5 ms·

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 t

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.
    - jraby3 8mo ago
      https://starlink.com/updates/stargaze https://starlink.com/updates/stargaze
      - philipwhiuk 8mo ago
        Is sort of somewhat handling 10,000 by enabling them to make orbital adjustments more quickly. By the time you have a million, you will run out of prop way too quick.
    - rockemsockem 8mo ago
      Sorry I misspoke, you're totally correct. What I meant to say was it's only a problem if they're orbiting around the Earth. I've heard sun orbits mentioned as a possibility for data centers.
      - adastra22 8mo ago
        It would still be a space junk problem. Space is big, but amazingly not that big. If you start ejecting little hot BBs at interplanetary speeds, you are creating broad swath of buckshot that will eventually impact something with the force of a missile. Put millions of these satellites into solar orbits (I’m ignoring the huge increase in launch cost this would require, and all the other issues like latency and comms), and you could very well make trips to other planets impossible. It wouldn’t be Kessler syndrome as you would not have a chain reaction of collisions, but the end result would be the same.
        rockemsockem 8mo ago
        Yeah if you leave enough junk in any orbit it'll become a problem, but I don't think that's necessarily an argument not to put things in that orbit. You'd just need to not hit that critical limit where things become untenable.
typ 8mo ago
> reduce energy requirement by 10-50 times This is only relevant to the compute productivity (how much useful work it can produce), but it's irrelevant to the heat dissipation problem. The energy income is fundamentally limited by the solar facing area (x 1361 W/m^2). So the energy output cannot exceed it, regardless useful signals or just waste heat. Even if we just put a stone there, the equilibrium temperature wouldn't be any better or worse.
zbentley 8mo ago
> Data center in space could contribute to the EU's Net-Zero goal by 2050 How unbelievably crass. "Let's build something out of immense quantities of environmentally-destructive-to-extract materials and shoot it into space on top of gargantuan amounts of heat and greenhouse gas emissions; since it won't use much earth-sourced energy once it's up there, that nets out to a win!" Insane.
- indoordin0saur 8mo ago
  Blue Origin at least runs its rockets on hydrogen whose exhaust is only water.
  - fuzzfactor 8mo ago
    Where do they get the hydrogen without putting a load of CO2 into the atmosphere just to manufacture the hydrogen to begin with? One thing to think about is debt which is not in terms of money. People are becoming more familiar with "technical debt" since otherwise it comes due by surprise. With hamsterwheels in space you've got energy debt. Separate from all other forms of debt that are involved. Like financial debt, which is only a problem if you can't really afford to do the project so you have to beg, borrow, and/or steal to get it going. On that point I think I'd be a little skeptical if the richest known person can't actually afford this easily. Especially if he really wants it with all his heart, and has put in any worthwhile effort so far. Anyway, solar cells are kind of weak when you think about it, they don't produce the high output of a suitable chemical reaction, like the kind that launches the rockets themselves. Which releases so much energy so fast that it's always going to take a serious amount of time for the "little" solar cells to have finally produced an equal amount of energy before a net positive can begin to accrue. Keeping the assets safely on the home planet simply provides a jump-start that can not be matched. All other things being unequal or not.
  - zbentley 8mo ago
    And heat and pressure. Negligible amounts in terms of the biosphere, but not in terms of flora and fauna in proximity to launch sites.
MarceliusK 8mo ago
The danger is that these nuanced, legitimate use cases get rhetorically stretched to support much bigger claims. That's where skepticism kicks back in.

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.
  - jraby3 8mo ago
    https://starlink.com/updates/stargaze https://starlink.com/updates/stargaze
    - philipwhiuk 8mo ago
      Is sort of somewhat handling 10,000 by enabling them to make orbital adjustments more quickly. By the time you have a million, you will run out of prop way too quick.
  - rockemsockem 8mo ago
    Sorry I misspoke, you're totally correct. What I meant to say was it's only a problem if they're orbiting around the Earth. I've heard sun orbits mentioned as a possibility for data centers.
    - adastra22 8mo ago
      It would still be a space junk problem. Space is big, but amazingly not that big. If you start ejecting little hot BBs at interplanetary speeds, you are creating broad swath of buckshot that will eventually impact something with the force of a missile. Put millions of these satellites into solar orbits (I’m ignoring the huge increase in launch cost this would require, and all the other issues like latency and comms), and you could very well make trips to other planets impossible. It wouldn’t be Kessler syndrome as you would not have a chain reaction of collisions, but the end result would be the same.
      - rockemsockem 8mo ago
        Yeah if you leave enough junk in any orbit it'll become a problem, but I don't think that's necessarily an argument not to put things in that orbit. You'd just need to not hit that critical limit where things become untenable.

typ 8mo ago

> reduce energy requirement by 10-50 times This is only relevant to the compute productivity (how much useful work it can produce), but it's irrelevant to the heat dissipation problem. The energy income is fundamentally limited by the solar facing area (x 1361 W/m^2). So the energy output cannot exceed it, regardless useful signals or just waste heat. Even if we just put a stone there, the equilibrium temperature wouldn't be any better or worse.

zbentley 8mo ago

> Data center in space could contribute to the EU's Net-Zero goal by 2050 How unbelievably crass. "Let's build something out of immense quantities of environmentally-destructive-to-extract materials and shoot it into space on top of gargantuan amounts of heat and greenhouse gas emissions; since it won't use much earth-sourced energy once it's up there, that nets out to a win!" Insane.

indoordin0saur 8mo ago
Blue Origin at least runs its rockets on hydrogen whose exhaust is only water.
- fuzzfactor 8mo ago
  Where do they get the hydrogen without putting a load of CO2 into the atmosphere just to manufacture the hydrogen to begin with? One thing to think about is debt which is not in terms of money. People are becoming more familiar with "technical debt" since otherwise it comes due by surprise. With hamsterwheels in space you've got energy debt. Separate from all other forms of debt that are involved. Like financial debt, which is only a problem if you can't really afford to do the project so you have to beg, borrow, and/or steal to get it going. On that point I think I'd be a little skeptical if the richest known person can't actually afford this easily. Especially if he really wants it with all his heart, and has put in any worthwhile effort so far. Anyway, solar cells are kind of weak when you think about it, they don't produce the high output of a suitable chemical reaction, like the kind that launches the rockets themselves. Which releases so much energy so fast that it's always going to take a serious amount of time for the "little" solar cells to have finally produced an equal amount of energy before a net positive can begin to accrue. Keeping the assets safely on the home planet simply provides a jump-start that can not be matched. All other things being unequal or not.
- zbentley 8mo ago
  And heat and pressure. Negligible amounts in terms of the biosphere, but not in terms of flora and fauna in proximity to launch sites.

MarceliusK 8mo ago

The danger is that these nuanced, legitimate use cases get rhetorically stretched to support much bigger claims. That's where skepticism kicks back in.