5 ms·
SpaceX has recently started pitching itself as an orbital datacenter company. If you buy into that business model (or pretend to), it makes sense for SpaceX to
by ACCount37 4mo ago
SpaceX has recently started pitching itself as an orbital datacenter company.
If you buy into that business model (or pretend to), it makes sense for SpaceX to start selling compute early. Their "earthside compute" clients of today are "skyside compute" clients of tomorrow.
A part of Musk's old pitch for Starlink was: space-based solar makes perfect sense for powering space assets, and no sense whatsoever for powering Earth assets. So you have to find a way to use that power in space to do something economically useful. Comms were the only scalable way to do that, so Starlink it was.
I can see how space-based datacenters would follow the same logic. If SpaceX can make them economical, that is. There's no guarantees of that - but if anyone at all can make space-based datacenters economical, it's SpaceX.
- H8crilA 4mo agoWhy would it ever be more economical to put datacenters in orbit, rather than on some dirt cheap land?
- readthenotes1 4mo agoBecause dirt cheap land usually does not have dirt, cheap water or dirt cheap electricity.
- jordanb 4mo agoWater in orbit: famously cheap.
- ACCount37 4mo agoAh yes: computation. Famous for annihilating water. Every bit you flip consumes an H2O molecule.
- kennywinker 4mo agoWell, how do you cool servers in space then? Evaporative cooling is the way it happens down on earth - and that shuttles h2o molecules from dense useful clumps like aquifers and rivers to a less useful form spread out in the air. But evaporating h2o isn’t an option in space afaik - since there’s a shortage of air to take up the h2o. In fact I think radiative cooling is the only actual option in space.
- MrMorden 4mo agoThat's the neat thing: you don't, or at least not in the megawatt range. A kilowatt can be done with radiative cooling but doesn't get you far with a hypothetical datacenter satellite.
- kennywinker 4mo agoSo, somehow the servers can run hot in space without a problem?
- MrMorden 4mo agoNo; if you try to do this you don't launch in the first place because the amount of servers required to be useful can't be cooled within your payload budget.
- kennywinker 4mo agoIt seems like you are agreeing with me while sounding like you’re arguing with me… confusing.
- ACCount37 4mo agoRadiative cooling. When something gets hot, it begins to radiate that heat away - black body radiation. Fucking hell - do you all think ISS is cooled by hopes and prayers? Starlink V3 sats have to dump ~20kW of pure waste heat just to exist. Going from that to the stated 100kW is an engineering task, not some sort of impossible arcane rite.
- etc-hosts 4mo agoMy job is mostly worrying about cooling paths, maintenance, power, heat transfer, lifetime of GPUs, and high performance networks. NVIDIA partner. I can drive to the datacenter. This stuff BARELY works here on Earth. Especially thermal issues. Looking forward to watching spacex defeat physics.
- ACCount37 4mo agoSkill issue. Starlink V3 bus already has to dispose of ~20kW of waste heat from the electronics - because RF amps aren't that great at what they do. That's a ~2020 server rack, in SPACE. Going from that to a 2026 server rack is engineering, not magic.
- newsclues 4mo agoThe data link between earth and space has so much bandwidth. There are sensors in space that send data to earth it gets processed and then the data is sent back to space then to the end user back on earth. If you do the compute in space you save the space-earth transfer time twice. Latency and availability of bandwidth are both factors. There may be limited utility for this outside of military.
- ACCount37 4mo agoThere are no NIMBYs in space. No government permitting on land use. And solar power is plentiful. It's like having a dollar store Dyson sphere. Making use of that is predicated entirely on being able to put a lot of hardware into space cheaply. SpaceX is the undisputed best at that, no one comes close. The question is whether their "best" is good enough to make space datacenters economical.
- kklisura 4mo agoBut you don't have to build it in someone's _backyard_, just build it in a middle of nowhere.
- polski-g 4mo agoThat's literally what datacenter in Utah was and it still had a horde of retards complaining.
- delichon 4mo agoThere are many Not In My Orbit people on this very page. Many current national politicians would be happy to vote AI out of orbit today. Space is not an escape from earthly politics.
- marcosdumay 4mo ago> Space is not an escape from earthly politics. Well, Earth orbit isn't.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- dgellow 4mo agoThat won’t ever be the case. It’s pure grift. There is literally no other actual reason
- inglor_cz 4mo agoI am surprised how many people say that there is no reason to put data centers in orbit, when, at the same time, data centers are becoming the hated thing du jour all over the US and politicians left and right (but mostly left-of-center) are touting bans and restrictions to their electorates. It is definitely to escape most political pressures on Earth. They will never be able to sidestep the US feds, but aside from an open war with China or Russia, all other authorities are out of the game when it comes to space.
- XorNot 4mo agoPeople don't want to live near data centers. But companies find it logistically cheaper and easier to keep proposing to build them near existing towns and infrastructure, and then deal with regulatory fights rather then picking an isolated area and running an extension of high voltage lines out to them. Which tells you something about why space data centers makes no sense.
