4 ms·

SpaceX is betting that the world will be compute/energy constrained by 2030 and that orbital datacenters will become cost-effective for inference. If they are r

SpaceX is betting that the world will be compute/energy constrained by 2030 and that orbital datacenters will become cost-effective for inference. If they are right about that, they will be the largest company in the solar system. If they are wrong, they will still be one of the largest telecom companies. To me this is a classic case of low-downside, very-high-upside.

dgellow 2mo ago
I hope you’re not in the business of investing other people’s money
vrganj 2mo ago
How do you cool a data center in a vacuum?
- GMoromisato 2mo ago
  How is Starlink cooled? How is ISS cooled? They all use radiators, which work in a vacuum by--wait for it--radiating infrared into space. Orbital data centers do not defy the laws of physics. TBD whether they are economical relative to terrestrial data centers, but please don't succumb to misinformation.
  - dgellow 2mo ago
    They do and you’re the one spreading misinformation… the amount of energy you need to radiate for inference GPUs is enormous compared to any computer currently used in space. Energy dissipation by radiating is literally the least effective method and would require insanely large radiators just to be effective on paper. You also need to mitigate bit flips, meaning you throw away around 2/3 of your compute capacity. And that’s just the most basic things, before taking in account ALL the other problems you face doing compute in space someone with expertise in the domain could mention. Datacenters in space is a grift that won’t happen in any meaningful capacity and can be debunked by a 15y old who followed their physics courses
    - GMoromisato 2mo ago
      You've listed: 1. Radiating heat needs large radiators 2. Bit flips require extra compute capacity Neither of those violate the laws of physics. As I said, they may not work economically, but that depends on a large number of unknowns, including the cost per ton to orbit and the cost per GW of new power capacity on Earth in 2030. If you have a time machine and know those numbers, then can I please borrow your time machine? Moreover, when you say, "ALL the other problems ... someone with expertise in the domain could mention," you're saying either: A) SpaceX engineers do not have expertise in this domain. B) SpaceX engineers are hiding all the problems that they know about. B is basically a conspiracy theory. It is one YouTube video away from saying the moon landing was a hoax. A is just delusional.
      - vrganj 2mo ago
        So between the giant radiator per GPU and the diminished compute capacity, how much mass are we shooting up exactly? This just seems utterly infeasible. You're missing C) SpaceX engineers know it's a bad idea, but can't say anything because it's the tyrant manchild's latest obsession, technology constraints be damned. Remember the vision-only FSD? How's that coming along?
        ethbr1 2mo ago
        > because it's the tyrant manchild's latest obsession, technology constraints be damned. Imho, there's only one reason that justifies Musk's space-based compute obsession: sovereignty. Specifically, avoiding terrestrial country's. This isn't about AI in space (though I'm sure dumb investors love that), it's about uncensorable Twitter in space, beamed down to Starlink terminals. Which would be one of the few things you'd care about, if you were one of the richest people on the planet... but still subject to those damned nations and their meddling laws.
        jacquesm 2mo ago
        That's exactly it. Musk sees space as extraterritorial, which in the true sense of the word of course it absolutely is. But all those bits have to go to ground somewhere. As long as that somewhere is friendly no problem. That can change.
  - vel0city 2mo ago
    For some perspective, the entire heat rejection system on the ISS at peak can do a little less than one rack of dense AI compute power. All of that plumbing, all of that area, all that stuff to put in orbit just to cool one rack of compute equipment. How much stuff do we need to put up there for each rack? The External Active Thermal Control System on the ISS is ~20,000lbs, about 10 tons. How many racks are in a single datacenter? The Colossus is allegedly ~1,500 compute racks, ignoring other equipment. So that's like 15,000 tons for just the cooling equipment if its like the ISS. At SpaceX's current public launch costs (which makes a profit for them, so not base costs) to launch that much stuff is somewhere around $40B. Just the launch cost for the cooling equipment alone for just one datacenter building worth of pure compute capacity, that isn't even that big compared to what companies are talking about building. All of that is very rough back of the napkin math. I don't expect that to be the actual numbers at all, but I'd imagine somewhere in that neighborhood unless they've got something really radical up their sleeve. They better have a much better way to cool these things than what the ISS is doing.
    - GMoromisato 2mo ago
