4 ms·

> Do data centers in space actually make sense? No. It's currently a fantasy. Even if the cost of getting payloads to orbit decreased another x100, you still h

by janice1999 9mo ago

> Do data centers in space actually make sense? No. It's currently a fantasy. Even if the cost of getting payloads to orbit decreased another x100, you still have the issues of radiation and heat dissipation.

simianwords 9mo ago
this will age poorly. you have both Google, Tesla/X betting on it. They are not stupid and probably have given it way more thought than people's whose paycheques not tied to this have thought about. This is an ambitious bet, with some possibility of failure but it should say a lot that these companies are investing in them. I wonder what people think, are these companies so naive? Edit: Elon, Sundar, Jensen, Jeff are all interested in this. Even China is. What conspiracy is going on here to explain it? Why would they all put money into this if it is so obvious to all of you that it is not going to work?
- MattSteelblade 9mo ago
  Google is hardly betting on it; they are exploring the feasibility of it and are frank about the engineering challenges: > significant engineering challenges remain, such as thermal management, high-bandwidth ground communications, and on-orbit system reliability.[1] [1] https://research.google/blog/exploring-a-space-based-scalable-ai-infrastructure-system-design/ https://research.google/blog/exploring-a-space-based-scalabl...
  - simianwords 9mo ago
    why do you think this changes what i said? I know it has constraints but the fact is that Google is serious about it. Enough to publicly speak about it many times and invest enormous amounts of R&D. You are saying they are "hardly betting on it". This is grossly false and I wonder why you would write that? Its clearly a serious bet, with lots of people working on it. > Google CEO Sundar Pichai says we’re just a decade away from a new normal of extraterrestrial data centers Its surely a high risk bet but that's how Google has been operating for a while. But why would you say they are hardly betting on it? As a counter question: do you think Google is not serious about it?
    - MattSteelblade 9mo ago
      I never said Google wasn't serious; I said they are hardly betting on it relative to their other capital expenditures. Google rightfully describes this as a "moonshot." To date, the only public hardware commitment is two prototype satellites in 2027 for a feasibility study. Compared to the billions pouring into Waymo, DeepMind, and terrestrial data centers, this doesn't yet qualify as an "enormous" financial bet, even if the engineering intent is serious.
      - simianwords 9mo ago
        i agree with you then. lets agree that the intent is serious.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- lossolo 9mo ago
  Everyone were also betting on quantum computing and the hydrogen energy revolution. My napkin math says that, for a system at around 75°C, you would need about 13,000 square meters of radiators in space to reject 10 MW of heat.
  - simianwords 9mo ago
    why do you think they are betting on it if it so obvious to you that it won't work?
    - madeforhnyo 9mo ago
      Just because some CEOs pour billions into fantasy projects it doesn't mean they're viable. Otherwise we all would be in the metaverse wouldn't we?
      - simianwords 9mo ago
        Sure, I don't claim all of them go well. Do you want to run a hypothetical exercise on how many they get right vs wrong? And based on that we can see if this is a "fantasy" or not?
        mbesto 9mo ago
        No but you're claiming "if they all are investing X amount then these bets obviously must pan out". If you follow that rationale then it means that all bets that these company's make in the same space must all pan out. So if they don't all pan out then the fact that they're all making bets isn't a sound rationale for it being true. As others have pointed out, investors notoriously have FOMO, so rationale actors (CEOs of big tech) naturally are incentivized to make bets and claims that they are betting on things that the market believes to be true regardless if they are so as to appease shareholders.
        simianwords 9mo ago
        No, i don't claim that all bets must pan out - simply that most bets are made intelligently with serious intent. that's the way i see this bet as well. your take on investors is naive and largely incorrect - its the musical chairs theory of markets.
- snarf21 9mo ago
  Serious question: If you are so sure that this is a big payday, have you put all your net worth into SpaceX? Seems like a no brainer if you fully believe it. The reason for this "data centers in space" is the same as the "sustained human colony on Mars". It is all pie in the sky ideas to drive valuation and increase Musk's wealth. Just a small sampling of previous failed Musk promises: - demonstration drive of full autonomy all the way from LA to New York by the end of 2017 - "autonomous ride hailing in probably half the population of the U.S. by the end of the year" - “thousands” of Optimus humanoid robots working in Tesla factories by the end of 2025." - Tesla semi trucks rollout (Pepsi paid for 100 semis in 2017, and deliveries started in 2022, and now 8 years later they have received half of them.)
  - simianwords 9mo ago
    I have put as much money as I believe in it (risk adjusted). And same goes for Google, Spacex, Blue Origin and other companies. This trope > It is all pie in the sky ideas to drive valuation and increase Musk's wealth. Really needs to stop. This is based on a naive interpretation of how wealth gets created. Musk has an amazing reputation getting things done and making things that people like. Whether you like him as a person or not, he has done stuff in the past and that's reason enough to believe him now.
    - tokai 9mo ago
      >Musk has an amazing reputation getting things done and making things that people like Are you trolling?
      - simianwords 9mo ago
        Almost everyone in the industry thinks this way.
  - sneak 9mo ago
    SpaceX and Starlink are privately held.
  - renewiltord 9mo ago

simianwords 9mo ago

this will age poorly. you have both Google, Tesla/X betting on it. They are not stupid and probably have given it way more thought than people's whose paycheques not tied to this have thought about. This is an ambitious bet, with some possibility of failure but it should say a lot that these companies are investing in them. I wonder what people think, are these companies so naive? Edit: Elon, Sundar, Jensen, Jeff are all interested in this. Even China is. What conspiracy is going on here to explain it? Why would they all put money into this if it is so obvious to all of you that it is not going to work?

