30 ms·

Data centers in space makes no sense

• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• Bender 8mo ago
  AI data-centers use upwards of 100MW. The biggest solar panels in space could produce around 240KW. When they speak of AI data-centers in space what do they actually mean in realistic non theoretical terms and where are the materials for this coming from? If the AI data-center used only 10MW then each could have two redundant SMR's assuming the cooling challenges have been worked out but then we could have nuclear reactor disposal and collision issues.
  • shetaye 8mo ago
    I assume the idea is to have the entire constellation be the data center in question. Laser back haul transceiver bandwidth is in the same order of magnitude of rack-to-rack bandwidths [1][2]. I could see each sat being a rack and the entire mesh being a cluster. [1] https://hackaday.com/2024/02/05/starlinks-inter-satellite-laser-links-are-setting-new-record-with-42-million-gb-per-day/ https://hackaday.com/2024/02/05/starlinks-inter-satellite-la... (and this is two years ago!) [2] https://resources.nvidia.com/en-us-accelerated-networking-resource-library/connectx-9-supernic-datasheet https://resources.nvidia.com/en-us-accelerated-networking-re...
    • reactordev 8mo ago
      This is how Starlink works however, you would need orders of magnitude more compute than those router pucks. Orders of magnitude more power needs unless you combined a nuclear reactor to it. It’s just such a fever dream at this stage that he’s really doing it to muddy accounting and consolidate debts from Grok failures.
    • kuschku 8mo ago
      For AI training, latency is one of the limiting factors, which needs to be kept in the nanoseconds. And a light-nanosecond is famously almost exactly 1 foot. That's why Lumen/Starcloud's designs all assume it'll be a space station with all containers connected to one central networking spine.
  • vitaflo 8mo ago
    This is the thing I don’t get. Everyone talking about the “how” but nobody talking about the “why”? It makes literally no sense.
    • Bender 8mo ago
      The only thing that keeps bouncing around in my thick skull is something "data-center sized" whatever that means to them could hold some interesting objects. 2 Peta Watt laser, Rods from God, Tactical nukes, Miniature Rail-gun to quickly eradicate other satellites, Off-Planet archives of stuff, Doomsday clusters of brainwave transmitters to shut off all the humans or force everyone to defecate at once. Those are just some guesses. Some of those could also explain the "why" for SpaceX Falcon Heavy and it's future iterations. It can carry 63,800 kg (140,660 lbs) to Low Earth Orbit and that load capacity will only increase with future versions.
    • whynotmaybe 8mo ago
      Snake oil, like bitcoin. A lot of people will invest in this because "it's the future" and a few will make a lot of money on that.
    • alansammarone 8mo ago
      Because people have to compete just to have sand doing math for us? The why is that it's high time we stop worrying about how much compute we have. Certainly filling all solid planets in the solar system with computers is not nearly enough computation as we want (I'm not even talking about AI specifically).
• Starman_Jones 8mo ago
  Very confused by this plan. Data centers on Earth are struggling with how to get rid of waste heat. It's really, really hard to get rid of waste heat in space. That seems to be about the worst possible place to put a data center.
  • palmotea 8mo ago
    That's not Elon's problem. He's an ideas guy. Data centers in space is definitely an idea.
    • Mordisquitos 8mo ago
      Indeed. I would go so far as to assert that, of all the ideas that have ever been proposed in the history of humanity, data centres in space is most certainly one of them.
      • emchammer 8mo ago
        Just ask this scientician.
        • AlexandrB 8mo ago
          Uhhhh
          • fuzzfactor 8mo ago
            >data centres in space is most certainly one of them. >Uhhhh Thanks, I wouldn't have noticed how wrong that was otherwise ;) It's most certainly two of them.
    • mhh__ 8mo ago
      Yeah he only micromanages (look at his old blog) every detail he has time for at an extremely successful aerospace engineering company, just an ideas guy.
• NedF 8mo ago
  [dead]
• izzydata 8mo ago
  How about we just make a giant heatsink that reaches into space instead. Then we can cool the whole planet. Coming up with crazy ideas is cheap, but the logistics are obviously impractical.
  • 0x53 8mo ago
    Look into radiative cooling. Basically this, but more practical. Several companies working on it: https://www.skycoolsystems.com/ https://www.skycoolsystems.com/
    • grim_io 8mo ago
      I don't quite believe this. Is it really better than just using solar panels to run a heat pump?
      • pidge 8mo ago
        > Our core innovation is a radiative cooling material that we’ve combined with a panel system to improve the efficiency of any vapor-compression based cooling system A heat pump is a “ vapor-compression based cooling system” so that tech is an addition-to not an instead-of. Whether it’s better probably depends on how expensive the additional efficiency is in practice. > SkyCool’s Panels save 2x – 3x as much energy as a solar panel generates given the same area. So if you’re area constrained maybe.
        • grim_io 8mo ago
          That's very hard to believe. Radiative cooling is really bad compared to any kind of fan in front of aluminum fins. Air itself is an isolator, there is a reason you need to shove in fresh air to take on more energy from the heat source.
    • morshu9001 8mo ago
      This looks like it depends on the outside air to cool the coolant. "Radiative" can mean that too, not just IR radiation.
• RobotToaster 8mo ago
  It possibly makes sense if you're preparing for war, harder to hit, harder to physically break into, beyond the range of nuclear EMP, and accessible from anywhere on earth.
  • Mountain_Skies 8mo ago
    Any country capable of producing nuclear warheads will also be able to toss up enough BBs and other small objects into LEO to wipe out most of Starlink and anything else in LEO. At least on Earth data centers in theory can be hidden and physically hardened. In orbit, even a crude rocket able to reach that plane can become a weapon of mass satellite destruction. Even if those orbits clear out in four or five years, by then whatever ugliness is going on down on the surface of Earth will likely have resolved one way or the other. Starlink is a great military asset for a superpower pushing around smaller states in ways that aren't an existential threat to them. In a real conflict, it's a fragile target beyond the strike capacities of much of the developing world but easily destroyed by any moderate level industrial nation.
    • philipkglass 8mo ago
      Any country capable of producing nuclear warheads will also be able to toss up enough BBs and other small objects into LEO to wipe out most of Starlink and anything else in LEO. South Africa built nuclear weapons in the 1980s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Nuclear_weapons_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_ma... But it never had an orbital launch capability. Pakistan doesn't have a domestic orbital launch capability but it does have nuclear weapons. Surprisingly, the United Kingdom doesn't have a domestic orbital launch capability at present though it has had ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for many decades. At present, I would say that building a basic implosion-assembled atomic bomb is easier than building a rocket system that reach low Earth orbit. It's a lot easier to build a bomb now than it was in the 1940s. The main thing that prevents wider nuclear weapon proliferation is treaties and inspections, not inherent technical difficulties.
      • 8mo ago
• shishcat 8mo ago
  how much latency would a minecraft server in space have?
  • wmf 8mo ago
    With live migration it could be quite low, like 10 ms.
• sheepscreek 8mo ago
  What’s there not to like? Superconductors. Free electricity. No cooling necessary. Put those three together and maybe it’s possible to push physics to its limits. Faster networking, maybe 4x-5x capacity per unit compared to earth. Servicing is a pain, might be cheaper to just replace the hardware when a node goes bad. But it mainly makes sense to those who have the capability and can do it cheaply (compared to the rest). There’s only one company that I can think of and that is SpaceX. They are closing in on (or passed) 8,000 satellites. Vertical integration means their cost-base will always be less than any competitor.
  • DougN7 8mo ago
    Why is there no cooling necessary?
    • sheepscreek 8mo ago
      Space is cold - 4 K. Superconductors.
      • grim_io 8mo ago
        Repeating the word "superconductor" does not convince anyone of anything.
        • roman_soldier 8mo ago
          [dead]
        • sheepscreek 8mo ago
          I don’t care about convincing anyone. A question was asked and I answered the best I could with the time I had at hand. Also read by comment above that discusses WHY superconductors could be the key to cooler electronics in space.
      • SideburnsOfDoom 8mo ago
        Space is not cold. Space is not hot either. Temperature is a property of matter. Empty space does not have a temperature. It is also a perfect insulator for conduction and convection, and as for radiation: it's a problem because of the sun heating up objects via its radiation. This is the basics, I'm not an expert. But I don't think that you have anything useful at all to say here.
• antonymoose 8mo ago
  To Steelman the topic, Musk’s whole alleged mission is to make humans a multi-planet species that can survive an earth killing event. To that end, a small data center space isn’t about unit-economics, it’s a bigger mission. So the question we should consider is what can we put into space the further that mission. Can we put a meaningful sum of human knowledge out there for preservation? It sounds like “yes,” even if we can’t train ChatGPT models out there yet.
  • redwood 8mo ago
    Sure but you could do that with a simple disc in space
    • mongol 8mo ago
      Actually, the data centers can be the discs. As long as the data centers can crunch on, we don't need to stay alive here on earth
  • awakeasleep 8mo ago
    When I was a kid, I had to go to CCD, a religious after school program for Catholics. The whole time I was there it was a mental game of trying to steel man the contradictory or incoherent stuff, using my brain power to try and rewrite things to make sense. After some years, I woke up and realized that’s what I was doing, and even if I could do it in my mind, that didn’t make the source material rational. Heres hoping you have a similar moment.
    • antonymoose 8mo ago
      > Heres hoping you have a similar moment. I do not politically align with Musk. I’ve always thought Tesla was important in popularizing electric cars while being a low-quality built product with repair and supply chain issues. I think The Boring Company is a joke. Twitter was a power-grab. I also think SpaceX is societally beneficial, a good means to shake-up a stagnant industry and a humanity-wide area of interest. If you think I’m a member of a religious cult, I respectfully suggest you evaluate what led You to believe that itself.
• redwood 8mo ago
  I'd be curious to know simply how large the thermal radiator necessary to keep a typical GPU server cooled would be. Do they completely dwarf the server size? Can you do something with some esoteric material that is not particularly load-bearing but holds up well in space to get around some of these challenges?
• heisenbit 8mo ago
  Data centers in space are the logical progression from the multi trillion business of m2m and edge computing. It removes all physical limits to investment.
  • gf000 8mo ago
    You mean physical reality
• ortusdux 8mo ago
  Is there any insight into how Starlink solved cooling? One 'expert' insisted that there is no reason to expect that data center satellites would generate any more heat than starlinks.
  • thfuran 8mo ago
    Those have a power budget of about 1 rack. I would expect a datacenter satellite to need more cooling if it has more compute.
    • morshu9001 8mo ago
      And 1 ML rack uses the power of like 10 regular racks
      • morshu9001 8mo ago
        Oh and even a non-ML server rack uses more power than a networking rack
  • fwip 8mo ago
    So, most of the power that Starlink satellites use go into the comms, right? Blasting out electromagnetic radiation to receiver stations on earth, and also the laser(?) backhaul between satellites. Modulo some efficiency losses, most of the electricity it generates is leaving the satellite. Contrast with a datacenter, where most of the energy is spent heating up the chips, and the rest is spent moving the heat away from those chips.
• wmf 8mo ago
  Counterpoint: https://x.com/CJHandmer/status/1997906033168330816 https://x.com/CJHandmer/status/1997906033168330816 (If you can't xcancel it yourself your hacker card is revoked.)
  • burkaman 8mo ago
    This is not a counterpoint, it is a post discussing the same topic but it doesn't address any of the points in this article.
  • turtletontine 8mo ago
    That post does not appear to address or acknowledge any of these problems: 1) thermal management in space, 2) radiation degrading the onboard silicon, 3) you can’t upgrade data centers in orbit
• retube 8mo ago
  It's lala land nonsense. - Data centres need a lot of power = giant vast solar panels - Data centres need a lot of cooling. That's some almighty heatsinks you're going need - They will need to be radiation-hardened to avoid memory corruption = even more mass - The hardware will be redundant in like 2 years tops and will need replacing to stay competitive - Data centres are about 100x bigger (not including solar panels and heat sinks) than the biggest thing we've ever put in space Tesla is losing market share (and rank increasingly poorly against alternatives), his robots are gonna fail, this datacentre ambition needs to break the laws of physics, grok/twitter is a fake news pedo-loving cesspit that's gonna be regulated into oblivion. Its only down from here on out.
  • cyberax 8mo ago
    > - The hardware will be redundant in like 2 years tops and will need replacing to stay competitive Hey! It can be de-orbited onto the location of your choosing. I bet you can sell this service to the DoD! Barring that, you can sell it on the global market to the highest bidder.
  • geoffeg 8mo ago
    Maybe instead of housing life, civilizations develop Dyson's spheres to house data centers. Solar panels on the interior, thermal radiators on the exterior and the data centers make up the structure in between. Combine that Von Neumann probes and you've got a fun new Fermi paradox hypothesis!
    • sfink 8mo ago
      Don't combine it with von Neumann probes and you've solved the Fermi paradox: a civilization that puts that much work into computing power is either doing the equivalent of mining crypto and going nowhere, or is doing AI and is so dependent on it that they inevitably form a vast echo chamber (echo sphere?) that only wants to talk to itself (itselves?) and can't bear to be left out by adding the latency unavoidably added by distance. tl;dr: civilizations advanced enough to travel between stars end up trapped by the resources and physics required to keep up with the Joneses.
• Terr_ 8mo ago
  I'm convinced that >30% of this comes from ideas leaking out of fiction such as like Neuromancer, and percolating through the minds of wealthy people attracted to some of the concepts. Namely, the dream of being a hyper-wealthy dynasty, above any earthly government, controlling an extraterritorial Las Vegas Fiefdom In Space. (Which in the book, also hosted a powerful AI.) Then they work backwards, trying to figure out some economic engine to make it happen. "Data centers" are (A) in-vogue for investment right now and (B) vaguely plausible, at least compared to having a space-casino.
