpersonal relationships, types of fascism, where the unforseen consequences of human ingenuity hoist us upon our collective petard. But these baffoons only see the blinky shiney and completely miss the point of the stories. They have a child's view of SF the way that men in their teens and 20d thought they were supposed to be like Tyler Durden.
    • shigawire 10mo ago
      This is a good point and is why I prefer to refer to the genre as Speculative Fiction - not only is it broader but it better gets at the idea behind this type of fiction. Not just space lasers.
• kwertyoowiyop 10mo ago
  “Terrible, horrible, no good” is the new “considered harmful.”
  • Sharlin 10mo ago
    Apparently the book whose title the phrase comes from [1] was published in 1972, four years after Dijkstra published "Considered Harmful". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_and_the_Terrible,_Horrible,_No_Good,_Very_Bad_Day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_and_the_Terrible,_Ho...
    • MarkusQ 10mo ago
      Additionally, their distributions were different. People who read Dijkstra circa 1968 started using the phrase in their own publications within a decade, whereas people who read Viorst (or had it read to them) in 1972 and following years had at least a few decades of further delay before publishing anything using the corresponding phrase.
  • Avicebron 10mo ago
    "Mind-bogglingly poorly thought out to the degree of a cynical money-grubbing scheme worthy of the finest cambodian slave camp" was taken and is disrespectful to the hard work and education of said slave camp's operators.
• yardie 10mo ago
  I asked Google for more information about AI datacenter in space. This was the first sentence, 'AI data centers are being developed in space to handle the massive energy demands of AI, using solar power and the vacuum of space for cooling.' > After laughing at "the vacuum of space for cooling" I closed the page because there was nothing serious there. Basic high school physics student would be laughing at that sentence.
  • ReptileMan 10mo ago
    You can radiate the excess energy away on the non-sun facing part. In theory.
    • fhars 10mo ago
      There are even commercially available prototypes of that vacuum cooling technology, if you want to perform your own experiments with that concept: https://www.amazon.com/Thermos-Stainless-Ounce-Drink-Bottle/dp/B01DZQSWQ4?th=1 https://www.amazon.com/Thermos-Stainless-Ounce-Drink-Bottle/...
      • RugnirViking 10mo ago
        this kind of sarcasm will go over their head. People truly don't understand vacuums
        • ReptileMan 10mo ago
          I absolutely don't understand how vacuum works. So I absolutely cannot model how a Dewar flask which has 15 billion light year thickness between the inner and outer wall - a wall that is very close to absolute zero will behave.
      • sanex 10mo ago
        That's my water bottle. 10/10 would recommend for not passing temperature gradients.
      • 10mo ago
• kevdev 10mo ago
  As someone with a similar background to the writer of this post (I did avionics work for NASA before moving into more “traditional” software engineering), this post does a great job at summing up my thoughts on why space-based data centers won’t work. The SEU issues were my first though followed by the thermal concerns, and both are addressed here fantastically. On the SEU issue I’ll add in that even in LEO you can still get SEUs - the ISS is in LEO and gets SEUs on occasion. There’s also the South Atlantic Anomaly where spacecraft in LEO see a higher number of SEUs.
  • foobarian 10mo ago
    The only advantage I can come up with is the background temperature being much colder than Earth surface. If you ignored the capex cost to get this launched and running in orbit, could the cooling cost be smaller? Maybe that's the gimmick being used to sell the idea. "Yes it costs more upfront but then the 40% cooling bill goes away... breakeven in X years"
    • dzhiurgis 10mo ago
      Breakeven in X years probably makes sense for storage (slow depreciation), not GPUs (depreciates in like 4 years)
      • foobarian 10mo ago
        I think by far the most mass in this kind of setup would go into the heat management, which could probably last a long time and could be amortized separately from the electronics.
        • tsimionescu 10mo ago
          How would the radiators be useful if the electronics no longer are? Unless you can repurpose the radiators once the electronics are useless, which you can't in space, then the radiators' useful lifetime is hard limited by the electronics' lifetime.
    • 10mo ago
• api 10mo ago
  What about on the Moon? My understanding is that heat is the killer. There you could sink pipes into the surface and use that as a heat sink. There are “peaks of eternal light” near the poles where you could get 24/7 solar power. Latency becomes high but you send large batches of work. Probably not at all economical compared to anywhere on Earth but the physics work better than orbit where you need giant heat sinks.
  • morcus 10mo ago
    The Moon doesn't have a magnetic field, though, so the second half of the article discussing difficulties due to radiation would still apply, right?
    • api 10mo ago
      Not if you bury it in regolith. That’s an idea for a Lunar base too. The design is called “Hobbit holes.” Bury the occupied structures in piles of basically any local mass you can bury them in. It’s another huge problem for orbit though. Shielding would add a ton of mass and destroy the economics.
      • nradov 10mo ago
        Lunar regolith is so abrasive that digging holes or tunnels isn't going to be cost effective. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20250000687 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20250000687
    • adamwong246 10mo ago
      We will need to develop very robust, space-worthy electronics eventually. We can't rely on natural magnetic fields forever.
      • fsh 10mo ago
        We have been relying on natural magnetic fields for over a billion years, so we can probably continue doing so for a while.
• steve_taylor 10mo ago
  Regardless of how terrible an idea it is, I wouldn't mind some billionaires funding R&D that advances the state of the art in thermal management in space.
  • aallaall 10mo ago
    Perhaps Elmo can move his toxic, illegal, cancer inducing, gas generators there, instead of doing it in Memphis. https://tennesseelookout.com/2025/07/07/a-billionaire-an-ai-supercomputer-toxic-emissions-and-a-memphis-community-that-did-nothing-wrong/ https://tennesseelookout.com/2025/07/07/a-billionaire-an-ai-...
• awei 10mo ago
  The one thing that space has going for itself is space. You could have way bigger datacenters than on Earth and just leave them there, assuming Starship makes it cheap enough to get them there. I think it would maybe make sense if 2 things: - We are sure we will need a lot of gpus for the next 30-40 years. - We can make the solar panels + cooling + GPUs have a great life expectancy, so that we can just leave them up there and accumulate them. Latency wise it seems okay for llm training to put them higher than Starlink to make them last longer and avoid decelerating because of the atmosphere. And for inference, well, if the infra can be amortized over decades than it might make the inference price cheap enough to endure additional latencies. Concerning communication, SpaceX I think already has inter-starlinks laser comms, at least a prototype.