MattSteelblade 9mo ago
Google is hardly betting on it; they are exploring the feasibility of it and are frank about the engineering challenges: > significant engineering challenges remain, such as thermal management, high-bandwidth ground communications, and on-orbit system reliability.[1] [1] https://research.google/blog/exploring-a-space-based-scalable-ai-infrastructure-system-design/ https://research.google/blog/exploring-a-space-based-scalabl...
- simianwords 9mo ago
  why do you think this changes what i said? I know it has constraints but the fact is that Google is serious about it. Enough to publicly speak about it many times and invest enormous amounts of R&D. You are saying they are "hardly betting on it". This is grossly false and I wonder why you would write that? Its clearly a serious bet, with lots of people working on it. > Google CEO Sundar Pichai says we’re just a decade away from a new normal of extraterrestrial data centers Its surely a high risk bet but that's how Google has been operating for a while. But why would you say they are hardly betting on it? As a counter question: do you think Google is not serious about it?
  - MattSteelblade 9mo ago
    I never said Google wasn't serious; I said they are hardly betting on it relative to their other capital expenditures. Google rightfully describes this as a "moonshot." To date, the only public hardware commitment is two prototype satellites in 2027 for a feasibility study. Compared to the billions pouring into Waymo, DeepMind, and terrestrial data centers, this doesn't yet qualify as an "enormous" financial bet, even if the engineering intent is serious.
    - simianwords 9mo ago
      i agree with you then. lets agree that the intent is serious.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
lossolo 9mo ago
Everyone were also betting on quantum computing and the hydrogen energy revolution. My napkin math says that, for a system at around 75°C, you would need about 13,000 square meters of radiators in space to reject 10 MW of heat.
- simianwords 9mo ago
  why do you think they are betting on it if it so obvious to you that it won't work?
  - madeforhnyo 9mo ago
    Just because some CEOs pour billions into fantasy projects it doesn't mean they're viable. Otherwise we all would be in the metaverse wouldn't we?
    - simianwords 9mo ago
      Sure, I don't claim all of them go well. Do you want to run a hypothetical exercise on how many they get right vs wrong? And based on that we can see if this is a "fantasy" or not?
      - mbesto 9mo ago
        No but you're claiming "if they all are investing X amount then these bets obviously must pan out". If you follow that rationale then it means that all bets that these company's make in the same space must all pan out. So if they don't all pan out then the fact that they're all making bets isn't a sound rationale for it being true. As others have pointed out, investors notoriously have FOMO, so rationale actors (CEOs of big tech) naturally are incentivized to make bets and claims that they are betting on things that the market believes to be true regardless if they are so as to appease shareholders.
        simianwords 9mo ago
        No, i don't claim that all bets must pan out - simply that most bets are made intelligently with serious intent. that's the way i see this bet as well. your take on investors is naive and largely incorrect - its the musical chairs theory of markets.
snarf21 9mo ago
Serious question: If you are so sure that this is a big payday, have you put all your net worth into SpaceX? Seems like a no brainer if you fully believe it. The reason for this "data centers in space" is the same as the "sustained human colony on Mars". It is all pie in the sky ideas to drive valuation and increase Musk's wealth. Just a small sampling of previous failed Musk promises: - demonstration drive of full autonomy all the way from LA to New York by the end of 2017 - "autonomous ride hailing in probably half the population of the U.S. by the end of the year" - “thousands” of Optimus humanoid robots working in Tesla factories by the end of 2025." - Tesla semi trucks rollout (Pepsi paid for 100 semis in 2017, and deliveries started in 2022, and now 8 years later they have received half of them.)
- simianwords 9mo ago
  I have put as much money as I believe in it (risk adjusted). And same goes for Google, Spacex, Blue Origin and other companies. This trope > It is all pie in the sky ideas to drive valuation and increase Musk's wealth. Really needs to stop. This is based on a naive interpretation of how wealth gets created. Musk has an amazing reputation getting things done and making things that people like. Whether you like him as a person or not, he has done stuff in the past and that's reason enough to believe him now.
  - tokai 9mo ago
    >Musk has an amazing reputation getting things done and making things that people like Are you trolling?
    - simianwords 9mo ago
      Almost everyone in the industry thinks this way.
- sneak 9mo ago
  SpaceX and Starlink are privately held.
- renewiltord 9mo ago