| ▲ | murderfs 12 hours ago |
| > The maintenance costs are higher because the lifetime of satellites is pretty low Presumably they're planning on doing in-orbit propellant transfer to reboost the satellites so that they don't have to let their GPUs crash into the ocean... |
|
| ▲ | mlyle 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Another significant factor is that radiation makes things worse. Ionizing radiation disrupts the crystalline structure of the semiconductor and makes performance worse over time. High energy protons randomly flip bits, can cause latchup, single event gate rupture, destroy hardware immediately, etc. |
| |
| ▲ | Aerolfos 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | If anything, considering this + limited satellite lifetime, it almost looks like a ploy to deal with the current issue of warehouses full of GPUs and the questions about overbuild with just the currently actively installed GPUs (which is a fraction of the total that Nvidia has promised to deliver within a year or two). Just shoot it into space where it's all inaccessible and will burn out within 5 years, forcing a continuous replacement scheme and steady contracts with Nvidia and the like to deliver the next generation at the exact same scale, forever |
|
|
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Presumably they're planning on doing in-orbit propellant transfer to reboost the satellites so that they don't have to let their GPUs crash into the ocean Hell, you're going to lose some fraction of chips to entropy every year. What if you could process those into reaction mass? |
| |
| ▲ | 3eb7988a1663 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I believe that a modern GPU will burn out immediately. Chips for space are using ancient process nodes with chunky sized components so that they are more resilient to radiation. Deploying a 3nm process into space seems unlikely to work unless you surround it with a foot of lead. | | | |
| ▲ | notahacker 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Reminds me of the proposal to deorbit end of life satellites by puncturing their lithium batteries :) The physics of consuming bits of old chip in an inefficient plasma thruster probably work, as do the crawling robots and crushers needed for orbital disassembly, but we're a few years away yet. And whilst on orbit chip replacement is much more mass efficient than replacing the whole spacecraft, radiators and all, it's also a nontrivial undertaking | |
| ▲ | falcor84 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This brings a whole new dimension to that joke about how our software used to leak memory, then file descriptors, then ec2 instances, and soon we'll be leaking entire data centers. So essentially you're saying - let's convert this into a feature. |
|
|
| ▲ | XorNot 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And just like that you've added another not never done before, and definitely not at scale problem to the mix. These are all things which add weight, complexity and cost. Propellant transfer to an orbital Starship hasn't even been done yet and that's completely vital to it's intended missions. |
|
| ▲ | sanex 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Or maybe they want to just use them hard and deorbit them after three yesrs? |
|
| ▲ | zeofig 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| "Planning" is a strong word.. |