  • cactusfrog 10mo ago
    We have tons of space on earth. Cooling in space would be so expensive.
    • 0_____0 10mo ago
      Falcon heavy is only $1,500/kg to LEO. This rate is considerably undercut here on Earth by me, a weasley little nerd, who will move a kilogram in exchange for a pat on the head (if your praise is desirable) or up to tens of dollars (if it isn't).
      • ethmarks 10mo ago
        Does your transportation system also have a risk of exploding catastrophically mid-flight? 'cause otherwise no deal. /s
      • skywhopper 10mo ago
        In exchange for what benefit? There is literally no benefit to having a datacenter in space.
        • brandonagr2 10mo ago
• cuuupid 10mo ago
  I don't agree with the logic that "something is hard/can't be done right now" is equivalent to "this is a terrible idea and won't work." There are dozens of companies solving each problem outlined here; if we never attempt the 'hard' thing we will never progress. The author could have easily taken a tone of 'these are all the things that are hard that we will need to solve first' but actively chose to take the 'catastrophically bad idea' angle. From a more positive angle, I'm a big fan of Northwood Space and they're tackling the 'Communications' problem outlined in this article pretty well.
  • deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  • wiz21c 10mo ago
    From: https://engine.xyz/resident-companies/northwood-space https://engine.xyz/resident-companies/northwood-space > Unlike traditional parabolic dish antennas, our phased array antenna can connect with multiple satellites simultaneously. if that's how they plan to reach more than 1Gbps, then that's not 100Gbps per satellite, that's 100 for a collection of satellites. Starlink is about 100Mbps. That's 1000x times less than 100Gbps
  • nradov 10mo ago
    Cooling data centers in space effectively can't be done right now … or ever.
  • notahacker 10mo ago
    That's not the argument though. The argument is "it can be done, the methods to do it are known, but the claims about space being an optimal location to locate our AI datacenters are false and the tradeoffs and unit economics of doing it makes no sense compared with building a data centre on earth somewhere with power and water, preferably not too hot. But for a more nuanced and optimistic take, this one is good and highlights all the same issues and more https://www.peraspera.us/realities-of-space-based-compute/ https://www.peraspera.us/realities-of-space-based-compute/ (TLDR: the actual use cases for datacentres in space rely on the exact opposite assumption from visions of space clouds for LLMs: most of space is far away and has data transmission latency and throughput issues so you want to do a certain amount of processing for your space data collection and infrastructure and autonomous systems on the edge)
• vintermann 10mo ago
  Always remember the magic words: dual use technology. The people pushing these aren't saying to you that they want to build data centers in space because conventional data centers are at huge risk of getting bombed by foreign nations or eventually getting smashed by angry mobs. But you can bet they're saying that to the people with the dual-use technology money bag. Or even better, let them draw that conclusion themselves, to make them think it was their idea - that also has the advantage of deniability when it turns out data centers in space was a terrible solution to the problem.
  • Avicebron 10mo ago
    At this point I wouldn't be surprised if a non zero number of pitch meetings start with, "in order to not disrupt your life too much as the mobs of the starving and displaced beat down your door"
  • widforss 10mo ago
    The reason why we don't see satellite-targeting missiles is not because the problem is hard. All relevant actors are capable of that.
    • amitav1 10mo ago
      All relevant actors are also capable of destroying ground-based data centres, but somehow that's not a huge problem for data centres.
      • cheema33 10mo ago
        You can take out a data center in space with an accidental collision of a small runaway satellite. Taking out a data center in the middle of Oregon would be significantly harder and will invite massive retaliation.
  • throwaway198846 10mo ago
    It is far easier to build them at remote places and bunkers (or both). Even at the middle of the ocean will make more sense and provide better cooling (See Microsoft attempt at that).
• whoisthemachine 10mo ago
  None of these problems seem intractable, just really hard and probably not being solved soon, but one has to start somewhere... so at least the billionaires will fund some scientists and engineers who will do that work?
  • skywhopper 10mo ago
    But for what benefit?
• xnx 10mo ago
  Datacenters in Antarctica or floating on the ocean make more sense than space.
  • ethmarks 10mo ago
    Building datacenters in the arctic also has the added benefit that sysadmins would have to take polar bear safety lessons, which would be pretty funny.
  • dpacmittal 10mo ago
    Pantheon style
• burnt-resistor 10mo ago
  - Costs to keep it in orbit. - More junk whizzing around Earth. - Inaccessibility for maintenance. - Power costs. - Susceptibility to solar storms and cosmic rays. Risky/untried things aren't dumb because they're hard, they're dumb when they're more expensive/harder than cheaper/easier alternatives that already exist that do the same thing.
• aunty_helen 10mo ago
  I agree with most of this post and think the problems are harder than the proponents are making them seem. But, 1) literally the smartest people and AI in the world will be working on this and 2) man I want to see us get to a type 2 civilisation bad. The layout of this blog post is also very interesting, it presents a bunch of very hard items to solve and funny enough the last has been solved recently with starlink. So we can approach this problem, it requires great engineering but it’s possible. Maybe it’s as complicated as CERNs LHC but we have one of those. Next up then is the strong why? When you’re in space, if you set the cost of electricity to zero, the equation gets massively skewed. Thermal is the biggest challenge but if you have unlimited electricity, lots of stuff becomes possible. Fluorinert cooling, piezoelectric pumps and dual/multi stage cooling loops with step ups. We can put liquid cooling with piezos on phones now, so that technology is moving in the right direction. For a thought experiment, if launch costs were $0/kg, would this be possible? If the answers yes, then at some point above $0/kg it becomes uneconomical, the challenge is then to beat that number.
  • fwip 10mo ago
    The problem isn't "how to cool the chips", it's "how to cool the whole friggin data center." Any active cooling solution you can think of actually makes the problem worse (unless it's "eject hot mass").
• aallaall 10mo ago
  It’s better than having your DC confiscated (by Putin, in Russia), or bombed (in Ukraine, by Russia). As some hyperscalers realized.