  • turtletontine 8mo ago
    I’ve come to think of interviews with people like Sam Altman as “freestyle science fiction.” They’re just saying stuff off the top of their head. Like you say, that often entails vague ideas from other sci fi percolating up and out, with no consideration of if they actually make sense. And like most freestyle, it’s usually pretty bad.
    • Spooky23 8mo ago
      That is possible because DOGE and their comrades gutted the SEC and indirectly FINRA like a fish. The government is run by confidence men running crypto scams. That’s how the CFO of OpenAI can essentially say “we need a Federal bailout”, and then turn around and say “lol just joking”.
      • TheOtherHobbes 8mo ago
        [checks today's bitcoin price] Oh. Is it below the level where mining and blockchain updates become uneconomic yet?
    • DANmode 8mo ago
      Your dad can’t tell the difference. If they get 3/10 things right, and 60 Minutes highlights those in the next interview, they’re set!
    • Cthulhu_ 8mo ago
• ozim 8mo ago
  *Data centers in space only make sense if they are cost effective relative to normal data centers*. Disagree there are bunch of scenarios where Data Centers in space make sense. Like nuclear annihilation and having vaults across the globe to communicate and get back lost information because ground data centers would be wiped out by EMP from blasts.
  • proggy 8mo ago
    Has it occurred to anyone that you can put computers underground? In this apocalyptic scenario you are describing, how do you expect the ground based command and control infrastructure to survive? Satellites are 100% reliant on ground based operations. That is a hard requirement. And if you put the command and control underground, might as well just skip the whole space based plan and just put the data underground.
    • grim_io 8mo ago
      And here I thought Musk's fans are all about digging holes in the ground. The flamethrower fumes might have caused temporary amnesia.
      • ozim 8mo ago
        To say so I am not a Musk fan - I am sci-fi fan and I make imaginary/silly stuff up on my own. I also like reading how people argue with not what I wrote but with what they imagined I wrote.
        • grim_io 8mo ago
          It was not my intention to single you out, my apologies. There is nothing wrong to imagine anything you like. But if you do it as a CEO, i personally consider that as fraud. Guess I'm weird and old-fashioned like that.
    • ozim 8mo ago
      Why is it hard requirement? You can make some part of operations on high orbit that won’t decay as much then more ops on lower orbits that decay faster. If you put stuff underground it is much harder to communicate.
• arjie 8mo ago
  It doesn't make any sense to me either, but there are lots of things like that where the other thing is harder. As an example, a thing people say online a lot is something like "Why do the techbros build self-driving cars instead of just putting it on rails for efficiency and then they could call it a TRAIN?" The answer to that is that coordination problems are really hard. Much harder even than what are currently unsolved engineering problems. In fact, SpaceX can only launch from California because they have DOD coverage for their launches. Otherwise the California Coastal Commission et al. would have blocked them entirely. Perhaps the innovation for affordable space Internet is combining it with mixed-use technology. The truth is that in America today self-driving cars (regulated by a state board run by bureaucrats) are easier to build than trains (regulated by every property owner on the train route). Mark Zuckerberg tried to spend some money evaluating a train across the Bay and had to give up. But Robotaxi service is live in San Francisco. So if there is an angle that makes sense to me it's that they anticipate engineering challenges beatable in a way where regulatory challenges are not.
  • constantius 8mo ago
    Interesting insight. I can think of some objections, but they don't change your point. I also checked out your blog and got 2 interesting articles in 2 tries. If you have some personal favourites and listing them is not a bother, I'd be happy to read them.
    • arjie 8mo ago
      That's awfully kind of you to say! I added a section to the Main Page listing a couple of ones that people have mentioned to me before, though it's a bit of a cluttered page so I doubt it works as it stands. A few things I think of more frequently than they affect my life are: * https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Abolish_The_First_Lady https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Abolish_The_First_Lady - arguing that the FLOTUS role shouldn't exist * https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Upward_Mobility,_Downward_Society https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Upward_Mobility,_Downward_So... - perhaps a less original idea that economic mobility leads to poorly performing lower-paying services. * https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Blog/2026-01-17/Citogenesis https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Blog/2026-01-17/Citogenesis - an example of one way that factoids get upgraded to facts
• wrs 8mo ago
  Next up, the Boring Company gets imaginary contract for underground datacenters, is now valued at $500B.
  • m463 8mo ago
    there was an article recently about a company wanting to put nuclear reactors at the bottom of very deep boreholes (like km deep). I thought that was actually quite interesting/practical, because if there is a problem, you can just bury the problem. not like tmi/fukushima/chernobyl
    • DaedalusII 8mo ago
      Interesting idea. 2km deep could work. I'm not sure how cooling or maintenance would work. Depth below surface | Typical temperature (°C) | Indicative cost to drill 1.2 m diameter hole 500 m | 15–25 | $5–10 million 1 km | 25–40 | $10–20 million 2 km | 50–70 | $25–45 million 3 km | 75–100 | $50–80 million 4 km | 100–130 | $90–140 million 5 km | 130–160 | $150–250 million
      • m463 8mo ago
        maybe not the article I read, but similar: https://spectrum.ieee.org/underground-nuclear-reactor-deep-fission https://spectrum.ieee.org/underground-nuclear-reactor-deep-f...
  • kklisura 8mo ago
    Nah. They get contract for mining on Mars, valued north of $1T.
• sollewitt 8mo ago
  The bigger issue: datacenters in space are disposable. All the extremely recyclable aluminum, silica - you extract it, manufacture it and instead of recycling it when it’s done you incinerate it in the atmosphere and scatter the ashes far and wide across the earth, the harder to recapture later. You do this when the most fragile part in the system fails. Solar panels good for 25 years but the SSDs burn out after 2? Incinerate the lot! This kind of thinking is late capitalist brain rot. This kind of waste should be a crime.
  • timmmmmmay 8mo ago
    Aluminum is 8% of the earth's crust and silicon is 28%; I think we're good
• marze 8mo ago
  [flagged]
• Joker_vD 8mo ago
  I am willing to bet the whole xAI/SpaceX merger is simply a ploy by Musk to evade releasing accurate historical information about SpaceX's finances. How much did it actually cost SpaceX to launch a kilogram of payload into space each year? How much is NASA actually donating them, per each year? I mean, I still remember promises of $1000-per-kg for space launches, and how e.g. Gigafactory will produce half of the world battery supply, and other non-scientific fiction peddled by Musk. Remember when SpaceX suggested in 2019 that the US Army could use its Starship rockets to transport troops and supplies across the planet in minutes? I do. By the way, have they finished testing Starship yet, is it ready?
• Garlef 8mo ago
  I guess the xAI/SpaceX thing is mainly a financial move and they made up an interesting story to give it some context
• ww520 8mo ago
  Space offers some unique benefits that enable computing that’s impossible or very hard to do on earth. E.g. Super conducting computing is possible, which can be thousands times to millions times faster than current CPU while using very little energy. When the satellite moves in the shade of the earth, temperature drops significantly. It can be low enough to enable superconducting. When the satellite moves under the sun, the solar panel can start charging up the battery to power the ongoing operation.
  • emkoemko 8mo ago
    i don't understand? you won't insulate the craft from the sun? and you expect the craft to get rid of its heat just from being behind the earth for a moment?
    • ww520 8mo ago
      When did I say no insulation? If it took only one moment for the satellite to fly by behind the whole earth, its speed is so great that it would be flung out of the solar system.
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• kevin061 8mo ago
  A month and a half ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46286645 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46286645
  • lelandfe 8mo ago
    Related, around the same time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46087616 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46087616
• iancmceachern 8mo ago
  Facts. Just do the basic thermal heat transfer math.
• xyzsparetimexyz 8mo ago
  You guys clearly didn't read the full blog post where Musk mentions lunar mining. They're going to put an ASML machine on the moon and turns regolith into chips and solar panels automatically. Literally free compute
  • reactordev 8mo ago
    If you believe that, you’re Musks target investor group.
  • __loam 8mo ago
    I can't even tell what's sarcasm anymore lol.
    • Ifkaluva 8mo ago
      The comment you are replying to is definitely sarcasm… I hope?
      • burnt-resistor 8mo ago
        Godwin's law broke down re widespread geopolitical changes, and I think Poe's isn't far behind.
  • triceratops 8mo ago
    I was skeptical until you mentioned this. Now I'm onboard
  • dwroberts 8mo ago
    This is your brain on Factorio
    • zelias 8mo ago
      I’m playing Space Exploration right now and all I can think is “damn what is he gonna do without productivity modules”
  • 8mo ago
• mrcwinn 8mo ago
  I can assure this author: strapping a company that lights money on fire (today, maybe not tomorrow) to a cash flow enterprise makes the IPO harder, not easier, in the absence of credible plan. The market speculates, but it’s not being completely irrational. I’d actually be surprised if we didn’t have factories or data centers in space one day.
• beloch 8mo ago
  I would not assume cooling has been worked out. Space is a vacuum. i.e. The lack-of-a-thing that makes a thermos great at keeping your drink hot. A satellite is, if nothing else, a fantastic thermos. A data center in space would necessarily rely completely on cooling by radiation, unlike a terrestrial data center that can make use of convection and conduction. You can't just pipe heat out into the atmosphere or build a heat exchanger. You can't exchange heat with vacuum. You can only radiate heat into it. Heat is going to limit the compute that can be done in a satellite data centre and radiative cooling solutions are going to massively increase weight. It makes far more sense to build data centers in the arctic. Musk is up to something here. This could be another hyperloop (i.e. A distracting promise meant to sabotage competition). It could be a legal dodge. It could be a power grab. What it will not be is a useful source of computing power. Anyone who takes this venture seriously is probably going to be burned.
  • jcgrillo 8mo ago
    A glaring lack of oceans to boil
  • atleastoptimal 8mo ago
    Its very simple, xAI needs money to win the AI race, so best option is to attach to Elon’s moneybank (spacex) to get cash without dilution
    • ben_w 8mo ago
      That may be the plan, but this is also a great way for GDPR's maximum fine, based on global revenue, to bite on SpaceX's much higher revenue. And without any real room for argument.
      • deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
    • iknowstuff 8mo ago
      Remember how he argued for Tesla’s Solarcity acquisition because solar roofs? Data centers in space are the same kind of justification imo.
• DustinBrett 8mo ago
  Comments full of EDS. Everyone is a rocket scientist in here also.
• b00ty4breakfast 8mo ago
  They're gonna propose something dumb like ejecting coolant out into space as a disposable heatsink and then they're gonna spend a bunch of money trying to build a proof-of-concept but it will never go anywhere because it's really some kinda money laundering scheme or whatever the Hyperloop nonsense was.
  • anywhichway 8mo ago
    Musk said in his autobiography he announced the hyperloop plan without any intention of doing it to distract from the California high speed rail plans.
• fd-codier 8mo ago
  We were supposed to be on Mars right now, but I guess data centers in space are nice too. Kinda disappointed they aren't on the moon.
• wanderinghogan 8mo ago
  If we won't stop what he is doing with grok and ai-generated CSAM, he will be completely free from oversight up there.
  • Findecanor 8mo ago
    As silly as that sounds, you gave me a thought ... If SpaceX, by being a company serving the federal government are covered by a law that would make its offices (on Earth, duh) a protected area ... then could they by some law-bending make that protection also encompass the data centres that contain the AI-generated CSAM and training data, in order to protect them from being raided by state law enforcement? That does not have to sound reasonable to us ... only to Musk.
  • undsoft 8mo ago
    Dealing with rogue AI also seems easier when you can walk up to its data center and unplug it.
• zer00eyz 8mo ago
  Admiral Grace Hopper is famous for using a length of wire to explain to others what a nanosecond was. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/pentagon-embraces-musks-grok-ai-chatbot-as-it-draws-global-outcry https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/pentagon-embraces-musks-g... Data centers in space make absolute sense when you want as close to real time analysis on all sorts of information. Would you rather have it make the round trip, via satellite to the states? Or are you going to build these things on the ground near a battlefield? Musk is selling a vision for a MASSIVE government contract to provide a service that no one else could hope to achieve. This is one of those projects where he can run up the budget and operating costs like Boeing, Northrup etc, because it has massive military applications.
• timmmmmmay 8mo ago
  you know you're looking at some hard analysis when they use the number "gazillion". can I get that one in scientific notation?
• nvader 8mo ago
  What data centers in space enable is protection for the compute of near-superintelligent AIs from the interference of humans. As an alleged human, I'd like to preserve my option to interfere.
  • e12e 8mo ago
    No, no, no - Villa Starlight was the prison the Tessier-Ashpool AI needed help to escape from!
• krater23 8mo ago
  How else would you secure skynet against Sarah Connor?
• kibwen 8mo ago
  No no, let Musk cook. This definitely won't be SpaceX's Cybertruck moment, where they completely throw away their first-mover advantage by wasting five years chasing after the egotistical boondoggle of a delusional megalomaniac.
• bs7280 8mo ago
  As a thought experiment, if humanity wanted to go all in on trying to move industrial processes and data centers off planet, would it make more sense to do so on the moon? The moon has: - Some water - Some materials that can be used to manufacture crude things (like heat sinks?) - a ton of area to brute force the heat sink problem - a surface to burry the data centers under to solve the radiation problem - close enough to earth that remote controlled semi-automated robots work I think this would only work if some powerful entity wanted to commit to a hyper-scale effort.
  • vel0city 8mo ago
    What if instead we moved it all to a closer rock that has even more water, even more materials to manufacture crude (and even advanced) things, even more surface, more protection from radiation, and even crazier still had significantly less launch costs? Almost any reason why the moon is better than in orbit is a point for putting it on earth.
    • bs7280 8mo ago
      I think there's something to be said about imagining a future where we can keep the earth clean of all the nasty industrial processes we have grown accustomed to living next to. A big part about this proposed idea is that you could do a lot of manufactoring in space. I have long theorized there will be some game changing manufacturing processes that can only be done in a zero gravity environment. EX: - 3d printing human organ replacements to solve the organ donor problem - stronger materials - 3d computer chips I do not work in material science, so these crude ideas are just that, but the important part I'm getting at is that we can make things in space without any launches once that industry is bootstrapped.
