| ▲ | ekjhgkejhgk 15 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||