• aftbit 10mo ago
  If you think about it, all the existing data centers are in space already. They're just attached to a big ball of rock, water, and air that acts as a support system for them, simplifying cooling and radiation protection. If humans are going to expand beyond the Earth, we'll certainly need to get much better at building and maintaining things in space, but we don't need to put data centers in space just to support people stuck on the ground.
• skybrian 10mo ago
  Google’s paper [1] does talk about radiation hardening and thermal management. Maybe their ideas are naive and it’s a bad paper? I’m not an expert so I couldn’t tell from a brief skim. It does sound to me like other concepts that Google has explored and shelved, like building data centers out of shipping container sized units and building data centers underwater. [1] https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/suncatcher_paper.pdf https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/suncatcher_paper.p...
  • fragmede 10mo ago
    Pedantically, Microsoft has actually submerged datacenters (UDC). Google's only tried pumping seawater for cooling.
    • skybrian 10mo ago
      Apparently Microsoft tried it and it worked, but they shelved it? https://www.tomshardware.com/desktops/servers/microsoft-shelves-its-underwater-data-center https://www.tomshardware.com/desktops/servers/microsoft-shel...
      • creatonez 10mo ago
        It didn't work, it was an utterly terrible idea and they are almost certainly lying about the sentiment that it "worked". No ability to perform maintenance is a complete nonstarter. Communications and power is a nightmare to get right. The thermal management story sucks - just because you have metal touching water doesn't mean you have effective radiation of heat. Actually scaling it up is nearly impossible because you need thicker and more expensive vessels the bigger it gets. The problems go on and on.
        • skybrian 10mo ago
          Presumably it didn't work well or they wouldn't have shelved it. But do you actually know about what happened or is this all based on your priors?
• 0manrho 10mo ago
  Only legit thing I can see this being used for is redundant archival storage or just general research into hardening equipment to radiation or micrograv (eg for liquid cooling). But anything that generates significant amounts of heat seems like it'd be a huge problem. Then again there's lots of space in space, perhaps it's possible to isolate racks/aisles into their own individual satellites, each with massive radiant heatshedding panels? It's an interesting problem space that would be very interesting to try to solve, but ultimately I agree with OP when we come back around to "But, why?" Research for the sake of research is a valid answer, but "For prod"? I don't see it.
• jauntywundrkind 10mo ago
  One thing I haven't seen talked about at all: how quickly would space heat up? I presume Earth's gravity largely keeps the exosphere it has around it. With some modest fractional % lost year by year. There is a colossal vast volume out there! But given that there's so little matter up in space, what if any temperature rise would we expect from say a constant 1TW of heat being added?
  • tylerhou 10mo ago
    The sun’s radiation hitting earth is 44,000 terawatts. I think we’re fine with an “extra” terawatt. (It’s not even extra, because it would be derived from the sun’s existing energy.) https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/135642main_balance_trifold21.pdf?emrc=5b9a71 https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/135642main_b...
    • jauntywundrkind 10mo ago
      At sea-level there can be 1.225 kg/m^3 of particles. There's a lot of matter to absorb heat. In the exosphere we have 1e-13 kg/m^3 of particles. My point is that the exosphere while huge has an incredibly tiny thermal battery. I'm not convinced that, were we able to dump heat into it, that it really would be insignificant heating over time. And there's little way for the articles here to cool down. There's no matter to transfer their energy to. I guess the thing is, it doesn't matter. It seems like the exosphere is actually already >500 degrees: that after you leave the 80km menopause temperatures soar quickly, in what scant air is left. I was still using a model of thermal transfer. But the only cooling possible is passive radiative cooling, is to glow your energy away. Some of this will find other exospheric particles to hit & excite more, but they're already incredibly energetic up there, and there's just not many particles at all, so perhaps a lot of that radiation might escape the exosphere without collision. Again my mistake: thermal transfer is simply not that relevant (aside some shielding against these particles in vulnerable spots), it's all passive radiation being used to cool. It would still be interesting to me to have some guestimates for what the current energy balance of the exosphere is. What is heating it, how much, and where/how-much is it able to dissipate its energy?
• more_corn 10mo ago
  Except you don’t build a data center, you add a GPU to an individual starlink node. If you can do that a couple hundred or thousand times you’ve got a lot of compute in space. The next question is how would you redesign compute around your distributed power and cooling profiles? The article doesn’t talk about the actual engineering challenges. (Such as scaling down the radiative cooling design, matching compute node to the maximum feasible power profile, etc) I’m not arguing it’ll be easy or will ultimately work, but articles like this are unhelpful because they don’t address the fundamental insight being proposed.
  • ianburrell 10mo ago
    OpenAI has over 1 million GPU. Starlink satellites would be pointless for doing computation because they are spread across the Earth resulting in horrible latency. AI companies spend lots of money on super fast connects within a datacenter. Starlink with GPU might have some advantage for running edge GPU. But most Starlink customers are close to ground station and it makes a lot more sense to have GPUs there. It is a lot easier to manage them than launching new satellites which could take years.
• dzhiurgis 10mo ago
  You probably wanna launch these https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfk0vTe46ds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfk0vTe46ds
• kibwen 10mo ago
  Shhh, I'm begging people, if brain-dead VCs want to waste their money on things that are obviously farcical (and not actively destructive), please let them and stop doing their due diligence for them. The alternative is that they turn their impossible amounts of capital towards societally-destructive acts like buying up all the real estate in the world and turning us back into land-slaves.
• thegrim33 10mo ago
  "[..] deploying a solar array with photovoltaic cells – something essentially equivalent to what I have on the roof of my house here in Ireland, just in space. It works, but it isn't somehow magically better than installing solar panels on the ground – you don't lose that much power through the atmosphere" As an armchair layman, this claim intuitively doesn't feel very correct. Of course AI is far from a trustworthy source, but just using it here to get a rough idea of what it thinks about the issue: "Ground sites average only a few kWh/m²/day compared to ~32.7 kWh/m²/day of continuous, top-of-atmosphere sunlight." .. "continuous exposure (depending on orbit), no weather, and the ability to use high-efficiency cells — all make space solar far denser in delivered energy per m² of panel."
• wmf 10mo ago
  Orbital data centers are very hard but this isn't a good explanation of why. There really is more light in space since certain orbits are always in daylight. Radiators are no larger than the solar panels so if you can build multi square kilometer solar arrays you can probably also build massive radiators.