      Current SpaceX design is 75 kW of computer per ton, including solar panels, radiators, everything: https://www.spacex.com/spacexai/starmind https://www.spacex.com/spacexai/starmind That's ~13 tons per megawatt, or 1,330 tons for 100 MWs. That's 13 launches of Starship (at $10 million per launch, or $130 million). Of course, that's probably 600 individual satellites, at maybe $5 million per, so we're at ~$3 billion to deploy 100 MW to space. You can sell 100 MW of compute for $3-4 billion per year, so SpaceX would make their money back in 1 year.
      - vel0city 2mo ago
        > Current SpaceX design is 75 kW of computer per ton, including solar panels, radiators, everything Anyone can make a website. Let's see them actually make it and put it in orbit. According to another Musk website we'd be riding hyperloops and drive through solo tunnels under our cities and we'd all own our own autonomous cab companies back in 2016. Another website said we'd be able to buy a Cybertruck for $40k and the three-motor variety for $70k.
solid_fuel 2mo ago
Sure man, and we'll have full self driving any day now. At some point you need to start actually using your pattern recognition skills.
- GMoromisato 2mo ago
  I literally use FSD every day.
  - solid_fuel 2mo ago
    Oh that's great news! I recommend relying on it fully, take a nap while you're riding. Just let the tesla do what it will. After all, you were sold full self driving. It definitely won't ram you into a brick wall. Or maybe it will, but that's just natural selection really.
  - PreownedPlaid 2mo ago
    Same. Bought a used 2023 S with HW4 last year for that. FSD is brilliant, a zero to one technology. 5,000 miles in and zero troubles.
    - GMoromisato 2mo ago
      PaulG posted this just last week: https://x.com/paulg/status/2085598462146675072 https://x.com/paulg/status/2085598462146675072 Another tech friend of mine just bought a Model Y and he was similarly raving about how awesome FSD it. Just anecdotes, I know, but I feel FSD is eventually going to go viral among normies.
    - GMoromisato 2mo ago
      See also: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/tesla-self-driving-car-22384520.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/tesla-self-drivi...
  - ben_w 2mo ago
    "Full self driving", the capability, is not the same thing as the product for which Telsa has been sued because they described it as "Full Self Driving" before it was good enough to get called that[0]; this is in much the same way that I can accurately say that "I use a Time Machine on a regular basis", but this "Time Machine" isn't suitable for the use for which you asked to borrow one in another comment, because this is the brand name of the Apple backup mechanism and not a DeLorean with a flux capacitor. Would be nice if it was good enough that, as per what he said in Oct 2014, "I think we’ll be able to achieve true autonomous driving, where you could literally get in the car, go to sleep and wake up at your destination,"[1], or what he said in 2016 "Ultimately you'll be able to summon your car anywhere … your car can get to you. I think that within two years, you'll be able to summon your car from across the country. It will meet you wherever your phone is … and it will just automatically charge itself along the entire journey."[2] Right now, from what I've been seeing, I think the product is roughly the level the Paint It Black video misrepresented the tech as having already reached in 2016. Which is more than nothing, but also not "full". [0] https://www.reuters.com/legal/tesla-musk-sued-by-shareholders-over-self-driving-safety-claims-2023-02-27/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/tesla-musk-sued-by-shareholder... [1] Predicted in 2014 to be available by 2023: https://web.archive.org/web/20240615102623/https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tesla-driverless-cars_n_5990136 https://web.archive.org/web/20240615102623/https://www.huffi... [2] Predicted in 2016 for 2018: https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/10/10746020/elon-musk-tesla-autonomous-driving-predictions-summon https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/10/10746020/elon-musk-tesla-...
GMoromisato 2mo ago
One thing I find fascinating in this thread is how orbital datacenters bring out such visceral reactions. I understand skepticism--maybe they will never be able to compete economically with terrestrial datacenters. But the profound certainty that detractors have is amazing to me. There are a lot of unknowns, mostly around prices in 2030 (price to orbit, price per MW on Earth), but detractors are dead certain that not only will orbital datacenters fail, but they will never even be deployed because they violate the laws of physics. It's astounding.
- solid_fuel 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - GMoromisato 2mo ago
    Elon-hate explains a lot.
- ben_w 2mo ago
  > I understand skepticism--maybe they will never be able to compete economically with terrestrial datacenters. But the profound certainty that detractors have is amazing to me. I need to finish the blog post about this. I'm around 10,000 words of confident right now about how bad an idea this is, regardless of each specific possible variation I can come up with about how to do it. Not physically impossible, by the way; just a terrible idea in multiple different dimensions at the same time.

dgellow 2mo ago

I hope you’re not in the business of investing other people’s money

vrganj 2mo ago

How do you cool a data center in a vacuum?