      • chuckadams 8mo ago
        Human organs manage to grow pretty well in 1G. In fact, they're almost certainly going to be terrible at it in zero g.
      • vel0city 8mo ago
• jiggawatts 8mo ago
  There are two very distinct kinds of AI workloads that go into data centres: 1. Inference 2. Training Inference just might be doable in space because it is "embarrassingly parallel" and can be deployed as a swarm of thousands of satellites, each carrying the equivalent of a single compute node with 8x GPUs. The inputs and outputs are just text, which is low bandwidth. The model parameters only need to be uploaded a few times a year, if that. Not much storage is required , just a bit of flash for the model, caching, logging, and the like. This is very similar to a Starlink satellites, just with bigger solar panels and some additional radiative cooling. Realistically, a spacecraft like this would use inference-optimised chips, not power-hungry general purpose NVIDIA GPUs, LPDDR5 instead of HBM, etc... Training is a whole other ballgame. It is parallelisable, sure, but only through heroic efforts involving fantastically expensive network switches with petabits of aggregated bandwidth. It also needs more general-purpose GPUs, access to petabytes of data, etc. The name of the game here is to bring a hundred thousand or more GPUs into close proximity and connect them with a terabit or more per GPU to exchange data. This cannot be put into orbit with any near-future technologies! It would be a giant satellite with square kilometers of solar and cooling panels. It would certainly get hit sooner or later by space debris, not to mention the hazard it poses to other satellites. The problem with putting inference-only into space is that training still needs to go somewhere, and current AI data centres are pulling double-duty: they're usable for both training and inference, or any mix of the two. The greatest challenge is that a training bleeding edge model needs the biggest possible clusters (approaching a million GPUs!) in one place, and that is the problem -- few places in the world can provide the ~gigawatt of power to light up something that big. Again, the problem here is that training workloads can't be spread out. Space solves the "wrong" problem! We can distribute inference to thousands of datacentre locations here on Earth, each needs just hundreds of kilowatts. That's no problem. It's the giaaaant clusters everyone is trying to build that are the problem.
• luxuryballs 8mo ago
  Like I’ve always said love him or hate him Elon Musk is a SPACE OIL SALESMAN!
• pokstad 8mo ago
  > Data centers in space only make sense if they are cost effective relative to normal data centers. Author made a fatal mistake. By flying enough hardware in space, you can simply blot out the sun and steal their solar capacity. Drink their milkshake with a long straw!
• tgbugs 8mo ago
  One way to work around the heat dissipation issues in space (and also on earth) is to move to computing systems that operate entirely at cryogenic temperatures to take advantage of superconducting circuitry. I've heard stories that over a decade ago teams inside hyperscalars had calculated that running completely cryogenically cooled data centers would be vastly cheaper than what we do now due to savings on resistive losses and the cost of eliminating waste heat. You don't have to get rid of heat that you don't generate in the first place. The issue is that at the moment there are very few IC components and processes that have been engineered to run at cryogenic temperatures. Replicating the entirety of the existing data center stack for cryogenic temps is nowhere near reality. That said, once you have cryogenic superconducting integrated circuits you could colocate your data centers and your propellant/oxidizer depots. Not exactly "data centers off in deep space" since propoxd tend to be the highest traffic areas.
  • deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  • spongebobstoes 8mo ago
    by my calculations, the heat dissipation isn't that big a deal take an h100 for example. it will need something like 1kW to operate. that's less than 4 square meters of solar panel at 70C, a reasonable temp for H100, a 4 square meter radiator can emit north of 2kW of energy into deep space seems to me like a 2x2x2 cube could house an H100 in space perhaps I'm missing something?
    • variaga 8mo ago
      Heat travels when there is a thermal gradient. What thermally superconducting material are you going to make your cube out of that the surface temperature is exactly the same as the core temperature? If you don't have one, then to keep the h100 at 70c, the radiators have to be colder. How much more radiator area do you need then? Have you considered the effects of insolation? Sunlight heats things too. How efficient is your power supply and how much waste heat is generated delivering 1kW you your h100? How do you move data between the ground and your satellite? How much power does that take? If it's in LEO, how many thermal cycles can your h100 survive? If it's not in LEO, go back to the previous question and add an order of magnitude. I could go on, but honestly those details - while individually solvable - don't matter because there is no world where you would not be better off taking the exact same h100 and installing it somewhere on the ground instead
• ppeetteerr 8mo ago
  Don't let common sense stop you from a good time.
• OrvalWintermute 8mo ago
  This is written by someone that is not in aerospace that thinks terrestrially. Engineering is always a question of tradeoffs. Launch costs are dropping, and we’re still using inefficient rockets. Space elevators & space trains, among others, can drop this much more, the launch costs are still dropping, even using rockets, maybe we’ll never get to elevators & trains the costs will drop so low! Radiation shielding is not required for VLEO or LEO, and phenomenally more capable aerospace processors are near - hi Microchip Inc! There are many other radiation solutions coming, no doubt with nuclear power. Satellites can be upgraded at scale, though for many things, it does not make $ sense to upgrade them, but fuel , reaction wheels, solar panels, among other things do make $ sense to replace. Latency was technically solved in 1995 & 2001 with the first laser comms missions NASDA’s ETS-VI kiku-6 and ESA’s Artemis , and Laser crossbars for comms are common. A full laser TDRS no RF is not yet extant but soon. Earth to deepspace was just demonstrated by ESA. Cooling can be significantly improved due to lower launch costs, heat piping, RTGs, TEGs, and thermoradiative cells, not to mention sunside solar and darkside inline radiators Furthermore, it is very likely that as neuromorphics with superior SWaP emerge, we could see very different models of space based computation. Economic tradeoffs should drive many of these decisions as I’m not discussing the other applications of datacenter in space
  • sfink 8mo ago
    > Cooling can be significantly improved due to lower launch costs, heat piping, RTGs, TEGs, and thermoradiative cells, not to mention sunside solar and darkside inline radiators You're saying they're going to steal the night? We'll see the sun in the day, radiative cooling for surveillance AI in the time formerly known as night? I'll confess that the numbers aren't nearly as bad as I'd thought. Apparently, you can dissipate 1MW at 100°C with a 17m diameter sphere at night. So it's like the size of a small house. It doesn't even glow. On the other hand, you need a lot of temperature differential to move the heat out fast enough, which means your TPUs are going to be hellishly hot. Though you'd probably only run it when it's in the sun and radiate in other directions, so you don't have to store the power in heavy batteries. You need a 56m diameter disk of solar panels to provide 1MW, don't forget that. (All figures were vibe calculated with Claude and are unchecked.)
• nickorlow 8mo ago
  I don't get the point at all of these. You: - have very non-deterministic latency - are located outside of a country that can protect you (ie China could disrupt your space data center) - have to pay millions of dollars to swap out hardware
  • frotaur 8mo ago
    and : kessler syndrome
  • jonshariat 8mo ago
    And what about servicing? Last I checked these data centers don't run without incident and need people (or fine robots) to physically interact with them.
  • cousinbryce 8mo ago
    You’re also located outside of any country that could regulate
    • nickorlow 8mo ago
      A country will definitely still be able to regulate you. Also under what regulations they'd be afraid of other than local building laws
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• j45 8mo ago
  I'm not sure datacenters in space have to make suense to everyone, or from the perspective of earth. Taking a creative step back, perhaps datacenters in space support something with Mars? As much as that might not seem realistic, I also have to counterbalance it with operationalizing and commercializing SpaceX, Starlink and Tesla relatively quickly when so much stays at the R&D stage for so long.
• MithrilTuxedo 8mo ago
  I bet they can already weaponize their satellites to prevent the launch of other satellites. Putting data centers in space keeps them out of reach of humans with crowbars and hammers, which may have been a vulnerability for those robots Tesla is building.
• phire 8mo ago
  As far as I can tell, Data centres in space only seem viable because their advocates insist on comparing them to standard terrestrial data centres. And nobody ever calls them out on it. Today's data centres are optimised for reliability, redundancy, density, repairability, connectivity and latency. Most of advertised savings come not from placing the data centre in space, but the fact that advocates have argued away the need for absolutely everything that modern data centres are designed to supply, except for the compute. If they can really build a space data centre satellite for as cheap as they claim, why launch it? Just drive it out into the middle of the desert and dump it there. It can access the internet via starlink, and already has solar panels for power and radiators for cooling. IMO, If it can cool itself in direct sunlight in space, it can cool itself in the desert. The main thing that space gains you over setting up the same satellite in the desert is ~23 hours of power, vs the ~12 hours of power on the ground. And you suddenly gain the ability to repair the satellite. The cost of the launch would have to be extremely cheap before the extra 11ish hours of runtime per day outweighed the cost of a launch; Just build twice as many "ground satellites". And that's with a space optimised design. We can gain even more cost savings by designing proper distributed datacenter elements. You don't need lightweight materials, just use steel. You can get rid of the large radiators and become more reliant on air cooling. You can built each element bigger, because you don't have to fit the rocket dimensions. You could even add a wind turbine, so your daily runtime isn't dependant on daylight hours. Might even be worth getting rid of solar and optimising for wind power instead. An actual ground optimised design should be able to deliver the same functionality as the space data centre, for much cheaper costs. And it's this ground optimised distributed design that space data centres should be compared to, not today's datacenter which are hyper-optimised for pre-AI use cases. ------------------- Space data centres are nothing more than a cool Sci-Fi solution looking for a problem. There have been mumblings for years, but they were never viable (even bitcoin mining was a bit too latency sensitive). Space data centre advocates have been handed a massive win with this recent AI boom, it's the perfect problem for their favourite solution to solve. But because it's a solution looking for a problem, they are completely blind to other solutions that might be an even better fit.
  • MagicMoonlight 8mo ago
    You don’t even need the desert. Just put it in India and use coal power or whatever. AI training doesn’t care about latency to the data centre, so you could put it anywhere, as long as it is cheap.
• rybosworld 8mo ago
  It seems like every argument in favor of doing this is: "yeah sure but what if X was Y% cheaper?" And some of us are reading these things and trying to be polite. But at some point patience runs thin and the only response that breaks through the irrationality is some variation of "what if unicorns and centaurs had teamed up with Sauron?" The limit of the ratio of useful:useless "what if's" approaches zero.
  • NegativeK 8mo ago
    With regards to a community, I once heard someone say that it takes 10 "atta boy"'s to counteract 1 "you suck". I also remember, roughly 10 years ago, people saying that the amount of effort to discredit bullshit is wildly out of whack. Which makes bullshit basically asymmetric warfare. So here we are, in this thread, actually spending time attempting to discredit bullshit.
    • rybosworld 8mo ago
      Well said.
    • jodrellblank 8mo ago
      "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it." - Brandolini's Law - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
• bamboozled 8mo ago
  But it's absolutely amazing hype and memevestors love it.
• gowld 8mo ago
  What is this website? The website insists that you let it record your voice in order to show you the dangers of AI. Is it trolling the visitor? https://civai.org/talk https://civai.org/talk
• random_duck 8mo ago
  It seems quite telling we are even discussing this.
• _DeadFred_ 8mo ago
  He's going to do a DOGE (memecoin not government agency) equivalent over phones new satellite links to his SpaceX sats outside anyone national jurisdiction. Worth the possibility of taking over being the world's global currency unconnected from any/all government.
• tschellenbach 8mo ago
  Google, Spacex, several startups are all doing this. The best people in their fields think it might be viable. I'm skeptical as well, but you do wonder if maybe they are right and how exciting that would be.
  • vineyardmike 8mo ago
    Everyone else is announcing initiatives to investigate the feasibility of this because earthlings currently hate the data center build out. The news is full of anti-DC stories about how much electricity/water they're using. They're selling a story.
• rolph 8mo ago
  where do you put things, so that no one will be able to warrant thier way into access? entirely out of jurisdiction, where it is prohibitively expensive to travel, and impractical for any physical seizure. you dont need to compute, just store it and P2P amongst satellites. essentially an orbital NAS.
• typ 8mo ago
  Assuming that we place an iron ball (ideal sphere-shaped and thermal conductivity) on the SSO (solar synchronous orbit), how hot can the object be? Given the solar constant 1361 W/m^2, you can calculate the temperature range based on the emissivity and absorptivity. With the right shape and “color”, the equilibrium temperature can be cooler than most people thought. I suppose that a space data center powered 100% by solar is no different than this iron ball in principle.
  • eldenring 8mo ago
    The ideal shape would be a shaded, flat panel perpendicular to the sun right?
    • typ 8mo ago
      That should be better than a sphere. Though I imagine there could be some fancier 3D geometry designs. Even for a simple sphere, if we give it different surface roughnesses on the sun-facing side and the "night" side, it can have dramatically different emissivity.
  • adastra22 8mo ago
    About 120 degC.
• wat10000 8mo ago
  A thought experiment. Imagine that you had some magic way of getting all the electricity you wanted at the south pole, you had good internet connectivity, and the various treaties about the place weren't an issue for you. Would you want to build a data center there? Seems like a pretty obvious "no" to me. Loudoun County is a much better choice, just to pick one alternative. Antarctica is an awfully inhospitable place and running a data center there would be a nightmare. And yet it's way better than space. It's much easier to get to. Cooling is about a thousand times easier. The radiation environment is much more forgiving. This whole concept is baffling to me. (Incidentally, a similar thought experiment is useful when talking about colonizing Mars. Think about colonizing the south pole. Mars is a harsher environment in just about every way, so take the difficulties of colonizing the south pole and multiply them.)