• mbesto 10mo ago
  Datacenters in space is about circumventing nation states masked as ambitions to generate more power. Follow the rationale: 1. Nation states ultimately control three key infrastructure pieces required to run data centers (a) land (protected by sovereign armed forces) (b) internet / internet infra (c) electricity. If crypto ever became a legitimate threat, nation states could simply seize any one of or all these three and basically negate any use of crypto. 2. So, if you have data centers that no longer rely on power derived from a nation state, land controller by a nation state or connectivity provided by the nation state's cabling infra, then you can always access your currency and assets.
  • zie 10mo ago
    Except the people that run and manage that satellite will be on earth, under some nation state's rules...
    • PunchyHamster 10mo ago
      corporations will use their knowledge in tax dodging to avoid that too.
      • MadnessASAP 10mo ago
        If they're already well versed in dodging fiscal rules, why do they need a space computer?
        • suriya-ganesh 10mo ago
          Physical location is difficult to dodge unfortunately. Fiscal rules are sort of man made.
          • mandevil 10mo ago
            The Outer Space Treaty is very very clear: anything launched into space is the responsibility of the country that launched it. Even if a private company payts for it and operates it, it's still the responsibility of the launching nation. Even if you launch from international waters, your operating company is still registered to a specific country, and the company is made up of citizens of one or more countries, and it is those countries which are responsible for the satellites. Those countries, in fact, have the responsibility to make sure that their citizens follow their laws and regulations. Unless you and your entire team are self-sustaining on that datacenter in outer space (maybe possible a century from now? Maybe not possible ever), you will be hunted down by the proper authorities and held to account for your actions. There is no magic "space is beyond the law" rules; it is just as illegal- and you are just as vulnerable to being arrested- for work done on a datacenter in space as work done on a datacenter on the ground.
• woctordho 10mo ago
  What if we deploy reversible computing, which does not produce heat?
• radar1310 10mo ago
  It’s a really ridiculous idea.
• titzer 10mo ago
  In addition to the ludicrous unworkable physics, as it turns out, datacenters need people servicing things all the time. Even if you could get those measly three racks into space, they'd function about a month before some harddisks were failing, network switches were down, some crap breaks in the cooling system, power system short, breakers trip, etc, and on and on. So obviously we're not going to be some SREs into space to babysit the machines. Have everything fail in place? Have robots do it? What about the regular supply missions to keep replacing all the failing hardware (there's only so many spare HDDs you can have on hand). The whole thing is farcical.
  • mbac32768 10mo ago
    Yes. Anyone who thinks you can ship a datacenter to space and save has never managed a datacenter.
    • jeffrallen 10mo ago
      Or worked in space.
  • hedora 10mo ago
    Nah; let it fail in place. See also: Any on-prem horror show that budgeted for capex, rent, cooling, network and power, but not maintenance.
  • fragmede 10mo ago
    > So obviously we're not going to be some SREs into space to babysit the machines. Shut up! This is the chance for one of us to go into space! I don't care if all I'm doing is swapping 1U pizza boxes in the cold hard vacuum of space, I'm down!
    • jasomill 10mo ago
      As long as the rotations aren't for more than a month or two, sign me up as well!
  • mc32 10mo ago
• fguerraz 10mo ago
  So what? Of course it’s stupid and it’s never going to work. The same is true for Carbon Capture and Storage, blue hydrogen, etc. It’s nonsense from the start, but it didn’t stop governments around the world to spend billions on it. It works like this: companies spend a few millions on PR to market a sci-fi project that’s barely plausible. Governments who really want to preserve the status quo but are pressured to “do something” can just announce that they’re sinking billions in it and voila! They’re green, they’re going to save the world. It’s just a scam to get public money really.
• javierluraschi 10mo ago
  Worth sharing Starcloud’s paper in this post: https://starcloudinc.github.io/wp.pdf https://starcloudinc.github.io/wp.pdf
• jandrese 10mo ago
  So if the big idea is to have a data center outside of legal jurisdictions why not build a floating data center in the Southern Pacific Ocean? You can power it with floating solar panels provide data via Starlink or a regular communication satellite and still be outside of the law. You might say that it will be vulnerable to pirates, but practically speaking nobody is going down there. Sure you will have to deal with weather, but overall the problems are way easier to solve than building an orbital data center. But the real reason they won't work is because they're investor scams that were never serious in the first place.
• Animats 10mo ago
  Related" "A City on Mars" (2024) [1] A useful book on why self-sustaining settlements on Luna, Mars, or earth orbit are pretty much hopeless. Remote bases that take a lot of supply, maybe, with great difficulty. The environment is just too hostile and doesn't have essential resources for self-sustaining settlements. The authors go into how Antarctic bases work and how Biosphere II didn't. The worst real estate on Earth is better than the best real estate on Mars or Luna. [1] https://www.amazon.com/City-Mars-settle-thought-through/dp/1984881728 https://www.amazon.com/City-Mars-settle-thought-through/dp/1...
  • vee-kay 10mo ago
    > The worst real estate on Earth is better than the best real estate on Mars or Luna. Very true.. Here's a recent HN link to a chilling documentary about one of the most isolated settlements in the world: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46040459 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46040459
  • schiffern 10mo ago
    >"A City on Mars" (2024) I wasn't terribly impressed with this one. I found it mostly just a bundle of vague negativity and insufficient (disingenuous?) use of problem-solving. However if you want to try it then give the rebuttal a fair shake too. https://nss.org/wp-content/uploads/NSS-JOURNAL-Critique-of-A-City-on-Mars.pdf https://nss.org/wp-content/uploads/NSS-JOURNAL-Critique-of-A...