GMoromisato 2mo ago
How is Starlink cooled? How is ISS cooled? They all use radiators, which work in a vacuum by--wait for it--radiating infrared into space. Orbital data centers do not defy the laws of physics. TBD whether they are economical relative to terrestrial data centers, but please don't succumb to misinformation.
- dgellow 2mo ago
  They do and you’re the one spreading misinformation… the amount of energy you need to radiate for inference GPUs is enormous compared to any computer currently used in space. Energy dissipation by radiating is literally the least effective method and would require insanely large radiators just to be effective on paper. You also need to mitigate bit flips, meaning you throw away around 2/3 of your compute capacity. And that’s just the most basic things, before taking in account ALL the other problems you face doing compute in space someone with expertise in the domain could mention. Datacenters in space is a grift that won’t happen in any meaningful capacity and can be debunked by a 15y old who followed their physics courses
  - GMoromisato 2mo ago
    You've listed: 1. Radiating heat needs large radiators 2. Bit flips require extra compute capacity Neither of those violate the laws of physics. As I said, they may not work economically, but that depends on a large number of unknowns, including the cost per ton to orbit and the cost per GW of new power capacity on Earth in 2030. If you have a time machine and know those numbers, then can I please borrow your time machine? Moreover, when you say, "ALL the other problems ... someone with expertise in the domain could mention," you're saying either: A) SpaceX engineers do not have expertise in this domain. B) SpaceX engineers are hiding all the problems that they know about. B is basically a conspiracy theory. It is one YouTube video away from saying the moon landing was a hoax. A is just delusional.
    - vrganj 2mo ago
      So between the giant radiator per GPU and the diminished compute capacity, how much mass are we shooting up exactly? This just seems utterly infeasible. You're missing C) SpaceX engineers know it's a bad idea, but can't say anything because it's the tyrant manchild's latest obsession, technology constraints be damned. Remember the vision-only FSD? How's that coming along?
      - ethbr1 2mo ago
        > because it's the tyrant manchild's latest obsession, technology constraints be damned. Imho, there's only one reason that justifies Musk's space-based compute obsession: sovereignty. Specifically, avoiding terrestrial country's. This isn't about AI in space (though I'm sure dumb investors love that), it's about uncensorable Twitter in space, beamed down to Starlink terminals. Which would be one of the few things you'd care about, if you were one of the richest people on the planet... but still subject to those damned nations and their meddling laws.
        jacquesm 2mo ago
        That's exactly it. Musk sees space as extraterritorial, which in the true sense of the word of course it absolutely is. But all those bits have to go to ground somewhere. As long as that somewhere is friendly no problem. That can change.
- vel0city 2mo ago
  For some perspective, the entire heat rejection system on the ISS at peak can do a little less than one rack of dense AI compute power. All of that plumbing, all of that area, all that stuff to put in orbit just to cool one rack of compute equipment. How much stuff do we need to put up there for each rack? The External Active Thermal Control System on the ISS is ~20,000lbs, about 10 tons. How many racks are in a single datacenter? The Colossus is allegedly ~1,500 compute racks, ignoring other equipment. So that's like 15,000 tons for just the cooling equipment if its like the ISS. At SpaceX's current public launch costs (which makes a profit for them, so not base costs) to launch that much stuff is somewhere around $40B. Just the launch cost for the cooling equipment alone for just one datacenter building worth of pure compute capacity, that isn't even that big compared to what companies are talking about building. All of that is very rough back of the napkin math. I don't expect that to be the actual numbers at all, but I'd imagine somewhere in that neighborhood unless they've got something really radical up their sleeve. They better have a much better way to cool these things than what the ISS is doing.
  - GMoromisato 2mo ago
    Current SpaceX design is 75 kW of computer per ton, including solar panels, radiators, everything: https://www.spacex.com/spacexai/starmind https://www.spacex.com/spacexai/starmind That's ~13 tons per megawatt, or 1,330 tons for 100 MWs. That's 13 launches of Starship (at $10 million per launch, or $130 million). Of course, that's probably 600 individual satellites, at maybe $5 million per, so we're at ~$3 billion to deploy 100 MW to space. You can sell 100 MW of compute for $3-4 billion per year, so SpaceX would make their money back in 1 year.
    - vel0city 2mo ago
      > Current SpaceX design is 75 kW of computer per ton, including solar panels, radiators, everything Anyone can make a website. Let's see them actually make it and put it in orbit. According to another Musk website we'd be riding hyperloops and drive through solo tunnels under our cities and we'd all own our own autonomous cab companies back in 2016. Another website said we'd be able to buy a Cybertruck for $40k and the three-motor variety for $70k.