• xrd 8mo ago
  Elon has used the greater fool theory for so long that they no longer exist on earth (at least fools with money who aren't also using the greater fool theory). It makes perfect sense he would focus on space because if he does find aliens it'll be an entirely new investor pool for him, and he desperately needs that now.
• kabdib 8mo ago
  Computing hardware that isn't rad-hard is going to have a bad time without a handy atmosphere for shielding. And hardware that is happy in high-radiation environments is not going to be fast.
• taf2 8mo ago
  Isn't Starlink already basically a distributed datacenter in space? they have like ~9k+ satellites up there already at least according to: https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/stats.html https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/stats.html. what am I missing here?
  • ladberg 8mo ago
    I'd assume Starlink satellites do the minimal possible amount of compute required (thus power used, thus heat generated) to provide service. The builders of data centers are hungry for as many watts on Earth as they can source.
• cornonthecobra 8mo ago
  Given xAI's gross disregard for environmental regulations in building Colossus, the reason for building datacenters in space seems obvious: there's no EPA in space.
• JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > Kessler syndrome: a cascading explosion of debris crippling our access to space I'm taking the parts of this write-up I don't have expertise with a grain of salt after seeig this. Kessler cascades are real. Particularly at high altitudes. They're less of a problem in LEO. And in no case can they "[cripple] our access to space." (At current technology levels. To cripple access to space you need to vaporise material fractions of the Earth's crust into orbit.)
  • alansammarone 8mo ago
    Yep. I'm no fan of Elon - exactly the opposite, in fact - but this is just someone trying to look smart and eco-friendly by doing the simplest, least ambitious, most obvious and surface-level analysis. The sentence you mention was indeed a give away, but there are many others. Worst case scenario, nothing works and Elon burns a bunch of money, part of which goes into jobs and research. Best case scenario, we actually move away from technologies from the 50's and end up with daily, cheap earth-to-low-orbit (ideally something better than that - how about the moon?), no more whining about energy costs, and laser communication IRL. That's just the obvious stuff. Being "realistic" and "having a budget" is what companies like Google do. That's all good, but we have enough of those already.
  • marcosdumay 8mo ago
    > Particularly at high altitudes. Well, maybe "higher", but not really high. The lower the altitude, the larger the odds of making one, in a quadratic fashion. But also the lower the altitude, the less time it will last. There is some space where it lasts basically forever but is small enough for it to happen. It's higher than LEO, and way lower than things like GEO.
  • adastra22 8mo ago
    SpaceX made a request of the FCC to authorize a constellation of 1 million satellites. And these are going to be much larger, "data center" satellites. This many satellites, all in the same orbit (sun-synchronous is a specific orbit), vastly changes the math on Kessler syndrome.
• tonetheman 8mo ago
  [dead]
• quantum_state 8mo ago
  A pie in the sky
• mrandish 8mo ago
  > Ground-based solar panels have been getting more cost effective for decades and show no sign of slowing down. I'm no expert on solar but I thought there was some upper limit on how much power ground-based solar panels can generate per area based on how much energy gets through the atmosphere all the way to ground - and that panel efficiency was approaching that limit. However, I don't doubt ground-based panels can continue to improve in cost and other metrics and thus exert competitive pressure on space-based solutions.
  • dexwiz 8mo ago
    Requirements for power still don't come close to total or practical surface area. If we get to that point, space collectors with microwave beams to the ground are viable.
  • innis226 8mo ago
    People are gettingtoo hung up on the radiator math and completely missing the massive input advantage of AM0 versus AM1.5. On Earth you get around 1,000 Watts/m^2 (ideal), but in realtiy shave off 20–25% because of clouds and night time. In a sun-synchronous orbit, you’re pulling close to 1300 W/m^2, and that's 24x7. That is easily a 5x to 6x energy yield advantage per square meter of panel per day, and when you have that much surplus energy free from the vacuum, you can afford to brute-force the cooling problem by dumping massive wattage into active heat pumps to raise your radiator temps, effectively paying for the inefficiency of space cooling with the abundance of space power.
    • adastra22 8mo ago
      You do not solve a problem that is many orders of magnitude more difficult with a mere 5x to 6x efficiency gain.
• hahahahhaah 8mo ago
  I just purchased a sandwich I made from myself in a deal that values me a $1tn. I plan to make toasties in space.
• dathinab 8mo ago
  The really crazy thing is you don't need to know more then basic (non Hollywood) physics to know how dump this is 1. every gram you need to send to space is costly, a issue you don't have at ground level 2. cooling is a catastrophe, sure space is cold, but also a vacuum, so the cooling rate is roughly the infrared radiation rate. This means if you are not careful with the surface of a satellite it can end up being very slowly cooked by sunlight alone not including running any higher heat producing component (as it absorbs more heat from sunlight then it emits, there is a reason satellites are mostly white, silver or reflective gold in color). Sure better surface materials fix that, but not to a point where you would want to run any heavy compute on it. 3. zero repair-ability, most long running satellites have a lot of redundancy. Also at least if you are bulk buying Nvidea GPGPUs on single digit Million Euro basis it's not rare that 30% have some level of defect. Not necessary "fully broken" but "performs less good then it should/compared to other units" kind of broken. 4. radiation/solar wind protections are a huge problem. Heck even if you run things on earth it's a problem as long as your operations scale is large enough. In space things are magnitudes worse. 5. every rocket lunch causes atmospheric damage, so does every satellite evaporating on re-entry. That wasn't that relevant in the past, but might become a problem just for keeping stuff like Starlink running. We don't need to make it worse by putting datacenters into space. 6. Kessler Syndrom is real and could seriously hurt humanity as a whole, no reason to make it much more likely by putting things into space which don't need to go there. Last but not least, wtf would you even want to do it? There is zero benefit, non nada.
  • adastra22 8mo ago
    > sure space is cold Even this isn't true. It's ~120 degC in daylight in LEO. It only gets cold in the shade, but a solar powered data center is pretty useless in the shade.
    • hdgvhicv 8mo ago
      The solar labels are in the sun. Behind them they are in the shade.
      • 8mo ago
• slackerIII 8mo ago
  Remember what the Luddites actually did? They sabotaged the machines that were disrupting their livelihoods. If AI is as disruptive to large numbers of workers as some people think it will be, keep in mind it's a lot easier to destroy a GPU that's stored on earth than one in space. Anyone planning expenditures as large as a modern data center thinks about all kinds of risks (earthquakes, climate, power, etc), and so perhaps there is a premium for GPUs that are out of the reach of your median angry unemployed guy. (yes, this is nuts, but I can easily imagine some fever-dream pitch meeting where Musk is talking about it)
  • int0x29 8mo ago
    The luddites won't need to sabotage a space based GPU. They can just wait for waste heat, radiation, or a good old solar storm to do it for them. The rest of the ground lauch infrastructure is fragile.
• moomoo11 8mo ago
  What if you just took some ketamine and tried again? Does it make sense?
• _HMCB_ 8mo ago
  Like there isn’t enough stuff floating up there already.
• cdf 8mo ago
  I was listening to a podcast featuring Gavin Baker and he went on and on about models being defined in generations, and we will be moving from Blackwell generation to Rubin generation soon and it will be awesome. This is not something I know a lot about and he sounds like an expert I could learn so much from. Then he talked about datacenters in space and this is something I have some appreciation for, and I immediately knew he couldnt have done much Physics, and sure enough, I was right. There are "experts" out there who basically have no idea what they are talking about, "it is absolute zero in space in the shadow!", as though radiative cooling is that effective. And that's not even talking about part failures. How do we replace failed parts in space? This is a scam, but everybody is afraid to openly challenge eloquent "experts" who are confidently wrong.
• toxicplanes1 8mo ago
  [dead]
• IFC_LLC 8mo ago
  Just like an idea of using an oil-powered carriage instead of a good'ol horsie was in 1910. Listen, I totally agree, the tech makes absolutely no sense. It does not. But the fact that someone is willing to spend money on figuring this out is pretty good. The worst thing is going to happen, we'll have a cheaper space travel. And let the guys to have the first hit at it, wasting money on an enormous amount of research needed. Ain't my money being spent. As long as we don't have to use Russian rockets to send the US payload to the orbit, I'm cool with it.
  • danny_codes 8mo ago
    It is your money being spent. ~40B so far. Though half of that is for services. But more abstractly, it's our resources that are being allocated. The planet as a unit is deciding where to put it's effort. Apparently we're not very good at this
  • metabagel 8mo ago
    I can’t take any of it seriously.
• kittikitti 8mo ago
  A more reasonable project would be repurposing portions of the ISS for a data center and using that as a POC for larger scale stations.
• 7e 8mo ago
  Data centers in space make sense when you want it to cost 200x more than on land, be unavailable for repairs and upgrades, and be either high latency or be out of commission during periods of darkness.
• MBCook 8mo ago
  How much of this is because putting data centers in space is WAY harder for any terrestrial government to get their hands on and seize or block? They make no sense otherwise. The only other thing I can think of is the whole thing is just a scheme to get investment and they’re never going to actually go through with it. At this point I kind of think the former is more likely.
• zemaj 8mo ago
  I feel like he has no intention of implementing this. It's all just justification for it to not hit up against an regulatory objections to combining the companies.
• elamje 8mo ago
  I was talking to someone about this the other day. I was part of a team at NASA that developed a cooling system for the ISS and this whole premise makes no sense to me. 1. Getting things to space is incredibly expensive 2. Ingress/egress are almost always a major bottleneck - how is bandwidth cheaper in space? 3. Chips must be “Rad-hard” - that is do more error correcting from ionizing radiation - there were entire teams at NASA dedicated to special hardware for this. 4. Gravity and atmospheric pressure actually do wonders for easy cooling. Heat is not dissipated in space like we are all used to and you must burn additional energy trying to move the heat generated away from source. 5. Energy production will be cheaper from earth due to mass manufacturing of necessary components in energy systems - space energy systems need novel technology where economies of scale are lost. Would love for someone to make the case for why it actually makes total sense, because it’s really hard to see for me!
  • philipwhiuk 8mo ago
    > Chips must be “Rad-hard” - that is do more error correcting from ionizing radiation - there were entire teams at NASA dedicated to special hardware for this. They don't do RAD hardening on chips these days, they just accept error and use redundant CPUs.
    • elamje 8mo ago
      Where did you hear this?
    • adastra22 8mo ago
      You are confidently incorrect. Even Starlink uses rad-hardened CPUs. Redundant error correction is only really an option on launch hardware that only spends minutes in space. Note that on modern hardware cosmic rays permanently disable circuits, not mere bitflips.
      • NitpickLawyer 8mo ago
        > You are confidently incorrect. No, he's not. Dragon is using CotS, non rad-hardened CPUs. And it's rated to carry humans to space. > AWST: So, NASA does not require SpaceX to use radiation-hardened computer systems on the Dragon? John Muratore: No, as a matter of fact NASA doesn't require it on their own systems, either. I spent 30 years at NASA and in the Air Force doing this kind of work. My last job was chief engineer of the shuttle program at NASA, and before that as shuttle flight director. I managed flight programs and built the mission control center that we use there today. On the space station, some areas are using rad-hardened parts and other parts use COTS parts. Most of the control of the space station occurs through laptop computers which are not radiation hardened. > Q: So, these flight computers on Dragon – there are three on board, and that's for redundancy? A: There are actually six computers. They operate in pairs, so there are three computer units, each of which have two computers checking on each other. The reason we have three is when operating in proximity of ISS, we have to always have two computer strings voting on something on critical actions. We have three so we can tolerate a failure and still have two voting on each other. And that has nothing to do with radiation, that has to do with ensuring that we're safe when we're flying our vehicle in the proximity of the space station. I went into the lab earlier today, and we have 18 different processing units with computers in them. We have three main computers, but 18 units that have a computer of some kind, and all of them are triple computers – everything is three processors. So we have like 54 processors on the spacecraft. It's a highly distributed design and very fault-tolerant and very robust. [1] - https://aviationweek.com/dragons-radiation-tolerant-design https://aviationweek.com/dragons-radiation-tolerant-design
• gordian-mind 8mo ago
  Three counterpoints: 1) Kessler syndrome is a contingency. 2) This is a logistics issue, not a physical impossibility. 3) Those are different tradeoffs (solar in space). There is not really an argument there. All in all this is extremely weak reasoning, which is quite the contrast with the definitive title. I throw this to the "nerds need to feel smarter than Elon" pile of articles. :)
• Zanni 8mo ago
  Electric cars make no sense. Reusable rockets make no sense. Autonomous cars make no sense. Data centers in space make no sense. <--- You are here. Humanoid robots make no sense.
  • deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  • jeltz 8mo ago
    Hyperloop: makes no sense Solar roof tiles: makes no sense Lot's of tiny tunnels under cities: makes no sense Performance of the new roadster: makes no sense All four of the above were likely scams. Musk is not beyond running a scam.
  • oblio 8mo ago
    Cherry picking makes no sense.
  • jodrellblank 8mo ago
    - Electric motors were invented in 1827 and one of the first things the inventor did was a toy electric car in 1827. The first proper electric car was 1890, and they were popular as golf carts and milk floats through the 1900s. What they were lacking was good enough batteries. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle#History - Reusable rockets have been a thing since the Space Shuttle in 1981, building on a 1969 plan for reusable space vehicles. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle - Autonomous cars: human chauffeurs and taxis (and trains) so we can be moved around without doing the driving, go back to the first cars. We haven't had the technology to build them (and arguably don't and won't have until we get near AGI). - Data centers in space ... ???? Bueller? Bueller? - Humanoid robots were seen in Fritz Lang's Metropolis film in 1927, they've always made sense. What doesn't make sense is lying about having built humanoid robots and then having to admit they were being remote controlled, cough Tesla. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_(1927_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_(1927_film)
• briandw 8mo ago
  Eager Space [Orbital Data Centers Yes or No](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAcR7kqOb3o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAcR7kqOb3o) Goes into great detail with extensive calculations (for a YT video at least). TLDR: Cost to orbit needs to be under $200/kg before it makes sense.