    • Coffeewine 10mo ago
      I was very interested to see in that rebuttal that they explicitly called out ‘datacenters in space’ as a means of ‘exporting’ solar power to the earth. > As the Weinersmiths point out, the ease of generating solar electricity in space is foundational to space development. They focus on the challenges in beaming power back to the Earth, but the “power” could be returned to the Earth in other ways, such as by doing energy intensive manufacturing in space, with the result that we do not need the power on the Earth itself. One modern idea that O’Neill did not consider is to move server farms in space, where power is cheap and you can dump heat into space with a black piece of metal. If this was done on a large scale, the carbon impact of data services on the Earth would drop greatly even if power is not beamed back to the Earth. There are almost certainly other ways we can use power in space to do things in space that benefit people on the Earth. So the original article seems to think that cooling is a significant challenge and that solar power in space is not ‘that much’ more effective than on the earth, and the other that cooling is trivial and that solar power is easily obtained. I’m inclined to go with ‘space is hard’ as that seems to comport with my other readings, but obviously the critique of ‘a city on mars’ is advocating for space exploration and is so motivated to minimize the difficulties.
• GMoromisato 10mo ago
  There are 8,000+ Starlink satellites in orbit right now. Each one has about 30 square-meters of solar panels. That's 240,000 square meters. ISS has 25,000 square meters, so SpaceX has already launched almost 10-times the solar panels of ISS. The next generation Starlink (V3) will have 250 square meters of solar panels per satellite, and they are planning on launching about 10,000 of them, so now you're at 2.5 million m^2 of panels or 100 times ISS. All those satellites have their own radiators to manage heat. True, they lose some heat by beaming it to the ground, but data center satellites would just need proportionally larger radiators. And, of course, all those satellite have CPUs and memory chips; they are already hardened to resist space radiation (or else they wouldn't function). Almost every single objection to data centers in space has already been overcome at a smaller scale with Starlink. The only one that might apply is cost: if it's cheaper to build data centers on Earth, then space doesn't make sense (and it won't happen). But prices are always coming down in space, and prices on Earth keep going up (because of environmental restrictions).
  • kaashif 10mo ago
    > The only one that might apply is cost: if it's cheaper to build data centers on Earth, then space doesn't make sense (and it won't happen). So the only problem left to be solved is that space datacenters would be millions of times more expensive per unit of compute than a ground based datacenter. And cost millions of times more to maintain.
    • GMoromisato 10mo ago
      Starlink cost maybe $10 billion. A 100,000 gpu data center costs between $20 and $40 billion to build. Also remember that data centers last for about 5 years; after that the gpus are obsolete. That’s no different than the lifetime of a Starlink satellite.
      • verzali 10mo ago
        Starlink solar panels generate at best 200 W/sqm on average. Even with 2.5 million square metres, that is a total of half a gigawatt. And the cost is not to be ignored! Most of the cost of these data centres is in the GPUs themselves, so you need to add that to the cost of building out the constellation. Unless you are arguing that the cost of supporting infrastructure (cooling, power, etc) costs $10bn to support half a gigawatt of GPUs in the typical data centre, then your numbers are simply way off.
• shagie 10mo ago
  I'd be most curious to see what type of processing power they would put on such a data center. For example, the JWST uses a RAD750 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAD750 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAD750 ) which is based on a PowerPC 750 running at 110 MHz to 200 MHz. Its successor is the RAD5500 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAD5500 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAD5500 )... which runs at between 66 MHz and 462 MHz. > The RAD5545 processor employs four RAD5500 cores, achieving performance characteristics of up to 5.6 giga-operations per second (GOPS) and over 3.7 GFLOPS. Power consumption is 20 watts with all peripherals operating. That's kind of neat... but not exactly data center performance. Back to the older RAD750... > The RAD750 system has a price that is comparable to the RAD6000, the latter of which as of 2002 was listed at US$200,000 (equivalent to $349,639 in 2024). That isn't exactly price performance. Well, unless you're constrained by "it costs millions to replace it." So... I'm not really sure what devices they'd be putting up there. The "data centers in space" is much more a "space launch is a hot technology, AI and data centers are a hot technology... put the two together and its too the moon!" (Or at least that's what we tell the investors before we try to spend all their money)
  • rzerowan 10mo ago
    I think the last time they put commodity hardware in orbit was via the HPE[1] project and the results were quite mixed with failure rates for components that were quite high. In addition to running the system in a twin config to get any meaningful work done. Best case scenario custom ASICs for specialised workloads either for edge computing of orbital workloads or military stuff.That would be with ability to replace/upgrade components rather than a sealed sat like environment. Its similar to the hype for spacelink type sats for internet connectivity rather than a proper fiber buildout that would solve most of the issues at less cost.After the last couple of years seeing the deployment in UKR,Sahel its mostly a mil tool. [1] https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/24/updated_hpe_spaceborne_computer2/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/24/updated_hpe_spaceborn...
• hk1337 10mo ago
  Seems like it would be a nice way to keep the temperatures down.
• collinmcnulty 10mo ago
  To say the quiet part out loud, I don't think any serious companies have any intention to build a data center in space. There is no benefit in actually trying this. There is however, benefit in saying you'll do it to advance a narrative and distract from the problems terrestrial data centers are facing to an audience that mostly doesn't understand how heat transfer in a vacuum works.
  • mangecoeur 10mo ago
    Many of the dumb ideas being hyped in this AI bubble make sense viewed through this lens. Data centres stirring up opposition? Sell a sci-fi vision that you will move them to Space! And reassure your over-extended investors that the data centre buildout rush you’re committing to isn’t going to get bogged down in protests and lawsuits. The people hyping this stuff are not stupid, just their real goal (make as much money as possible as quickly as possible) has only a vague relationship to what they claim to be doing.
    • smcin 10mo ago
      If Arthur C Clarke was still alive, he would be much in demand as sci-fi frontperson for these.
      • DamonHD 10mo ago
        I think that he had more sense...
    • rsynnott 10mo ago
      At the point, it's beginning to feel a bit like the 419 scam (where you make the details deliberately absurd so as to ward off people inclined to be sceptical early, leaving you with only the easiest marks.) SMRs! Data centres in space! "phD level AIs".
      • eru 10mo ago
        You can short the publicly traded companies that do this.
• CrossVR 10mo ago
  Datacenters in space would make 0 sense because the only way to lose heat is through radiation, which makes for terrible cooling. If you want to avoid national laws and have great cooling, then submerse your datacenter in the ocean instead.
  • dawnerd 10mo ago
    And they've already at least tried datacenters in the ocean. https://news.microsoft.com/source/features/sustainability/project-natick-underwater-datacenter/ https://news.microsoft.com/source/features/sustainability/pr...
