| |
| ▲ | sollewitt 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, rockets landing themselves is just controlling the mechanism you use to have them take off, and builds on trust vectoring technology from 1970s jet fighters based on sound physics. Figuring out how to radiate a lot of waste heat into a vacuum is fighting physics. Ordinarily we use a void on earth as a very effective _insulator_ to keep our hot drinks hot. | | |
| ▲ | Sparyjerry 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | This is a classic case of listing all the problems but none of the benefits. If you had horses and someone told you they had a Tesla, you'd be complaining that a Tesla requires you to dig minerals where a horse can just be born! | |
| ▲ | fooker 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Figuring out how to radiate a lot of waste heat into a vacuum is fighting physics. Radiators should work pretty well, and large solar panels can do double duty as radiators. Also, curiously, newer GPUs are developed to require significantly less cooling than previous generations. Perhaps not so coincidentally? | | |
| ▲ | doctorwho42 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well there lies the rub, solar panels already need their own thermal radiators when used in space ... | | |
| ▲ | fooker 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Great, so you seem to agree the technology exists for this and it is a matter of deploying more of it? | | |
| ▲ | Numerlor 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's a matter of deploying it for cheaper or with fewer downsides than what can be done on earth. Launching things to space is expensive even with reusable rockets, and a single server blade would need a lot of accompanying tech to power it, cool it, and connect to other satellites and earth. Right now only upsides an expensive satellite acting as a server node would be physical security and avoiding various local environmental laws and effects | | |
| ▲ | fooker 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Right now only upsides ... You are missing some pretty important upsides. Lower latency is a major one. And not having to buy land and water to power/cool it. Both are fairly limited as far as resources go, and gets exponentially expensive with competition. The major downside is, of course, cost. In my opinion, this has never really stopped humans from building and scaling up things until the economies of scale work out. > connect to other satellites and earth If only there was a large number of satellites in low earth orbit and a company with expertise building these ;) |
| |
| ▲ | Daishiman 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You need to understand more of basic physics and thermodynamics. Fighting thermodynamics is a losing race by every measure of what we understand of the physical world. | | |
| ▲ | fooker 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Fighting thermodynamics is a losing race The great thing about your argument is that it can be used in any circumstance! Cooling car batteries, nope can't possibly work! Thermodynamics! Refrigerator, are you crazy? You're fighting thermodynamics! Heat pump! Haah thermodynamics got you. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | kristjansson 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 1kW TDP chips need LESS cooling? | | |
| ▲ | fooker 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, Rubin reportedly can deal with running significantly hotter. That makes radiating a much more practical approach to cooling it. |
|
| |
| ▲ | fourseventy 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | His point is that everyone said landing and reusing rockets was impossible and made fun of Elon and SpaceX for years for attempting it. | | |
| ▲ | myko 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, people made fun of Elon for years because he kept attempting it unsafely, skirting regulations and rules, and failing repeatedly in very public ways. The idea itself was proven by NASA with the DC-X but the project was canceled due to funding. Now instead of having NASA run it we SpaceX pay more than we'd ever have paid NASA for the same thing. DC-X test flight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE7XJ5HYQW4 It's awesome that Falcon 9 exists and it is great technology but this guy really isn't the one anyone should want in charge of it. | | |
| ▲ | kortilla 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Now instead of having NASA run it we SpaceX pay more than we'd ever have paid NASA for the same thing. This doesn’t pass the smell test given that the cost of launch with spacex is lower than it ever was under ULA. NASA has never been about cheap launches, just novel technology. Look at the costs of Saturn and SLS to see what happens when they do launch. |
| |
| ▲ | SmirkingRevenge 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | He also said he could save the us a trillion dollars per year with DOGE, and basically just caused a lot data exfiltration and killed hundreds of thousands of people, without saving any money at all | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | techblueberry 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | He said impossible, this was done recently, by spacex themselves. |
|