• reilly3000 8mo ago
  I always thought that in the case of a rouge AI breakout that we could just cut the power or network. This makes both impossible. The sick genius of SkyNet was having the most defensible infrastructure when it became clear that whoever controls the biggest robot army can take out enemy data centers and control the world. Now I hope that shooting down LEO satellites is cheap and DIY-able. I think it’s all farce and technically unsound, but I also think that grok-5-elononly is a helluva drug. It’s really got him ready to rally investors behind “spreading the light of consciousness to the universe”. Oh to see the chat logs of their (Elon and his machine girlfriend)’s machinations.
• benl 8mo ago
  Data centers in space may or may not make sense (personally I'm quite skeptical) but the objections in the article certainly don't make sense. 1. The only reason there are 15,000 satellites in space is because SpaceX launched about 9,500 of them (Starlink is 65% of all satellites) on their semi-reusable Falcon 9. If fully-reusable Starship pans out, they will be launching satellites at 10x the rate of Falcon 9 at the very least. 2. You don't need to upgrade the satellites, you just launch new ones. The reason data center companies upgrade their servers is because they can't just build a new data center to hold the new chips. But satellites in space are a sunk cost, so just keep using the existing satellites while also launching new ones. 3. Falling solar panel costs decreases the power costs for both earth-based and space-based, but they're more efficient in space so the benefit would be proportionally greater there. As I said, I'm skeptical too, but let's be skeptical for good reasons.
  • audunw 8mo ago
    3. The falling costs won’t benefit space as much. The cost of sending mass to space will still be a big factor in the space solar panel costs. Much of the reason why solar is getting cheaper is not the panels themselves, but due to innovations that reduce installation costs. Those don’t apply to space (outside of the already assumed reductions in sending mass to space to make this viable)
    • benl 8mo ago
      Yes, launch cost is the crux of the matter. My skepticism is based on whether they’ll be able to get launch cost low enough and launch cadence high enough. SpaceX has shown the ability to get launch costs dramatically lower and cadence dramatically higher, but it’s not a slam dunk that those curves will continue to the levels needed for this idea to work.
  • jraby3 8mo ago
    A few additional items to rebut the lack of info in this Article: - SpaceX just requested a license to launch up to a million satellites. - the satellites already have some incredible anti collision software, which I believe Elon has now open sourced. - the cost to launch 1 kg to space has dropped by a factor of 10 in the past few years and is currently less than $1000. It's perfectly reasonable to estimate that over the next 10 years the cost could drop by another factor of 10, if not more, particularly if the heavy rockets are reusable. 1. https://techcrunch.com/2026/01/31/spacex-seeks-federal-approval-to-launch-1-million-solar-powered-satellite-data-centers/ https://techcrunch.com/2026/01/31/spacex-seeks-federal-appro... 2. https://starlink.com/updates/stargaze https://starlink.com/updates/stargaze 3. https://www.netizen.page/2025/05/cost-per-kilogram-to-low-earth-orbit.html?m=1 https://www.netizen.page/2025/05/cost-per-kilogram-to-low-ea... Edit: added item 3
• JackYoustra 8mo ago
  Data centers in space make sense because its nigh impossible to build things terrestrially. NIMBYism is so out of control the largest solar array in the US in the middle of the mojave got cancelled because it would interfere with the view. "Just change the law" ok sure we'll get right on it.
  • CamperBob2 8mo ago
    "Just" put them on container ships. Thousands in international waters at all times. Rent will be cheap.
• perfmode 8mo ago
  Current analysis shows space-based compute costs roughly 3x more per watt than terrestrial equivalents, requiring launch costs to fall below $200/kg before achieving economic parity—a threshold unlikely before the mid-2030s even with Starship’s full reusability. While technically not impossible, the space data center vision appears primarily designed to support SpaceX’s anticipated mid-2026 IPO and justify a $1.5 trillion valuation rather than solve near-term compute constraints.
  • jodrellblank 8mo ago
    How can there ever ever be economic parity between (doing x) and (doing x + launching x into space) ?
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• monocasa 8mo ago
  Another thing that doesn't make sense about them is that DCs get a lot of out of physical locality. Caches become hot as different use case spin up and down during the day near their customers. If the nodes are spinning around the earth at orbital velocities, then all the benefits of physical locality are thrown out the window.
  • condensedcrab 8mo ago
    But apologists would say that putting the data centers in LEO would mean that latency to a client via a ground station wouldn't be much more than ~50 ms extra. At least LATAM and Africa would be getting a good deal out of it with better coverage.
• sinuhe69 8mo ago
  As the focus here is solely on the US, and the comments focus too much on the impossibility of heat dissipation, I want to include some information to broaden the perspective. - In the EU, the ASCEND study conducted in 2024 by Thales Alenia Space found that data center in space could be possible by 2035. Data center in space could contribute to the EU's Net-Zero goal by 2050 [1] - heat dissipation could be greatly enhanced with micro droplet technology, and thereby reducing the required radiator surface area by the factor of 5-10 - data center in space could provide advantages for processing space data, instead of sending them all to earth. - the Lonestar project proved that data storage and edge processing in space (moon, cislunar) is possible. - A hybrid architecture could dramatically change the heat budget: + optical connections reduce heat + photonic chips (Lightmatter and Q.ANT) + processing-in-memory might reduce energy requirement by 10-50 times I think the hybrid architecture could provide decisive advantages, especially when designed for AI inference workloads, [1] https://ascend-horizon.eu/ https://ascend-horizon.eu/
  • adastra22 8mo ago
    > micro droplet technology Intentionally causing Kessler Syndrome? > A hybrid architecture could dramatically change the heat budget: + optical connections reduce heat + photonic chips (Lightmatter and Q.ANT) + processing-in-memory might reduce energy requirement by 10-50 times It would also make ground-based computation more efficient by the same amount. That does nothing to make space datacenters make sense.
    • rockemsockem 8mo ago
      Kessler syndrome is only a problem if the satellites are in LEO. They don't have to be.
      • adastra22 8mo ago
        They do have to be if they want to be approved by the FCC. And btw Kessler syndrome applies to any orbital band. You've got the logic backwards. Kessler syndrome is usually only considered a threat for LEO because that's where most of the satellites are. But if you're throwing million(s) of satellites into orbit, it becomes an issue at whatever orbital height you pick.
• quirkot 8mo ago
  What? A pump and dump scheme? I am shocked I tell you, shocked
• dumbfounder 8mo ago
  You can debate this until you are blue in the face. If the costs are less they will do it. If they aren’t they won’t do it. That’s the only sense that needs to be made.
  • TheDong 8mo ago
    Ah, yes, the "efficient market hypothesis", it's well known that no company has ever gone bankrupt because every company only does things that are optimally efficient and profitable. No company has ever made an investment in something that ended up being more expensive than calculated, or so expensive it bankrupted them.
    • dumbfounder 8mo ago
      You are assuming they will commit to the solution and ride it to their grave trying to make it work. They will experiment and figure out a way to make it cheaper, or they will give up. They have plenty of money to experiment with this.
• wewewedxfgdf 8mo ago
  This makes the same amount of sense as colonising Mars.
• yazaddaruvala 8mo ago
  I’m surprised everyone is worried about heat dissipation. Datacenters in space is ambiguous enough to mean on lunar soil which provides plenty of heat dissipation using geothermal heat pumps. Similarly mass to orbit is also less problematic if silicon factories (including the refineries) are built on lunar soil as well.
  • adastra22 8mo ago
    They have filed actual plans with the FCC for their satellite constellation. They are not talking about lunar data centers.
• seydor 8mo ago
  That's the point. Nonsensical ideas (like humans on mars) drive valuations higher. There is not even a point to argue about practical matters.
• Jabrov 8mo ago
  What jurisdiction does a data center in space fall under, anyway? The one of the nation that launched it?
• andsoitis 8mo ago
  Data centers on earth alone don't make sense if we want to expand further into the galaxy.
• notepad0x90 8mo ago
  Two reasons why it makes sense (really really good reasons): 1) Water scarcity and energy scarcity here on earth 2) It will drive down launch costs and promotes investment in orbital facilities and launch capabilities. those two reasons alone are enough.
  • adastra22 8mo ago
    What does water scarcity have to do with anything? Data centers don't use water. They slightly heat it, and then it flows back out to whatever it would have done anyway.
    • notepad0x90 8mo ago
      They need fresh water which is scarce unlike salt water, once they use it, it can't be used for anything else. They're competing with water supplies of municipalities these days. Not a big deal if you're near the great lakes or the missisipi, but a big deal in california, arizona, utah,etc.. and that's just the US. There are places that are becoming unlivable because of water supply issues, and datacenters are needing to be built near them.
      • adastra22 8mo ago
        > once they use it, it can't be used for anything else This is not true!
• colordrops 8mo ago
  What if they diverted a decent sized asteroid into earth orbit and put the data center onto that? Could it be put into a sun-synchronous orbit, cover one side with solar cells, and use the backside of the asteroid itself for cooling?
• numpad0 8mo ago
  no, no, no, the key enabler to space datacenter is complete out-of-world computer 3D printers. You print entire 130nm, hell, even 130 micrometer GPUs and DDR2 VRAMs to go with, entirely on the Moon solely from Moon dusts, and shoot the complete satellites out into Earth LEO using maglev sleds. PUEs, opex, nothing matter because the Moon factory is self contained and don't interact with Earthian economy at all. The ssh key into the factory will be the source to free money to whoever holding it. Is that possible in our lifetime? I'd be optimistic about that. Can SpaceX pull that off? Space what? ...
• stevep98 8mo ago
  Surely, the question is: how big do the radiators have to be? gemini says that the NVIDIA DGX H100 is 130kg and takes 11kW. It says space-based radiators in the 100kW range are approx 15kg per kW. And space-based solar panels are approx 1kg per kW. So let's says we're talking about 1 system that bundles 9 DGX H100's. That's 1.2T for the computing system, 1.5T for the radiator, 100kg for the solar panels, and let's say 2T for the propulsion, propellant, guidance, and all the other spacecraft stuff. That's a total of about 5T, and the radiator is just about 20% of the mass budget. The power radiated is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature, so they would be incentivized to develop a heat exchanger with a high temperature working fluid.
  • vjk800 8mo ago
    I would assume that the current GPU systems are not optimized for weight. I would also assume that they need to build special purpose GPU equipment for space, which could possibly be made much lighter than the current ones.
• HardCodedBias 8mo ago
  Of course it makes sense. The regulatory framework is getting more and more difficult for data centers. The options are move to countries with less of an uphill regulatory burden (UAE?), but this comes with other issues. Space it is.
• utopcell 8mo ago
  I thought chips need to be radiation-hardened to work in space.
• alfiedotwtf 8mo ago
  The article kind of ended all of a sudden without much of a conclusion… but as most people by now have realised once they heard of the merging of Musk and Musk, it sounds more likely just a way of shifting money to pay himself rather than to actually build anything he says. I’d even bet that when they do IPO, there will be ZERO mention of “space data centres” in the prospectus!
• foxglacier 8mo ago
  It makes a misleading argument about the price of solar panels falling. The cost of solar power installations has been flat for a decade because it's dominated by other costs. Also why talk about training not inference? That needs data centers too and could be what they're intending to do. So this post is clearly not an effort to objectively work out the feasibility but just a biased list of excuses to support the author's unsubstantiated opinion.
• Juliate 8mo ago
  If someone had the tech to cool stuff in space, that is required for this to happen, they’d have tons of easier and more lucrative opportunities right now on Earth to become the new richest person. Where is the tech?
• yawniek 8mo ago
  I think what many people miss is that energy became far less location dependent if you put compute next to its generation. The latency for token generation is not so important. So the ratios between energy consumed, bandwidth and latency would in theory favour building dark token factories in remote but optimal locations. But i guess construction and logistics are an issue.
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• exe34 8mo ago
  "Let him cook" makes so much sense here.
• gostsamo 8mo ago
  AI in space makes no sense because the data center will be distributed and half of the time your processors will be waiting for data (if you are lucky). When they are working, you need to cool them down. When they finally heed the call of gravity, your vibe coders can see the vapor of their work in the sky and you throw the entire unit as a loss (might be a net positive for tax purposes). This is BS, everyone knows that this is BS, but because this is Elon, there are still people who don't call out the BS. It might be distraction, he might be delusional, he might be asking his investors to stop asking for profit by giving them shares from SpaceX, but this is not him discovering new physics.
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• estomagordo 8mo ago
  I agree with the author and the bit about xAI and investors makes sense. But why does a company like Google invest in this ridiculous idea?
• PunchyHamster 8mo ago
  Let's do some napkin math on it Current satellites get around 150W/kg from solar panels. Cost of launching 1kg to space is ~$2000, so we're at $13.3(3)/Watt, that just power, let's assume that cooling will cost us same per kg, the same amount need to be dissipated so let's round it to $27 One NVidia GB200 rack is ~120kW. To just power it, you need to send $3 240 000 worth of payload into space. Then you need to send additional $3 106 000 (rack of them is 1553kg) worth of servers. Plus some extra for piping. We're already at $6.3 mil a pop for just hauling it up to orbit, with no cost of solar cells included I'd imagine comparable hardware for just some solar + batteries on ground is around $200k. I dunno where the repeated 5x cost number comes from. I suspect whoever pushed it was just lying
• abalone 8mo ago
  There are plenty of legit concerns here about e.g. the launch externalities which are actually greater than the launch costs themselves, i.e. climate impact to future generations. However one flaw in this critique is that is only looks at the cost of ground-based solar panels and not their overall scalability. That is, manufacturing cost is far from the only factor. There is also the need for real estate in areas with good sun exposure that also have sufficient fresh water supply for cleaning. When we really consider the challenges of deploying orders of magnitude more terrestrial solar, it really requires a more detailed and specific critique of the orbital vision. Positive includes near continuous solar exposure (in certain orbits) and no water requirements. Much has been said of cooling but remember, there is a lot of literal space between the satellites for radiative cooling fins. It is envisioned they would network via optical links, and each mini satellite would be roughly on the order of a desktop GPU (not a whole data center rack). The vision is predicated on leveraging a ton of space for lots of mini satellites on the order of a Dell desktop tower. The terrestrial areas that are really cold are also not that great for solar exposure. Personally I don't know how it will play out but the core concern I have about making these kinds of absolutist predictions is they make weak assumptions about the sustainable scalability of terrestrial power. And that is definitely the case here in that it only looks at the manufacturing cost of solar.