  • fbu 10mo ago
    Maybe if you build the datacenter inside an asteroid, and use the whole surface as an infrared radiator.
• CivilR 10mo ago
  Eager space did a pretty thorough hypothetical cost breakdown of orbital data centers that I recommend. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAcR7kqOb3o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAcR7kqOb3o
• jalk 10mo ago
  Sounds like the people behind Solar Roadways found a new project.
• abalone 10mo ago
  I am skeptical as well BUT on the cooling question, which is one of the main concerns we all seem to have, the article is doing a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison between the ISS and a cluster of small satellites. It cites the ISS's centralized 16kW cooling system which is for a big space station that needs to collect and shunt heat over a relatively large area. The Suncatcher prototype is puny in comparison: just 4 TPUs and a total power budget of ballpark 2kW. Suncatcher imagines a large cluster of small satellites separated by optical links, not little datacenter space stations in the sky. They would not be pulling heat from multiple systems tens of meters away like on the ISS, which bodes well for simpler passive cooling systems. And while the combined panel surface area of a large satellite cluster would be substantial, the footprint of any individual satellite, the more important metric, would likely be reasonable. Personally I am more concerned with the climate impact of launches and the relatively short envisioned mission life of 5 years. If the whole point is better sustainability, you can't just look at the dollar cost of launches that don't internalize the environmental externalities of stuff like polluting the stratosphere.
  • ACCount37 10mo ago
    Starlink v2 Mini has about 35 kW of solar power at peak irradiance. 2 kW is quite far from the limit of how much juice we can pack into modern mass produced satellites.
    • mjevans 10mo ago
      Got any guesses about energy used for propulsion, cooling solutions (energy used for them as well as overall capacity), communications and how those might degrade over time in a real environment rather than just academic theory? That's not even considering the increase in exposure to radiation outside of the Earth's atmosphere (absorbing materials) and weakened at distance protective EM field.
  • mr_toad 10mo ago
    Some of the proposals are much much bigger than this. Five GW, and 16 square kilometres. It’s amusing that the article points out how large the radiators will have to be, when the proposals already include building giant radiators. Or that the satellites will have to be vastly larger than the ISS; surprise, surprise, that’s also part of the plan.
• rgmerk 10mo ago
  Seriously? I know Silicon Valley runs on out there ideas and outright BS because 0.1% of the ideas pan out and pay for the other 99.9%, but this is just laughable for the reasons pointed out in the article.
• iDon 10mo ago
  Related (posted just 2hours before this article) : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46086833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46086833 "Blimps lifting quantum data centers to the stratosphere? (newatlas.com)" "... blimps, to lift quantum computers to the stratosphere. There, at an altitude of about 20 km (12.4 miles), temperatures are in the -50 °C range (about -58 °F) and would be cold enough to allow the qubits to function correctly."
• jillesvangurp 10mo ago
  There are lots of reasons why keeping data centers on the ground might be cheaper but the article seems to be skipping over a few things. 1) ISS is about 30 years old. It's hardly the state of the art in solar technology. Also, it's much easier to get light to solar panels far a larger part of the time. Permanently in some orbits. And of course there is 0% chance of clouds or other obstructions. 2) We'll have Starship soon and New Glenn. Launching a lot of mass to orbit is a lot cheaper than launching the Space Station was. 3) The article complains about lack of bandwidth. Star Link serves millions of customers with high speed, low latency internet via thousands of satellites. 4) There have been plans for large scale solar panels in space for the purpose of beaming energy down in some form. This is not as much science fiction as it used to be anymore. 5) Learning effects are a thing. Based on thirty years ago, this is a bad idea. Based on today, it's still not great. But if things continue to improve, some things become doable. Star link works today and in terms of investment it's not a lot worse than a lot of the terrestrial communication networks it replaces. The notion would have been ridiculous a few decades ago but it no longer is. In short, counter arguments to articles like this almost write themselves.
  • adastra22 10mo ago
    Solar panel performance is not the limiting factor in space. Thermal management is. Better solar panels don't help you here. Neither does permanent sunshine -- without the capability to radiate more heat at night, you've made the thermal management problem immensely worse. Rockets: Launching no mass to orbit is even cheaper still. Bandwidth: You do realize that even starlink speeds are crazy slow and high latency compared to data center optical connections? Fiber and copper always win out over wifi. With space, you are stuck with wifi. (Oversimplified, but accurate.) Space solar power: there has been talk of this for half a century, yes. It never materialized because, like space data centers, it doesn't make economic sense.
    • fbu 10mo ago
      The thermal budget is impossible to escape. Maybe in an asteroid it could be possible, the whole surface becomes a thermal radiator and the whole asteroid a thermal mass. But still no convection.
• dsign 10mo ago
  Even if they are a terrible idea, we should try it out. Specially if paid with private equity. Imagine the things we will learn, the STEM jobs this will create[^1], and the fact we will bootstrap other industries. [^1]: Provided that ChatGPT doesn't hoard all of them :-)
• nrhrjrjrjtntbt 10mo ago
  Not a space geek but would have guessed at all these things. Feels like common sense. How is anything easier in space? None of it makes sense to me either. The only thing I could think of is maybe 24h sunlight if far enough away from earth. Maybe is anothet bubble to grab investor money. A bored ape larping as science.
• StephenHerlihyy 10mo ago
  It’s not about putting data centers into orbit. It’s about the cost-yield inversion to data centers cooling infrastructure that happens at terawatt scale. All things being equal - a chilled circuit performs better and produces less heat than a hot one. There is a high up front cost to pre-cooling but if you can get in the -60C range, and stay there, you can increase performance and cut energy costs. When they say data centers in space - they mean data centers you can’t get to because they are flooded with ultra cold dielectric fluid and it costs tens of millions of dollars to bring them back up to human temperatures. Right now it’s not worth the hassle. At terawatt scale it’s almost mandatory. When you walk down that line it’s pretty close to putting them in space. No access. Super cold. No air. Tiny, insulated capsule. Thermal management hell. They’ll be buried in mines though, not launched into orbit. It’s just corporate propaganda to simplify an otherwise insane situation.
