4 ms·
You should ask yourself this, not me, you're the one who blindly believes what Musk says. He also said he was creating a new political party in the US, how's th
by lossolo 8mo ago
You should ask yourself this, not me, you're the one who blindly believes what Musk says. He also said he was creating a new political party in the US, how's that going? Did you believe him when he talked about landing people on Mars in 2018? It’s 2026. How is boring company going? etc.
I think you're overinterpreting what I wrote and projecting. I'm telling you how the physics works, and the physics is simple here: unless you change the physics or discover some exotic, cheap materials, this is 100% not economically viable today or in the near future.
- simianwords 8mo agoSo you have no clue why he's doing it? He's putting money in a thing that will obviously fail. Either you are way way smarter than him, or he's doing this for some other ulterior motive.
- lossolo 8mo agoYou didn't answer my questions. How is The Boring company going? And in this context, you can also ask: "Is he putting money into something that will obviously fail?" Also, go back and read how many people who were "smarter than him" there nine years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14223020 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14223020
- simianwords 8mo agoHere Bezos, sundar, Jensen all are invested. On boring: it’s easy to say in hindsight.
- lossolo 8mo agoYou know why I mentioned hydrogen energy earlier? There was a Financial Times article last month titled "Hydrogen dreams meet reality as oil and gas groups abandon projects", which notes that "Almost 60 major low carbon hydrogen projects—including ones backed by BP and ExxonMobil—have been cancelled" because they weren't economically feasible. Space data centers are in the same place today. It's physics. And none of the people you mentioned have invested in this. They may be interested and might research the topic, but that's not the same thing. I've yet to see any plan that explains how they'll replace failed hardware and manage heat while keeping the whole thing economically feasible.
- simianwords 8mo agook so you are smarter than all of them? and if they had put you in charge instead of the phd's, they might have been better off?
- lossolo 8mo agoYou're using an uninteresting appeal to authority argument again. So let's talk physics. Are you familiar with the radiative heat-balance problem? You can use the Stefan–Boltzmann law to calculate how many radiators you'd need. Required area: A = P / (eps * sigma * eta * (Tr^4 - Tsink^4)) Where: A = radiator area [m^2] P = waste heat to dump [W] eps = emissivity (0..1) sigma = 5.670374419e-8 W/m^2/K^4 eta = non ideal factor for view/blockage/etc (0..1) Tr = radiator temperature [K] Tsink = effective sink temperature [K] (deep space ~3 K, ~0 for Tr sizing) Assuming best conditions so deep space, eps~0.9, eta~1: At Tr=300K: ~413 W/m^2 At Tr=350K: ~766 W/m^2 At Tr=400K: ~1307 W/m^2 So for 10 MW at 350K (basically around 77°C): A ~ 1e7 / 766 ≈ 13,006 m^2 (best case). And even in the best case scenario it's only 10 MW and we're not counting radiation from the sun or IR from the moon/earth etc. so in real life, it will be even higher. You can build 10 MW nuclear power plant (microreactor) with the datacenter included on Earth for the same price. Show me your numbers or lay out a plan for how to make it economically feasible in space.
- simianwords 8mo agoyou are saying you can stop an entire division in google, nvidia, blue origin with this bit of theory? like all the employees had to do with read this and be like: wow i never saw it that way.