  • worldsayshi 8mo ago
    > There is also the need for real estate in areas with good sun exposure that also have sufficient fresh water supply for cleaning. Solar panels are 20x more efficient than growing corn for ethanol. Swap out some of those 30 million acres of ethanol corn fields (in the US) and you'll have more energy than you need. More details here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM
    • rswail 8mo ago
      Utility scale PV farms should be seen as literally harvesting solar power, not generating it, while still allowing other agriculture like sheep grazing to occur using the same fields. You plant a PV panel and add its irrigation (power interconnect) and remote monitoring, then you harvest power for the next 25+ years. Ethanol production excess is a specific US problem because of the misalignment of incentives and lobbying.
• jtrn 8mo ago
  This sentence proves the author has no ability for logical thinking: Data centers in space only make sense if they are cost effective relative to normal data centers. I too don't think it's currently a sensible solution. But the author completely unable to make a proper case. For instance, just to refute that one claim, there are many reasons to do it in space even at an cost. Space-based data centers provide an off-world backup that is immune to Earth-specific disasters like earthquakes, floods, fires, or grid collapses. Servers in orbit are physically isolated from terrestrial threats, making them safe from riots, local warfare, or physical break-ins. Moving infrastructure to space solves local community disputes by removing the strain on residential power grids and freeing up land for housing or nature. Space data centers do not deplete Earth’s freshwater supply for cooling, unlike terrestrial centers which consume billions of gallons annually. Solar panels in orbit can access high-intensity sunlight 24 hours a day without interference from clouds, night, or the atmosphere. Data stored in space can exist outside of national borders, protecting it from seizure, censorship, or the legal jurisdiction of unstable governments. Data transmission can be faster in space because light travels roughly 30% faster in a vacuum than it does through fiber optic cables. Processing data directly in orbit is necessary for satellites and future space stations to avoid the delay and cost of beaming raw data back to Earth
  • ndsipa_pomu 8mo ago
    They may well avoid terrestrial threats by having them in space, but then they become subject to different threats such as solar storms, high energy cosmic rays, space debris collisions etc. I think the main reason to host them in space is to escape Earth jurisdictions, but even that is dubious as there will be people involved that reside on the Earth.
  • pointlessone 8mo ago
    While it’s true that there are no floods or earthquakes in space it’s not exactly a safe place to be. Radiation and cosmic rays become a much greater threat. Shielding provided by the atmosphere would have to be replaced. You also underestimate the cooling problem. The fact that space is cold doesn’t mean it’s easy to cool things off in space. On earth the main cooling strategy is to transfer heat through direct contact and move the hot stuff away. Be it air or water, as you mentioned. In space your only option is to radiate heat away. And that’s while half of you is under intense sunlight. I think you also undersell the thread of warfare in space. Sure, a guy with Molotov can’t get you space data center but we’ve had satellite shot down. So maybe not every war is a threat but, say China or Russia (or other space-faring nation) could take care of a satellite if absolutely needed. National seizures are also still a threat. If only being outside national borders was such a great defense we’d see some data centers in the sea by now. So being in space is immune to some of the known problems but also comes with a whole lot of novel issues, not solved at scale yet. And so far I haven’t seen any sufficiently detailed proposed solutions to even consider the trade of known problems with readily available solutions for new issues with lots of unknowns.
• egorfine 8mo ago
  Truth doesn't matter. What matters is that investors and shareholders love to hear about future space data centers. Obligatory /s.
• cess11 8mo ago
  "Data centers in space only make sense if they are cost effective" The author forgot to add that this is only true from the perspective of their own bias. To someone else it might make a lot of sense, e.g. someone who expects militant resistance to the "data centers" from the general public or some other actor that is highly unlikely to achieve space capabilities.
• pftburger 8mo ago
  Reasonably sure this has less to do with putting data centres in space and more to do with getting them less auditable (see the other news about X getting raided about Grok)
• trashb 8mo ago
  As others point out this is a bad idea. Asside from the other excellent comments on power consumption, cooling and radiation. One point I didn't see being made in the comments much is maintenance costs. Now I don't find myself in the facility of a data center often in daily life, however I do know that medium to big data centers require 24/7 hardware replacement. I believe this is what those 5 guys with the bikes and scooters are doing in every data center. That would be very difficult, near impossible in space (with the current space fairing infrastructure).
  • laverya 8mo ago
    Do those people actually _repair_ hardware, or do they swap bad hardware for good chips? Can SpaceX not just say "OK, GPU #7 on satellite #15872 is broken, don't use it" and just accept that they're now overbuilt on power/cooling for that sat?
    • trashb 8mo ago
      From what I understand it is in part swapping it, in part upgrading it. Some of it is preventative some of it is reactive. They could overbuild the hardware and slowly disable capacity I think that will not really work. Data centers are static in infrastructure but not in the systems running within them. Actually they are constantly changing to meet the needs. Overbuilding also comes with a cost when talking about space, it is still very costly to get stuff up there and there is limited bandwidth downstream, you want to balance those two. So if you're overbuilding it costs a lot to get up there, if you disable what's up there you don't fully utilize the bandwidth. For example AI data centers now use very different hardware compared to 5 or 10 years ago that upgrade path is just a lot harder when your data center is in space.
• lisp2240 8mo ago
  The French government issued a child porn warrant for the CEO and it isn't even a topic for discussion. That's what doesn't make sense to me. It's silly to talk about solar panel prices like reality matters at all to his cult of followers. It doesn't have to make sense. The less sense the better.
  • mytailorisrich 8mo ago
    It's not a warrant, it is a summon for interview. That's actually very different: the way you phrased it suggests that there is a warrant for his arrest (mandat d'arrêt)...
    • lisp2240 8mo ago
      Did I say "arrest"? No. I fucking did not.
• elvircrn 8mo ago
  Surprised nobody here linked https://andrewmccalip.com/space-datacenters https://andrewmccalip.com/space-datacenters.
• sam_goody 8mo ago
  I get it. This is a scam. The discussion is not about what you think it is. (EDIT: Or not, I don't care.) BUT the fact that we are even arguing about whether or not we should be putting data centers into space is so incredibly absurd to someone who watched the Challenger explode and assumed that space wouldn't be ventured into again in my lifetime. People don't realize how much the priors have changed. Take a minute to appreciate that. We are living in a world where people are debating if it makes sense to spend a bazillion dollars to put a hard disk into orbit. I wonder if the Klingons are good at cyber warfare.
  • foobiekr 8mo ago
    The problem is that software people are clueless.
• nemo136 8mo ago
  No, but protecting x/xAI from bankruptcy by linking it to the most promising company in Musk's portfolio does. You just need a justification. This is while they try to find a solution to earn money with it.
• alkonaut 8mo ago
  The worst thing about this isn't that it makes no sense. It's that it doesn't even _try_ to make sense. These companies wanted to merge for financial reasons and the invented reason is nonsensical. We shouldn't even give the nonsensical reason the benefit of trying to make sense of it.
• blauditore 8mo ago
  The Kessler syndrome is mentioned, satellites colliding, causing a cascade of follow-up collisions. This gets brought up a lot, but people have a poor intuition on how large the orbit space is. Think of it this way: It's obviously larger that Earth's surface, and placing, say, a million objects on Earth still leaves a lot of space between them (there are thousands as many humans). Yes, satellites move in certain orbits, not in random places, but space is large, and humans are bad with imagining large numbers and things. The illustrations with fat dots on tiny earth images are misleading too IMO. Apart of that, I do agree that space data centers are probably just a marketing stunt at this point, although some things could obviously be done to increase their chances, like more lightweight designs on GPUs, something that was never a big topic before.
  • padjo 8mo ago
    The other way people get confused about Kessler syndrome is that they imagine it's like the movie Gravity where it happens suddenly rather than a slow process that plays out over years/decades.
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• pointlessone 8mo ago
  Whatever it is it’s not driven by sense or even feasibility of data centers in space. To me it looks like the next Musk’s grift. Remember Mars? Have you heard about it recently? He threw it to the Internet and everyone got excited for a minute. Then nerds did quick math and it didn’t make any sense. And so everyone forgot about Mars. This is the same. Hype everyone up for a week or two to inflate stock before the merger/purchase/IPO/whatever. That is all.
  • hamburgererror 8mo ago
    Exactly, Musk is just playing pump and dump with industrial projects.
• InsideTehMatrix 8mo ago
  AST Spacemobile is successfully deploying cell towers in space; to compete with Elons Starlink. Not to mention ASTS is collaborating with American Tower, Google, ATT, Verizon, Nokia, and other big dogs for this venture. Now a DC is magnitudes different then a cell tower/satellite but hey .. if the RoI is there, it can be done
• OsamaJaber 8mo ago
  Keep talking like that and people will colonize space
• lambdaone 8mo ago
  The thing I find most notable is the lack of any concrete information on how these things are to be cooled, other than quotes like "space cooling is free". If you want to radiate away the heat, you are either limited by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which requires extraordinarily large radiators at any reasonable operating temperature, or have to develop a "super-Planckian" radiator technology, something which while it may be theoretically possible doesn't seem to actually exist yet as a practical technology. The only other plausible technology I can think of would be to use evaporative or sublimation-based cooling, but that would consume vast quantities of mass in the process, every bit of which would have to be delivered to space first. Has anyone seen any published work that suggests it is actually anywhere near economically feasible to dissipate megawatts of power in space, using either these or any other technology?
• Snoozus 8mo ago
  This only makes sense if it somehow helps to evade some kind of regulation. I'm not quite sure which though.
• SilverBirch 8mo ago
  I'm sorry I really don't understand this. I have a computer. I put it in a warehouse. You have a computer, you shoot it into space. What problem have you solved? Is this all an effort to utilize more efficient solar panels? Are solar panels really the limiting factor for data centres?
  • AlexandrB 8mo ago
    I think some people like this because it pushes libertarian "no need for environmental or regulatory review" buttons. There's a kernel of a valid argument there, but it seems overstated given that companies seem to have little trouble getting approval for big datacenter buildouts here on earth. There's also the coolness factor, I guess. But why does no one talk about launching RackSpace servers into space? I think the whole thing is tied to AI because of the hype, not because sending servers into space has any kind of material advantages.
    • iamleppert 8mo ago
      Not to mention the fact that you trade one source of pollution for another. You think giant rockets to lift tons of equipment into space is good for the environment?
• deafpolygon 8mo ago
  It’s less about putting compute in space as occupying that space before anyone else does. For any reason: spying, space warfare, network and communication. First mover advantage, and all.
  • NathanKP 8mo ago
    Bingo. I elaborated on this idea more in my comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46884246 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46884246 People are acting like a space data centre would be running a traditional workload. No, it's probably running a military one, some sort of AI powered modern version of Dead Hand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand). Autonomous warfare could get real dark, real fast.
• Ekaros 8mo ago
  Thinking of power infra. Even solar. Doesn't that last 20 or 30 years at least? With some maintenance, but before full overhaul. So in space you would probably decommission it at same time right? Wouldn't that be additional cost?
• NathanKP 8mo ago
  My dark theory is that the goal is to run an AI overlord in space such that it is difficult to counter it from Earth. If you assume that these people aren't completely stupid, then there is some reason why they want this workload running at great physical distance from all the people down on Earth. It's probably not to protect people on Earth. After all they'll happily deorbit satellites and other junk from orbit and let it rain down on us. And they will happily destroy the environment with all those rocket launches too. Therefore it must be to protect the workload from us. What is a workload that is something that people would probably want to destroy, and which would also provide enough value to offset the expense to launch and run in space? The only thing that might make sense is a military AI platform. Think something that observes Earth, launches missiles, and controls terrestrial drone armies remotely, with relatively low latency. It gets built and launched thanks to endless military budget, and once it is up there, running such an AI from space means that effectively the only people who can take it out are nation state level foes who can launch rockets into low earth orbit. And this thing is a satellite, probably part of a network that is watching the Earth all the time. Start building something that looks like a rocket launch site, and the AI will see, then you get hit by a missile or taken out by a drone first before you get a chance to attack the platform. It sounds like sci-fi, but in the future, if we let it happen, there could absolutely be nearly invulnerable autonomous AI platforms in space overseeing everything, and making decisions, and issuing commands. Of course there could still be a massive solar flare event, or a Kessler syndrome event that releases us all from AI enforced servitude. Anyway, it's a not so fun thought experiment, and let's hope this stays sci-fi, so we can just enjoy a fun Hollywood film about this rather than experiencing it firsthand.
• running101 8mo ago
  This is when you know we reached peak AI. Data centers in space talk.
  • ravenstine 8mo ago
    Almost. We will see peek once a pyramid scheme proposing that everyone can profit off AI emerges.
• fsloth 8mo ago
  Of course it makes sense. It's a cool story to pump up the valuation in the AI datacenter boom. This meme will keep on delivering until (if) the AI bubble bursts.
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• mxfh 8mo ago
  The whole premise misses the point, that earth is somehow in the very same space too. Adding a global UHVDC grid to even out dips in local PV performance due to cloud cover and the diurnal cycle on spaceship earth seems to be magnitudes cheaper and scaleable than this loony pitch. The only thing making this hard is requiring supranational collaboration.