• craighay1 10mo ago
  Really the only potential upside to this, and it's a niche one, is for time or security sensitive compute tasks where the raw data originates in orbit. Every happens over inter satellite link and there's no downlink to Earth until the end of the process (downlink is still a problem as Earth is mostly ocean and wilderness) E.g. one satellite's wide area sensor payload is processed and "potential wildfire detected". The result is passed to another satellite with finer grained sensing capabilities which is due to pass over in the next X minutes which then tees up a capture.
• toxicplanes1 10mo ago
  [dead]
• gaigalas 10mo ago
  You don't need massive datacenters in space. You literally just need to be in space, because no typical laws apply if you are there. That little detail outweights all sorts of costs. So, yeah. There will be datacenters in space. Probably unlike any on the ground. Smaller, very likely not running typical datacenter stuff, weirder, operating on a different set of regulations. If we're lucky, it will be like Antarctica (research focused, still disputed but not armed, probably not lots of shady stuff happening there, costly but still pays off to be there).
  • deno 10mo ago
    This makes no sense. The company will still be on the ground in some country and it has to connect to the Earth internet on the ground in some country. Unless you are talking about actual space pirate station, but in that case it better come equipped with missile defense because it will be attacked sooo fast.
    • gaigalas 10mo ago
      > The company will still be on the ground in some country But the data won't. That is literally how people launder money. They live in one country and keep their money in another with laxed laws and enforcement. Those people get away a lot. > it has to connect to the Earth internet Why? This is only true if the datacenter is directly serving people. As I mentioned previously, I don't believe space datacenters will be serving React apps or anything like that. Those will be weird, non-typical servers. Want some zero internet use cases? - Training a cyber-ops LLM without poking eyes and reduced risk of leaks. - Illegal data-heavy research (bio, weaponry). - Storing data for surveillance satellites. All of those can use private links, can be built by private companies under classified contracts, and you would not dare attack an NRO-launched satellite.
      • deno 10mo ago
        There are wayyyy easier ways to just get some private calculations. You can spin up an encrypted memory VM or wire up an eager physical kill switch. Launching satellites would bring a lot of attention and requires skills, money, multiple people with access. But I can do the former just fine by myself.
• cladopa 10mo ago
  It is not a good idea listening to experts tell you what can't be done. Science and technology progresses one funeral at at time. Einstein's ideas were crazy for classical scientists and Heisenberg's for Einstein. The most important thing is making space access ten to one hundred times cheaper with reusable rockets. Then a lot of the problems in the article will not be problems at all. E.g ISS was designed and created when access to space was extremely expensive. Solar technology and batteries was extremely bad but also super expensive. You can not use convention but radiation works incredibly well and you can also use the thermal technology of mobile devices. The most important thing being cheap is that access to the Space become possible for way more people with creativity. Not just a few people with academic titles but people with practical engineering and scientific mastery (that certainly run circles around them on real projects). There are so many opportunities to use creativity in space, with possibilities that do not exist on earth. For example you can spin or rotate things super fast and so you could have convention inside the machines that rotate.
  • dijit 10mo ago
    I always believed thermal conductivity to be one of the hardest problems in space. Today the way we diffuse temperature is via the air itself, and without air to carry heat away from components we don’t really have very much to work with. I know space is cold, but diffusing the cold onto the warm is an ongoing problem as far as I understood it. Which is why for example of nuclear submarines would not bode well in space, the internal temperature would just continue to rise until eventually the thing will become an oven floating through the solar system.
    • eldenring 10mo ago
      The comment you were replying to mentioned this. Yes you cant remove heat via convection, but you can use radiators to emit heat as radiation into space.
      • mjhay 10mo ago
        You need HUGE radiators to emit a lot of low-temp waste heat into space. That kills this idea right there.
• pfdietz 10mo ago
  I'm not impressed by these arguments. (1) Solar panels can be made much lighter in space. On Earth, panels have to withstand wind and gravity loads, flying debris, and precipitation including hail. The PV material itself doesn't have to be thick: thin film CdTe cells can be ~1 micron thick (the absorption length of the relevant photons in CdTe is something like 0.1 microns.) There has to be a protective layer to prevent solar wind ions from degrading the cells but this doesn't have to be very thick. It's not like shielding against high energy particles. (2) Heat dissipation can be addressed by refrigeration. Yes, this takes energy, and yes that extra energy also has to be radiated. But the area of the radiator goes down as the fourth power of its absolute temperature. If you radiate 2x as much heat but at 2x the absolute temperature, the area of the radiator declines by a factor of 8. Even with inefficiencies one should be able to come out ahead by pumping the waste heat to higher temperature before radiating it. (3) Ionizing radiation is dealt with by shielding. The amount of shielding per unit of capacity declines as you make your installation larger, by the square cube law. So this is really just a matter of scale. We're talking about potentially enormous amounts of capacity here so shielding shouldn't be a problem at scale.
• thelastgallon 10mo ago
  >The first reason for doing this that seems to come up is abundant access to power in space. This really isn't the case. You basically have two options: solar and nuclear. I guess that rules our any funding from US govt or Saudi money. Unless someone figures out a way to use fossil fuels to run the data centers! It has to be private equity or a new data center coin offering. Offered to the public and take away the pain and suffering of carrying their current paper currency. We need a new messiah (SBF + Musk + WeWork guy) to craft this narrative.
• est 10mo ago
  Datacenters in space have one asymmetrical advantage: FBI cant physically raid them. And with Direct-To-Cell, content delivery satellites in space are unstoppable.
  • wat10000 10mo ago
    “Dear T-Mobile/Verizon/Starlink, cease your illegal operation within 24 hours or we will start imprisoning executives.”
    • est 10mo ago
      You don't need other carrier's permission if the direct-to-cell satellite allows anyone to receive data.
      • wat10000 10mo ago
        The current incarnation of direct to cell is a partnership with cell carriers. I expect that to continue. It’s really hard to get the frequencies you need without that, and you really need a conventional terrestrial network for populated areas. I don’t expect that to change. The bandwidth needed to cover a populated area from space fundamentally requires more size and power than a cell phone can provide. Even if it does change, the satellite operator is still vulnerable to this. They can get away with it in countries that are largely excluded from the international order, as we see with Starlink in Iran. But try it in, say, France and it’ll be a different story, let alone the US. Even if you flee their jurisdiction, they’re not going to sit idly by while you operate pirate data connections in their territory.
