new | show | ask | jobs Github

ekjhgkejhgk 16 hours ago

Link please!

▲

scoopdewoop 15 hours ago | parent [-]

The day after the emails came out he posted a video where they had beers while Elon LARPed as a human

▲

ekjhgkejhgk 15 hours ago | parent [-]

Link please!

▲

naves 15 hours ago | parent [-]

Elon Musk – "In 36 months, the cheapest place to put AI will be space”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYXbuik3dgA

▲

ekjhgkejhgk 15 hours ago | parent [-]

Thanks for the link because I can't stomach 3 hours of this.

First phrase: "you're saving on energy by putting data centers in space". What?

2:08 "It's harder to scale on the ground than it is in space" what?

▲

JumpCrisscross 15 hours ago | parent [-]

The argument is permitting and weather proofing are harder than lifting at certain values of scale for each. We’re not there right now. But if Starship pans out we’re at least damn close, particularly if solar-panel fabrication can be done from out-of-well silicates.

▲

ekjhgkejhgk 14 hours ago | parent [-]

You don't buy any of this right?

Didnt startship exploded like 10 times by now? But in 30 months they'll be launchign 1 per hour? What?

▲

JumpCrisscross 14 hours ago | parent [-]

> You don't buy any of this right?

I actually do. The math is more strained than anything present. But a lot of people are rejecting it out of hand without doing anything back of the envelope. Truth is, barring a seismic shift in how we permit data centers on the ground, it takes a within-the-envelope decreases in launch costs to make space-based data centers profitable. Which is then just a cheat code for building a Dyson sphere.

> Didnt startship exploded like 10 times by now?

They all explode all the time. Starship has also been consistently improving its suborbital flight characteristics. I don’t see a good argument for a fundamental design fuckup in the data we have.

> But in 30 months they'll be launchign 1 per hour?

This is nonsense. But within ten years? I think so. At least, we don’t have a good reason to reject that with current data. And that would make the cost equation flip to favoring space-based infrastructure. Which, honestly, is not the answer I expected. (I’ve done aerospace stuff for a while. Most of the back-of-the-envelope math fails. It failed for space-based solar power. It failed for asteroid mining. And it currently fails for space-based data centers. But let launch costs dip a bit, or permitting delays and risks rise a bit, and the equation balances sooner than one would think.)

▲

ekjhgkejhgk 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Changing permits sounds to me a lot easier than building anything in space. What has ever been built in space? The ISS, that's it.

Alright, show me the back of the envelope maths.

▲

JumpCrisscross 13 hours ago | parent [-]

> Changing permits sounds to me a lot easier than building anything in space

Having done a little bit of both, the latter around data centers, I’ll say they’re different kinds of hard.

> Alright, show me

Fair question. But no, I’m still refining my math and making bets on this. But I’ll start working on an HN comment in a few weeks and try to remember to post it back to this thread.

My basic argument is to try pinning out current datacenter costs, pin out lifted costs, and then work out what cost/kg you need to balance the two. Hint: approval time and interest rates are meaningful variables.

	▲	aspenmayer 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I’ll start working on an HN comment in a few weeks and try to remember to post it back to this thread iirc HN threads automatically close, due to inactivity and (/or?) based on time since the original post. I wasn’t able to find a thread with the comments still open from 16 days ago, let alone a “few weeks”, but in good faith I’m assuming that you already know that, and aren’t using that as an out to avoid replying, not that anyone is “owed” a reply by you, or by anyone. This is all to say, I appreciate the thread as a bystander, and would thus naturally eagerly await your reply if and when it arrives before the closure of individual this post’s comment section.