• jhoechtl 8mo ago
  Space - no. Moon - yes Space is cold but has little mass. Either heat can radiated or transfered. To transfer heat, mass which easily absorbs heat is required. The moon might be suitable for that.
• aeon_ai 8mo ago
  Elon announced this so he could troll the comments on HN and get all of this incredibly valuable armchair expertise in solving his problems.
• dhab 8mo ago
  By combining ai with space, in addition to any other plays that he might be playing around legal or financial areas, he's positioning (marketing) spaceX for the bandwagon that everyone else might jump into to deploy a space datacentre. He's providing the medium (spacex rockets) to realise this potentially unfeasible idea. He makes additional money that way - to then create a new type of money-making fuel after that. HN audience might be calculative - but the rest of the population is far less so. This might also be a new vehicle to mask any space warfare technology deployments.
• rando77 8mo ago
  You might want some compute in space that you know is very hard to physically interfere with. But general purpose compute no
• andix 8mo ago
  It's a scam for investors. The self-driving car worked too well. Tesla is promising that for over a decade now, and still can't deliver. They came much closer to the goal, but are still very far away from it. Shareholders don't seem to care.
• danieljanes 8mo ago
  ViT (Vision Transformer) fine-tuned on a Starcloud satellite in space (using the Flower framework) -- to the best of our knowledge, this is a world first: https://flower.ai/blog/2026-02-02-flower-labs-and-starcloud-reach-ai-milestone-in-orbit/ https://flower.ai/blog/2026-02-02-flower-labs-and-starcloud-...
• chias 8mo ago
  Data centers in space make perfect sense, in exactly the same way as a jetpack made perfect sense. It is an excellent vehicle to ride out some juicy government contracts for as long as you can keep the grift going. https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/17/fake-it-until-you-dont-make-it/#twenty-one-seconds https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/17/fake-it-until-you-dont-ma...
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• Nevermark 8mo ago
  Heat energy shedding is often talked about as an Achilles Heal of orbital computation. But heat radiation rates are proportional to temperature to the 4th power!!!! That is a magical law. The quality of heat pumps used to concentrate heat, will drive the economics and structure of heat dissipation. Seldom do we get constraints that favorable to work with.
• JKCalhoun 8mo ago
  Feels like this is about as unserious as flamethrowers, the Boring Company, and Hyperloop. We're living in the Age of Distraction… amusing ourselves to death (as usual).
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• wendgeabos 8mo ago
  Consider: If you genuinely believe that the only important goal is to make life multiplanetary, (and note I'm not defending this position here, just asserting it as an explanation of behavior) then anything that drives money towards your work on that goal is worth pursuing particularly if you think time is short.
• inglor_cz 8mo ago
  This being a forum full of engineers, it is not surprising that everyone concentrates on the technical challenges thereof. But that may be a distraction. I suspect that Musk wants to build space data centers in order to mitigate political and societal problems, which may yet prove more intractable than cooling in space. The current expansion of terrestrial data centers has already caused a huge backlash. Their adversaries may well try to regulate them out of existence, at least locally. If an important jurisdiction like California or Germany subjects building of new data centers to regulations similar to building, say, a new nuclear power station, they will achieve a de-facto stop on further development there even without banning them outright. Space, while not entirely lawless, is much harder to regulate this way. Local authorities have no power over it, nor do governments of nations without space capabilities. Big authorities of big nations (the FAA etc.) do, but they will likely be more friendly to already established launch businesses like SpaceX, not least because of the geopolitical dimensions of having a vibrant space sector. From Musk's POV, this may be worth the additional cost and technical troubles.
• hk1337 8mo ago
  I don’t know, it probably would have been useful if Cyberdyne Systems had developed its AI in space?
• ineedasername 8mo ago
  It makes sense if you want low-latency compute accessible to other things in space making use of it: Pharmaceutical research, manufacturing. These are large, non speculative areas of likely growth in the space industry. Manufacturing especially will require lots of inference compute with the AI systems currently under development for industrial robotics. If you're looking at this and saying "Lol, no, we don't need data centers in space just to power more GPT sycophancy and some health insurance company's RAG workflows." Then you're right, so just move on from that usage and consider the things we'd like to do in space, and especially the things we're already doing but want to do more of. I know, my gut was telling me this is ridiculous, premature at best even through the lens of expanding space industry. But then with respect to the need for data centers-- had I even thought about it a year ago, my gut would have laughed if someone had said "Buy Wester Digital, HDD's are a growth stock".
• varispeed 8mo ago
  It makes sense if you want to avoid tax. You can put artificial costs and deduct them. Nobody is going to go to space and check.
• groundzeros2015 8mo ago
  When an invention has not been made before it’s usually because people are lacking an insight that the inventors have. You can’t read a 300 word article in 1930 and know that a formula 1 engine could not be built.
• furyg3 8mo ago
  This whole thing is Musk just trying to keep the hype train going. Musk has learned one neat trick from all of his (quite admirable) success with Tesla and SpaceX: hype is more profitable than actually doing stuff that generates value now. Tesla's valuation has been nuts for a while. The music was going to stop playing at some point, so something something robotaxis, something something androids, something something AI. Keep the investors duped while you can move money around and leverage it to stay relevant. Cars are out, social media as well (especially X), but Space is still in, and even more so AI. So let's move the cost center with world domination potential (AI) over to the one company that's making money and has a still has a cash-out potential via an IPO. I'm just so tired of it all. I actually think 'boutique' businesses (companies that generate real value to real users and are profitable now) are the only thing that can save our economy medium-term, but investors and the government are having none of it. And the result is that these bait-and-switch scams will continue.
• jongjong 8mo ago
  Clearly the desire to have data centers in space is so that AI can control humans remotely without having to worry about backlash and potential dismantling. Besides this, it's concerning how much stuff we're sending to space. One day we'll have to start worrying about satellite parts falling on us.
• BiteCode_dev 8mo ago
  Can't wait for competitors destroying the other guys installation because just like international waters, there is no police or border there.
• cbeach 8mo ago
  I'm glad I read HN. My take-away is - SpaceX is still an extremely good stock to hold. However, the stupid money will buy the stock at IPO on the promise of space datacentres. When SpaceX inevitably u-turns on this plan and the stock plummets temporarily, THAT will be a good time to buy in.
• indycliff 8mo ago
  It sounds cool and gets investors.
• rushingcreek 8mo ago
  One major point I haven’t seen mentioned is maintenance. Nvidia GPUs, particularly H100s, have a failure rate orders of magnitudes higher than traditional CPU-only hardware. I myself have accidentally melted an H100 during a large-scale training run. While it’s trivial to replace a broken GPU in the ground, it seems to be infeasible in space during the life of the satellite. Getting a human or robot “fixer” spacecraft to it would likely cost more than the $30K GPU itself.
• t312227 8mo ago
  hello, as always: imho. (!) we already had this topic before, an example for another good article regarding physical arguments against this idea would be: "Datacenters in space are a terrible, horrible, no good idea" ~ late 2025 * https://taranis.ie/datacenters-in-space-are-a-terrible-horrible-no-good-idea/ https://taranis.ie/datacenters-in-space-are-a-terrible-horri... TL;DR: It's not going to work. idk ... maybe elon has something else in mind with this merger!? cheers, a..z
• kgwxd 8mo ago
  This sound like a Musk "idea". click. Of course.
• qoez 8mo ago
  > Training and serving frontier AI at scale takes hundreds of thousands of GPUs. xAI’s Colossus cluster reportedly has 200,000 GPUs. OpenAI has plans for millions of them. Competing in this market would require launching hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of satellites into space No? You'd only need one with lots of gpus on the ship at the same time
• tgtweak 8mo ago
  The crux of it is that radiative cooling in space is dependent on exposed surface, not total surface area like a radiator or heatsink on earth - this means if you just put an existing finned heatsink in space it would radiate most of it's heat back to itself - the only net cooling you'd have is the amount that can radiate outwards without hitting itself. For a benchmark - the IIS uses about 4500sqft (420 sqm) of radiators just to keep it's onboard equipment (~70KW) cooled. That's ~150-200 W/sqm. That means, per GPU, you'd need about 2.5-3.0 sqm of passive radiators. For a 1MW satellite (~8 datacenter racks of GB200/NVL72) you'd need basically half a football field of bleeding-edge solar panels (that also need to radiate their heat on the reverse side) and a similar sized cooling array of heat radiators for the electronics. This is on the scale of 40-50 tons - about 10% of the IIS. This should fit on falcon heavy or starship - assuming the solar array and radiators can fold up to fit inside. You could, purely based on weight, launch 2 of these per starship launch. If you consider the Opex savings (electricity, rent, facilities maintenance) and putting 2 of these on a single starship launch, I still think the ROI would be too long. You're saving about ~$1M per year in Opex but it's costing you $25M to launch it into space and likely an extra ~$50M in satellite equipment (based on starlink satellite costs) on top of the compute. Will those GPUs still be useful in 10 years? Probably not. I don't think the math is there that justifies the free electricity - even at gigawatt scale (thousands of satellites mass-produced) and at a dramatically lower cost per satellite and per launch. Getting costs down on this would involve tightly integrating the compute and the satellite hardware which would make upgrading the compute independently from the cooling/power infrastructure in the future a significant challenge.
  • gwbas1c 8mo ago
    Makes me wonder: Back in the early 1990s I read some children's futurist book that suggested that we might send solar panels to space that would then beam energy via microwaves to the surface. The book was more fantasy than science, so I took it with a huge grain of salt and appreciated it for its entertainment value. But do you think schemes that try to direct solar energy to the surface are more practical then running datacenters in space?
    • tgtweak 8mo ago
• est 8mo ago
  Data centers in space have one advantage: FBIs can't physically raid them.
• TGower 8mo ago
  I wonder if the author was making similar arguments against solar power 20 years ago. The case for both isn't one of immediate ecenomic advantage, though that may come with sufficient development like solar has had. If you take it as a given that compute demand continues scaling, at some point we will need to shift power generation off Earth, and it's a lot easier to move computed data streams instead of terrawatts of power.
• 1970-01-01 8mo ago
  Until someone actually launches a prototype, this is not happening. The economy of just doing everything on the ground is underestimated. And the technology simply is still not ready. LEO sats randomly falling down is a daily occurrence. I would love to see the Excel spreadsheet these investors are drooling over. It probably has less than 6 tabs.
  • originalvichy 8mo ago
    This is the same guy that had his followers preach about how cars in tunnels for public transit is better than… trains in tunnels… Do not expect logical arguments when dealing with this guy and his followers.
• wkoszek 8mo ago
  Starship payload: 100,000 kg (100 tons). Looks like they talked about 150 tons and even 250 tons. My understanding is that they can be adding more engines to get more thrust. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2022/02/spacex-reusable-rocket-costs-versus-airplanes.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2022/02/spacex-reusable-rocket... -- looks like target price for Starship launch would be $3--$5m according to the author. Wouldn't the /kg price to SpaceX be: 3000000/100000 = $30/kg -- 5000000/100000 = $50/kg? If they recover everything and produce fuel at scale, wouldn't it drop the cost even more. What many people quote here are commercial rates, I think. SpaceX won't pay those prices. Can someone check my math
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• zouhair 8mo ago
  Data centers on earth don't make sense either.
• alcomatt 8mo ago
  heat dissipation is one thing - another is the recycling - anything he shoots into the orbit will essentially be disposable, single use DCs. Once they fail, it will be just a dangerous junk waiting to be deorbited. And all the precious materials which normally get recycled will be lost....
• krick 8mo ago
  Honestly, it is funny that people even seriously discuss this. I mean, now. It is such a blatant bullshit that you'd expect this time people would say "okay, now Musk went too far, nobody would buy into this". Yeah, I wish.
• formvoltron 8mo ago
  With all that great tech to land and reuse rockets, they still need to be propelled into space using... kerosene. That's right. 1 million satellites launched into orbit using kerosene. Does not feel like a vibe.
• jstummbillig 8mo ago
  Cool! If there are people working on something, despite others saying "it makes no sense" I assume it's a hard and interesting enough problem.
• ck2 8mo ago
  I mean everything he does is so honest, rational and well thought out in detail, right? How's that full-self driving promised for decades working out? How's the destruction of USAID working out (oh you wouldn't know a million dead now) We already have a data-center in space, sort-of, here's how many radiation panels it has to deploy for just the heat produced from the small number of low-power computers * https://i.sstatic.net/cpIBo.jpg https://i.sstatic.net/cpIBo.jpg (ISS, all those white panels are thermal heat radiators)
• Drunkfoowl 8mo ago
  [dead]
• gadders 8mo ago
  This blog post has some sliders you can tweak to see if you can make the numbers make sense: https://andrewmccalip.com/space-datacenters https://andrewmccalip.com/space-datacenters "So here's what I did. I built a simple model that reduces the debate to one parameter: cost per watt of usable power for compute. The infographic below lets you change the assumptions directly. If you disagree with the inputs, great. Move the sliders. But at least we'll be arguing over numbers that map to reality. The model is deliberately boring. No secret sauce. Just publicly available numbers and first-principles physics: solar flux, cell efficiency, radiator performance, launch cost, hardware mass, and a terrestrial benchmark that represents the real alternative: a tilt-wall datacenter sitting on top of cheap power. " "Here's the headline result: it's not obviously stupid, and it's not a sure thing. It's actually more reasonable than my intuition thought! If you run the numbers honestly, the physics doesn't immediately kill it, but the economics are savage. It only gets within striking distance under aggressive assumptions, and the list of organizations positioned to even try that is basically one."
• garettmd 8mo ago
  prompt: what's the term for financial moves where you keep finding new investors to pay off the previous ones GPT-4o mini: The term for financial moves where new investors are continually recruited to pay off previous ones is often referred to as a "Ponzi scheme." Another similar term is "pyramid scheme," where returns are paid to earlier investors from the contributions of newer investors, but with a structure that typically requires participants to recruit others to earn returns. Both schemes are unsustainable and illegal.