solid_fuel 2mo ago

Sure man, and we'll have full self driving any day now. At some point you need to start actually using your pattern recognition skills.

GMoromisato 2mo ago
I literally use FSD every day.
- solid_fuel 2mo ago
  Oh that's great news! I recommend relying on it fully, take a nap while you're riding. Just let the tesla do what it will. After all, you were sold full self driving. It definitely won't ram you into a brick wall. Or maybe it will, but that's just natural selection really.
- PreownedPlaid 2mo ago
  Same. Bought a used 2023 S with HW4 last year for that. FSD is brilliant, a zero to one technology. 5,000 miles in and zero troubles.
  - GMoromisato 2mo ago
    PaulG posted this just last week: https://x.com/paulg/status/2085598462146675072 https://x.com/paulg/status/2085598462146675072 Another tech friend of mine just bought a Model Y and he was similarly raving about how awesome FSD it. Just anecdotes, I know, but I feel FSD is eventually going to go viral among normies.
  - GMoromisato 2mo ago
    See also: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/tesla-self-driving-car-22384520.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/tesla-self-drivi...
- ben_w 2mo ago
  "Full self driving", the capability, is not the same thing as the product for which Telsa has been sued because they described it as "Full Self Driving" before it was good enough to get called that[0]; this is in much the same way that I can accurately say that "I use a Time Machine on a regular basis", but this "Time Machine" isn't suitable for the use for which you asked to borrow one in another comment, because this is the brand name of the Apple backup mechanism and not a DeLorean with a flux capacitor. Would be nice if it was good enough that, as per what he said in Oct 2014, "I think we’ll be able to achieve true autonomous driving, where you could literally get in the car, go to sleep and wake up at your destination,"[1], or what he said in 2016 "Ultimately you'll be able to summon your car anywhere … your car can get to you. I think that within two years, you'll be able to summon your car from across the country. It will meet you wherever your phone is … and it will just automatically charge itself along the entire journey."[2] Right now, from what I've been seeing, I think the product is roughly the level the Paint It Black video misrepresented the tech as having already reached in 2016. Which is more than nothing, but also not "full". [0] https://www.reuters.com/legal/tesla-musk-sued-by-shareholders-over-self-driving-safety-claims-2023-02-27/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/tesla-musk-sued-by-shareholder... [1] Predicted in 2014 to be available by 2023: https://web.archive.org/web/20240615102623/https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tesla-driverless-cars_n_5990136 https://web.archive.org/web/20240615102623/https://www.huffi... [2] Predicted in 2016 for 2018: https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/10/10746020/elon-musk-tesla-autonomous-driving-predictions-summon https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/10/10746020/elon-musk-tesla-...

GMoromisato 2mo ago

One thing I find fascinating in this thread is how orbital datacenters bring out such visceral reactions. I understand skepticism--maybe they will never be able to compete economically with terrestrial datacenters. But the profound certainty that detractors have is amazing to me. There are a lot of unknowns, mostly around prices in 2030 (price to orbit, price per MW on Earth), but detractors are dead certain that not only will orbital datacenters fail, but they will never even be deployed because they violate the laws of physics. It's astounding.

solid_fuel 2mo ago
[flagged]
- GMoromisato 2mo ago
  Elon-hate explains a lot.
ben_w 2mo ago
> I understand skepticism--maybe they will never be able to compete economically with terrestrial datacenters. But the profound certainty that detractors have is amazing to me. I need to finish the blog post about this. I'm around 10,000 words of confident right now about how bad an idea this is, regardless of each specific possible variation I can come up with about how to do it. Not physically impossible, by the way; just a terrible idea in multiple different dimensions at the same time.