- inglor_cz 4mo ago"rather then picking an isolated area and running an extension of high voltage lines out to them." Does not this usually mean extending/upgrading roads and other infrastructure as well? IDK how this works in the US, but in most of Europe, a "linear" project like this, which crosses multiple jurisdictions, usually runs into more resistance, not less. The multitude of people and special interests along the line compounds. In some places, special legislation has been enacted that exempts such linear projects from detailed review and opposition, otherwise pipelines, grid upgrades etc. would stall for decades in courts.
- formerly_proven 4mo agoWhen I hear space I think "that's the perfect location for a data center", since data centers are lightweight, small, require little power, don't need human intervention, have lifetimes measured in decades and don't have to reject heat. Since space easily satisfies these requirements, space is an ideal deployment location for data centers.
- bonsai_spool 4mo agoYeah... What am I missing? Like why isn't this just laughed at when it's proposed?
- jordanb 4mo agoI felt the same way about the "tube with an air hockey table in it." But here I am fifteen years later eating crow as I take the hyperloop to Vegas.
- fc417fc802 4mo agoIt seems off at first glance but actually appears to work out if you do the math. You can model a solar panel as a flat, opaque rectangle. You can calculate power generation and equilibrium temperature for it based on surface area. If you require additional radiative surface area to achieve the desired equilibrium temperature you can place a flat triangle orthogonal to and behind the solar panel in its shadow. Compute is "free" at that point because waste heat is coming out of the total energy flux which was already accounted for (because we modeled it as opaque). Of course swapping out the equipment poses a bit of a challenge. The "helping hands" rate is entirely unaffordable and wait until you see this new DC's physical access policies. 0/10 would not rack with them again.
- nutjob2 4mo agoSpace-based datacenters simply won't work. That people are talking about them shows Musk is the greatest snake oil salesman the world has ever seen.
- saimiam 4mo ago> won’t work A datacenter (earthbound or space) itself is a fantastical idea until a mix of events and inventions made it feasible to build them to sell compute.
- ipdashc 4mo ago... what? Data centers are literally the original form of computer facility. How are they different from the computer rooms mainframes, etc were housed in?
- newsclues 4mo agoYou think the military can’t or won’t dump billions into this to make killing people with drones more effective? It’s a engineering challenge not impossible.
- Drakim 4mo agoThere are asteroids with concentrations of precious metals more valuable than earth's entire economy. Why don't we just send up spaceships to mine them and send the haul back to earth? What country would say no to free money? After all, it's just an engineering challenge, not impossible.
- fc417fc802 4mo agoThe numbers on that are at least somewhat questionable. Even ignoring that you'd crash the market (thus it's not actually worth what it first appears to be) what is the total fuel cost to adjust the orbit of the target asteroid to land the entire thing back on the earth? Because that's what you're doing bit by bit as you shuttle loads of ore back. Now if you have space based manufacturing or fuel production on the other hand ...
- happosai 4mo ago> if anyone at all can make space-based datacenters economical, it's SpaceX Let's hope burning ten thousand tons of toxic e-waste annually in upper atmoshphere never becomes economical. Or mankind gets to senses and bans externalizing your e-waste problem by burning in atmosphere...
- simoncion 4mo ago> ...burning ten thousand tons of toxic e-waste annually... Expressing water usage in gallons makes it seem really large, too. NASA says[0]: Scientists estimate that about 48.5 tons (44 tonnes or 44,000 kilograms) of meteoritic material falls on Earth each day. If we assume that they're all the heavier v2 units, the total mass of the orbital portion of Starlink is ten point four tons. [1] If we assumed that they lasted one year (instead of the five that they're reported to last[1]), then over the course of a year, Starlink would dump six hours worth of asteroid collisions into the atmosphere. I think we'll be fine. Pour all that frustrated energy you have into substantially reducing the amount of incredibly hazardous d-waste [3] big commercial operators burn up into our atmosphere, instead. [0] <https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/meteors-meteorites/#h-what-is-a-meteor-shower https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/meteors-meteorites/#h-...> [1] According to [2] there are currently 10,413 satellites. At an assumed 1760 lbs each, this works out to roughly 10.4 tons. [2] <https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html> [3] "dino"-waste, AKA CO2
- jaycroft 4mo agoI think you missed a factor of 1000 somewhere in there: Each satellite weighs about 1 ton, there are about 10,000 of them. That is 10,000 tons in orbit for the constellation, not 10. Assuming a 5 year decay, that's 10000/5/365 ~= 5 tons / day. Still about 10% of the natural incoming material, but considerably more than your "six hours worth per year".
- simoncion 4mo ago> I think you missed a factor of 1000 somewhere in there... there are about 10,000 of them. That is 10,000 tons in orbit for the constellation, not 10. I did. what. the. hell? Maybe my swiss-cheese brain read the "," in 10,413 as a decimal separator? I guess that's what I get for posting while old. Thanks for the correction and supporting arithmetic. Though, I still stand by my "please for the love of everything, get to complaining about CO2 because this thing you're complaining about is a damn nothingburger" conclusion. (I am sufficiently aware to notice that that you're not OP, so the "you" in that pseudoquote is not directed at you.)