• maxdo 8mo ago
  I have my personal reasons to hate Elon. But the article is full of fluff and lacks imagination, typical of the "the world is static and will never change" mindset. What they are trying to do is an a very ambitious engineering challenge in several highly integrated domains, from spaceships to robotics, gpu, server design , ai. Typical stakes are high margins are high. Project also pushes boundaries of what human can do the same way starlink did. 20 years ago starlink scale was also an "impossible" thing. Is it possible now to push one gpu and serve it from space? Yes, can you do it at scale? Big question. Obstacles : Price per kg to orbit. They aim to go from $150 to $10 per kg. Can they deliver? Big question, but having something that demands so many starship, like GPU heavy tasks, will help them achieve this goal. Benefits? No rent, no cooling issues, cheap sun-powered electricity 24 hours a day, unlike anywhere else on Earth. Jurisdiction. Servers can't be shut down or taken away by police, etc. Cooling. Yes, it's a vacuum, but with $10 per kg, you can deliver pipes and coolant, and since you don't have space constraints, you can build these pipes with a robot, making that datacenter extremely cheap. 3. Labor. If a robot can do primitive tasks combined with design that is fully remote, you labor costs goes almost to 0. the output: with $10 per pg, delivering solar panels, coolant + robot for some urgent fixes. Robots even with current technology can swap a harddrive for example, especially if hardware is built to be mantained by robots not human. You don't need large construction, you invest into design, that once assembled , cost you maybe comparable amount of hardware to deliver. After that it runs for free! The economy if this obviously beating anything exised on earth.
  • infinitewars 8mo ago
    Elon is that you?
  • AlexandrB 8mo ago
    > Jurisdiction. Servers can't be shut down or taken away by police, etc. Total pipe dream. They can't take away your servers, but they can imprison you until you provide access. And SpaceX would still fall under the laws of whichever country it's based in. If lawful access is really a problem, laws will be written to make it SpaceX's problem. Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
• septune 8mo ago
  You’re missing one important point: radiated power scales with the fourth power of temperature. Could it be that xAI has a chip capable of operating at very high temperatures?
• sp4cec0wb0y 8mo ago
  Ground-based data centers will always be cheaper. There is no advantage in space that makes it worth spending more.
• stronglikedan 8mo ago
  It's fun to debate this and all, but the reality is that datacenters in space are going to happen, and soon - maybe even this year. If we've come this far, then there's already a viable plan that we just don't know about yet.
• pranavm27 8mo ago
  I had this idea in the beginning of last year and since I wanted to somehow get into space infra started doing some calculations - the area of arrays required kinda made me scrap the whole thing. But kinda curious since this is back as a mainstream topic.
• 1vuio0pswjnm7 8mo ago
  "So if this is clearly nonsense, why are serious companies and investors piling into it?" What does "serious" mean
• hermitShell 8mo ago
  After looking for a top level comment pointing to why instead of how, I logged in just for this as I could not find one. Extremely bullish on this move, let me try to explain. As most engineers realize right away, it is not going to be profitable to operate a regular datacenter in space, per the article (and I agree), so something else is going on here. Almost all the discussion is about feasibility, which is not by itself going to explain the situation. It is clearly somewhat feasible to build Starlink level infrastructure and operate it profitably. I would posit that the narrative is a funding vehicle for a more conservative, incremental objective. The very fact that the infrastructure is in space places the datacenter on the legal and geopolitical high ground. It's hard to raid servers if they are in orbit. It's hard to disable, audit, or arm-wrestle into submission. It doesn't have to have the scale we've come to expect in 2026 to be useful. And it's for inference, not training, of course. Useful levels of inference is computationally cheap. There are implications with the financial system as well. In combination with PLTR technology, what I see is another intelligent and strategic move by Musk to enable and be part of hegemony. He is a central player not making decisions in isolation. They are playing a game with different rules, and therefore different unit economics.
• rishabhjain1198 8mo ago
  > Data centers in space only make sense if they are cost effective relative to normal data centers. This statement is actually completely false. The bottleneck is not cost of building data centers, but the energy accessible on the planet. How much we're willing to pay for increasing that is currently very unclear, but it's far more than the current cost of building a terrestrial data center. As Jensen Huang famously touted their performance per watt, saying "Our customers won't buy our competitor's chips even if they were free."
  • danans 8mo ago
    > This statement is actually completely false. The bottleneck is not cost of building data centers, but the energy accessible on the planet. How much of energy will it take to launch the same amount of compute, connectivity, and PV to power it into space?
    • rishabhjain1198 8mo ago
      Good question.
• NedCode 8mo ago
  But data centers in the sea...
• ZebusJesus 8mo ago
  We really need to stop letting Musk and others just put what ever they want in space we are getting close to the Kessler limit and that could be very very bad if it happens. They have some ideas but this is already and issue, China had an issue after a launch were debris hit the capsule breaking it forcing them to send a second capsule. https://climatecosmos.com/sustainability/how-close-are-we-to-a-real-kessler-space-crisis-2/ https://climatecosmos.com/sustainability/how-close-are-we-to...
• xorcist 8mo ago
  It's not supposed to make sense. It's supposed to be cool and signal that demand for the stock will not go down.
• devin 8mo ago
  As long as we're pointing out things that don't make sense: A long time ago in the United States we decided to run electricity _everywhere_, even farmhouses in the middle of nowhere. The solution to broadband in the United States is somehow, inexplicably "Let's use satellites" rather than increase tower coverage or run hard lines. It is a _terrible_ solution to this problem based on the cost alone.
  • indoordin0saur 8mo ago
    I've used Starlink and it's fantastic in rural areas. Why dig thousands of miles of holes for physical wires when the problem is already solved?
    • devin 8mo ago
      Think. You don't even need to dig. We have myriad wireless internet solutions. We did not need to send satellites into space to fix this problem in a far more cost effective way.
      • midtake 8mo ago
        Terrestrial wireless internet solutions are stupid. With a satellite you can be anywhere with line of sight to the southern sky and receive signal. With some shitty tower you're still constrained to your location just as you would be with wired, except that instead of a fast, low latency cable you have a noisy, outage prone wireless tower.
        • devin 8mo ago
          This is not a problem that needed to be solved by satellites. It is a failure of US politics that rural areas don't have broadband. We didn't need some private company to put satellites into low earth orbit for someone to watch a youtube video from their house reliably. The ongoing costs and complexities of running a global satellite network vs running a cable is insane.
• Eggpants 8mo ago
  Back when I worked at AWS, I wrote a one page “press release” about this concept where the value add was the weight/power reduction of customer sats that could offload on board processing to the “Cloud above the Clouds”. There is a bottleneck with the down/uplink ground stations to do the on the ground processing. The biggest problem folks had was even with equipment with 99.9% reliability something breaks every day due the huge raw number of devices involved. And most network equipment is not any where close to being radiation hardened. I had some fun with it with Bezo’s fist bumping folks because SpaceX was cleaning BlueOrigin clock. I talked to one of their lawyers and didn’t hear anything afterwards. I left AWS and a couple of years later Amazon announced AWS ground station. I wonder how much my paper contributed to green lighting that project.
• cryptonector 8mo ago
  Data centers in space make no sense because cooling things in space is insanely hard! Yeah, space is cold, but also you don't have access to large thermal masses with which to exchange heat, so the fact that space is cold does not help much. In space the only option for cooling is large radiators. If you had a data center in space you'd need enormous radiators -- much larger than the data center itself. (On Earth we can exchange heat with the environment, and the environment includes convection and the water cycle and ultimately can expel excess heat via high altitude condensation of water vapor where most of the heat released escapes to space. As well clouds can both block insolation as well as keep heat below trapped, but altogether between high altitude condensation and blocking insolation this is the mechanism by which Earth keeps its temperature as a random walk around the average that we enjoy.)
  • tshadley 8mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_droplet_radiator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_droplet_radiator
    • cryptonector 8mo ago
      Huh! TIL! Thanks.
• fuzzfactor 8mo ago
  It's not supposed to make sense when you're screening for supporters who will believe anything you say.
• UltraSane 8mo ago
  After the hyperloop fiasco I don't understand why anyone gives Musk any credibility at all
• tpurves 8mo ago
  Closest thing to a usecase I can think of are all military in nature. There's an argument that AI in space only begins to make any sense if the data source you are processing is also originating in space, and you need (for reasons) to run models on it in space before downlinking the results. Maybe there's a very latency sensitive need to send realtime targeting information to a tomahawk missile in flight? But it's also too bandwidth, compute or cost intensive to send a firehose of raw spy-satellite data to a disposable one-way attack munition? The data centers in space are actually for the spy satellites to use. That's all I got for practical applications.
• zippyman55 8mo ago
  I loved when we would have an HPC server crash and we would analyze the issue and the vendor would respond, "probably a neutrino strike". I can't imagine this being more complex, given all the constraints of being in an orbit. The hardware depreciation, and the need to eliminate charge buildup and excess heat. Placing servers in the Arctic seems a better solution, at least the cooling issue is resolved.
• amelius 8mo ago
  How do you protect a datacenter in space from evil nation states that have an appetite for your GPU cards?
• loourr 8mo ago
  I think the thing I often see missed in these discussions is the cost and time burden imposed by regulation. It's nearly impossible to build power plants in the US today. Launching satellites while hard, solves this problem. Even if it's more expensive, Spacex will be able to deploy hardware when no one else can because all the gas turbines and existing power plants have been exhausted and the lead time to build new ones is 5+ years out because of the bureaucratic overhead.
  • vel0city 8mo ago
    > It's nearly impossible to build power plants in the US today If you're just building solar panels and using batteries you don't need grid approval to build it and connect it to your own datacenter. The same is true if you're wanting to just use natural gas to a large extent, although you'll have more regulations regarding environmental emissions. But you'll get that when you're trying to get a million space launches approved as well.
• mchusma 8mo ago
  The bull case IMO is that you can just produce very standardized ai satellites, load them into Starship, blast them off and have them work. And that the cost of that versus permitting etc will be less than trying to do it on land. I kind of believe it could get there. We could build nuclear reactors next to giant facilities but...we can't really seem to do it in the US? China seems to be able to do it. PS. I think the authors argument that millions of satellites might run into each other is silly. There are like 1.5 B cars.
• Rover222 8mo ago
  The top comment: "Musk is up to something here." It never fails here. Ya'll are soooo determined to assume ulterior motivations. He has always been direct about his motivations, whether it's about politics or business decisions. To suspect his whole plan for datacenters in space is a ruse or something to drive up some stock price (or whatever), is... just ridiculous. You really think they person who leads SpaceX (more satellites than the rest of the world combined) and Xai (with a competitive frontier model in 2 years starting from scratch), and Tesla (more inference compute than any company on Earth) really knows less than you about the math and physics of this idea?? His immediate focus for Starship has shifted from Mars colonisation to exponential expansion of intelligence, as he thinks it's the best path to extend consciousness. Ridiculous or not, he believes that, and that's the motivation.
• cowthulhu 8mo ago
  What is the real-world advantage of putting datacenters in space?
• niemandhier 8mo ago
  Data Centers in space make no sense due to radiation. You cannot do two things at the same time: 1. Make electronics small. 2. Make electronics radiation resistant. It’s a numbers game. The denser things are packed, the higher the probability that a random high energy particle or ray will damage something. 20 years ago NASA was buying old chips, because those were less susceptible, modern “radiation hardened by design” chips are better than those, but still slower than those for planetary use.
• virtualhat 8mo ago
  The author seems to have confused a few things. * They assume 1 satalite = 1 GPU. This is quite funny, actually. A single H200 floating in space with a solar panel and an antenna. In reality, a satellite would pack as many chips as the heat/power allows. A Starlink-sized satellite should be able to hold 40 or so chips. There's no reason why a larger satellitte couldn't hold, say, 1024. * They mention training, but sampling is what makes sense here. Training is a different beast, and requires high reliability, high bandwidth, low latency, and a lot of IO. Space would not be ideal for this. I'd expect training to remain terrestrial and just do sampling in space. (FWIW, sampling will be most of the compute allocation). * Also, no one upgrades GPUs in datacenters, they just add new nodes and leave the old ones there. Google still has their P100 nodes running. Not being able to fix them, though, is a significant concern.
  • ajyoon 8mo ago
    Fair - my "millions" note is wrt SpaceX filing with the FCC to launch 1 million satellites, and the Google viability study deals with large constellations rather than monolithic stations. Public communications from companies purporting to go into orbital data centers have made every appearance that they think virtually all compute can go to space.
    • virtualhat 8mo ago
      Oh wow, you're right. That's crazy. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2514106-why-did-spacex-just-apply-to-launch-1-million-satellites/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2514106-why-did-spacex-...
• 2001zhaozhao 8mo ago
  I was gonna say it is good for low-ping game servers, but then I remembered that the data center would literally be orbiting around the planet and ping would fluctuate by tens of milliseconds every few minutes.
  • shagie 8mo ago
    It's worse than that (in terms of ping) because the typical "we get 100% solar" means that it's in a polar orbit over the dawn/dusk terminator ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun-synchronous_orbit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun-synchronous_orbit ). During the day or night, it will never be overhead.
• casey2 8mo ago
  I'd like to see data centers in the ocean, before space. Water there is near 0c and doesn't boil til 400c-500c.
• MarceliusK 8mo ago
  Yet I do think there's a narrow use case where space compute might make sense (for instance, niche workloads colocated with space sensors), but that's very different from "frontier AI training"
• yolostar1 8mo ago
  I mean, we just need to reach L2 Lagrange point. It is definitely easier than going for Mars. Right?
• nefarious_ends 8mo ago
  it probably wouldn’t be a bad idea to have some backups in space. It could imagine this being a premium AWS offering. A storage class for S3. Put one on the moon too. True cold storage ha!