      • jeltz 10mo ago
        And government does not need anyone's permission to do direct to prison cell for the executives.
• k_bx 10mo ago
  > roughly 200 GPUs. This sounds like a lot, but lets keep some perspective: OpenAI's upcoming Norway datacenter is intending to house 100,000 GPUs, probably each more power hungry than the H200 So.. 500 reusable rocket travels in space to match an on-ground datacenter? If this is the central argument then it doesn't hold. Don't get me wrong. I too think whole idea is so outlandish it's likely to never happen, but mostly because the complexity of the whole project is too high.
• flowingfocus 10mo ago
  Another great write-up on datacenters in space that goes a bit deeper in cost calculations: https://angadh.com/space-data-centers-1 https://angadh.com/space-data-centers-1
• dragonelite 10mo ago
  It probably shouldn't be so hard to find military application for more compute in space. Especially give the global surveillance and communication networks like starlink and intelligence sats. What better way to cover up such space compute capabilities than the AI madness.
• IX-103 10mo ago
  One mistake that the article seems to make is to assume that the data center is in one huge satellite. I think a better model would be a fleet of rack or server level satellites. That significantly reduces the heat and cooling requirements and improves redundancy since losing a single satellite sure to radiation would be less significant. Further, due to economies of scale these satellites could be produced in mass, similar to the starlink satellites of today. One issue is that these satellites would be to be connected via high bandwidth free space optical links instead of Ethernet, requiring precise formations, but that is currently being tested by multiple companies. That being said, I don't see this ever being cheaper than terrestrial data centers. I just don't think the idea is as stupid as the article implies - it just requires doing things differently than NASA has done in the past.
• deviation 10mo ago
  I think it's important to be distinct here... These "Space DC" companies are not showing up on some Techy-Shark-Tank (or walking into VC meetings) with a promise to investors that they have an established strategy which will pay off. IMO, they are just answering the question: "If we pour 100B into R&D, could it have a reasonable chance at succeeding?". For Nvidia (or these other massive companies) the investment is chump change.
  • sesuximo 10mo ago
    100B is roughly NVIDIA’s yearly profit
• tim333 10mo ago
  Datacenters in space may not work now but in the future when we get the robots a bit better who knows? From the Google blog: >The Sun is the ultimate energy source in our solar system, emitting more power than 100 trillion times humanity’s total electricity production. In the right orbit, a solar panel can be up to 8 times more productive than on earth, and produce power nearly continuously, reducing the need for batteries. In the future, space may be the best place to scale AI compute.
• xmorse 10mo ago
  The advantage of space is that you have infinite scale. Maybe data centers in space do not work at low scale but you have to think of them at much larger scale. Elon Musk considered data centers in space simply for the fact that more solar power is available in space than Earth
• sebastianconcpt 10mo ago
  Well we need like successful technological disruptions like in 7 dimensions before this can be scale and ROI positive.
• lvl155 10mo ago
  It works if you figure out a way to have a permanent dark/light side. But really the issue is that we can do compute with light/photon and radiation and not much has been done in those areas.
• Havoc 10mo ago
  It's interesting that there are a bunch of people saying definitely impossible, yet there does seem to be some money behind it like the hn one
  • jeltz 10mo ago
    There was money behind Theranos too so I disagree about it being very interesting.
• rklaehn 10mo ago
  This article is written as if SpaceX does not exist. Every single comparison is against 30, 35 year old obsolete technology. Power: It uses the ISS solar arrays as reference. They are obsolete for decades. A much better reference for the purpose of cost estimation would be Starlink sats. The total installed power of all Starlink sats is tens of megawatts, and will reach gigawatts once larger Starlink sats will be launched by Starship. Starlink PV panels are simple silicon panels built by a taiwanese company, and are not much more expensive than terrestrial panels. https://web.archive.org/web/20211102134305/https://techtaiwan.com/20211102/starlinks-tsec/ https://web.archive.org/web/20211102134305/https://techtaiwa... Cooling: Again, ISS. The ISS design is overly complicated because it is in low LEO and needs to be articulated. Also, it needs to use ammonia since the working temperature of humans is lower than that of GPUs. A datacenter in space would be in a sun synchronous orbit and need no articulated radiators. Also, it could use a higher radiator temperature, which helps a lot due to Stefan Boltzmann black body radiation law. Cosmic radiation: The state of the art is to use current generation silicon and do error correction at software level. This isn't some fantasy or research project, but how each SpaceX Dragon flight computer and Starlink sat electronics works. Communications: Starlink sats have way more than 1 GiB/s bandwidth, and space based laser communication is state of the art and even commercially available. https://www.pcmag.com/news/spacex-opens-up-its-starlink-laser-tech-to-third-party-companies https://www.pcmag.com/news/spacex-opens-up-its-starlink-lase... This article is not a base for a realistic discussion about data centers in space. It just dismisses the concept without doing a honest discussion.
  • cess11 10mo ago
    Any honest discussion will conclude that it ought not to be attempted so it doesn't matter for such discussions whether it's possible or not.
• jeffrallen 10mo ago
  This idea is so spectacularly stupid that it's a shame such a smart guy needed to spend even 5 minutes refuting it.
• elisbce 10mo ago
  When SpaceX came about, they said it was impossible for the rocket to come back from space and get reused. They said it wasn't going to work to combine multiple thrusters to form a big thruster and be reliable enough. When Starlink was introduced, they said it was stupid because the bandwidth is too small to be useful. Where are we now? 10 years ago, AI couldn't even beat a high-rank amateur Go player, let alone the best of pros. Everyone takes the excuse of dimensionality curse. Now what? People who only look at the past/present and conclude impossibility are never going to be the ones who invent the future. Even math and science evolve, let alone engineering. The problems described in this article don't even remotely feel like the kind of barriers we faced when Go was solved, when protein fold was predicted and when LLM was solving problems with one prompt. If there is a strong NEED for datacenters to be up in the space, there will eventually be datacenters in the space.
• jerdman76 10mo ago
  This article was an awesome read! More please!
• Fruitmaniac 10mo ago
  Underwater datacenters make way more sense
• deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
• gyb997 10mo ago
  The last project to deploy nodes in space was a blockchain project; history often repeats itself.