| |
| ▲ | happosai 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > if anyone at all can make space-based datacenters economical, it's SpaceX Let's hope burning ten thousand tons of toxic e-waste annually in upper atmoshphere never becomes economical. Or mankind gets to senses and bans externalizing your e-waste problem by burning in atmosphere... | | |
| ▲ | simoncion 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > ...burning ten thousand tons of toxic e-waste annually... Expressing water usage in gallons makes it seem really large, too. NASA says[0]: Scientists estimate that about 48.5 tons (44 tonnes or 44,000 kilograms) of meteoritic material falls on Earth each day.
If we assume that they're all the heavier v2 units, the total mass of the orbital portion of Starlink is ten point four tons. [1] If we assumed that they lasted one year (instead of the five that they're reported to last[1]), then over the course of a year, Starlink would dump six hours worth of asteroid collisions into the atmosphere.I think we'll be fine. Pour all that frustrated energy you have into substantially reducing the amount of incredibly hazardous d-waste [3] big commercial operators burn up into our atmosphere, instead. [0] <https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/meteors-meteorites/#h-...> [1] According to [2] there are currently 10,413 satellites. At an assumed 1760 lbs each, this works out to roughly 10.4 tons. [2] <https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html> [3] "dino"-waste, AKA CO2 | | |
| ▲ | jaycroft 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think you missed a factor of 1000 somewhere in there: Each satellite weighs about 1 ton, there are about 10,000 of them. That is 10,000 tons in orbit for the constellation, not 10. Assuming a 5 year decay, that's 10000/5/365 ~= 5 tons / day. Still about 10% of the natural incoming material, but considerably more than your "six hours worth per year". |
|
| |
| ▲ | H8crilA 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Why would it ever be more economical to put datacenters in orbit, rather than on some dirt cheap land? | | |
| ▲ | ACCount37 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There are no NIMBYs in space. No government permitting on land use. And solar power is plentiful. It's like having a dollar store Dyson sphere. Making use of that is predicated entirely on being able to put a lot of hardware into space cheaply. SpaceX is the undisputed best at that, no one comes close. The question is whether their "best" is good enough to make space datacenters economical. | | |
| ▲ | delichon 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There are many Not In My Orbit people on this very page. Many current national politicians would be happy to vote AI out of orbit today. Space is not an escape from earthly politics. | | | |
| ▲ | kklisura 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | But you don't have to build it in someone's _backyard_, just build it in a middle of nowhere. |
| |
| ▲ | dgellow 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That won’t ever be the case. It’s pure grift. There is literally no other actual reason | |
| ▲ | inglor_cz 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I am surprised how many people say that there is no reason to put data centers in orbit, when, at the same time, data centers are becoming the hated thing du jour all over the US and politicians left and right (but mostly left-of-center) are touting bans and restrictions to their electorates. It is definitely to escape most political pressures on Earth. They will never be able to sidestep the US feds, but aside from an open war with China or Russia, all other authorities are out of the game when it comes to space. | | |
| ▲ | XorNot an hour ago | parent [-] | | People don't want to live near data centers. But companies find it logistically cheaper and easier to keep proposing to build them near existing towns and infrastructure, and then deal with regulatory fights rather then picking an isolated area and running an extension of high voltage lines out to them. Which tells you something about why space data centers makes no sense. |
| |
| ▲ | newsclues 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The data link between earth and space has so much bandwidth. There are sensors in space that send data to earth it gets processed and then the data is sent back to space then to the end user back on earth. If you do the compute in space you save the space-earth transfer time twice. Latency and availability of bandwidth are both factors. There may be limited utility for this outside of military. | |
| ▲ | readthenotes1 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because dirt cheap land usually does not have dirt, cheap water or dirt cheap electricity. | | |
| ▲ | jordanb 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Water in orbit: famously cheap. | | |
| ▲ | ACCount37 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ah yes: computation. Famous for annihilating water. Every bit you flip consumes an H2O molecule. | | |
| ▲ | kennywinker 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well, how do you cool servers in space then? Evaporative cooling is the way it happens down on earth - and that shuttles h2o molecules from dense useful clumps like aquifers and rivers to a less useful form spread out in the air. But evaporating h2o isn’t an option in space afaik - since there’s a shortage of air to take up the h2o. In fact I think radiative cooling is the only actual option in space. | | |
| ▲ | MrMorden 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's the neat thing: you don't, or at least not in the megawatt range. A kilowatt can be done with radiative cooling but doesn't get you far with a hypothetical datacenter satellite. | | |
| ▲ | kennywinker 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | So, somehow the servers can run hot in space without a problem? | | |
| ▲ | MrMorden 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | No; if you try to do this you don't launch in the first place because the amount of servers required to be useful can't be cooled within your payload budget. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | etc-hosts 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | My job is mostly worrying about cooling paths, maintenance, power, heat transfer, lifetime of GPUs, and high performance networks. NVIDIA partner. I can drive to the datacenter. This stuff BARELY works here on Earth. Especially thermal issues. Looking forward to watching spacex defeat physics. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nutjob2 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Space-based datacenters simply won't work. That people are talking about them shows Musk is the greatest snake oil salesman the world has ever seen. | | |
| ▲ | criddell an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > Space-based datacenters simply won't work. Everybody knows. Musk is a snake oil salesman (that’s been clear since the self-driving car promises) but he also has made a lot of people a lot of money and that’s all anybody really cares about. None of his companies have a traditionally reasonable valuation. Is there any reason to think that’s going to change soon? | |
| ▲ | rpdillon 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Can anyone explain how the thermals will work? One of the biggest challenges on Earth is cooling the data center, and it's at least as challenging in space. | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The earthbound equivalent would be strapping each chassis to the back of a dedicated solar panel and having the panel double as a giant heat sink. The problem is that doesn't work on the surface due to (at least) rain, the day/night cycle, and the cost of real estate. | | |
| ▲ | marcosdumay 6 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | That's not right. This works a couple orders of magnitude better on the ground than on space (unless your computers run at several hundred °C). The reason people don't do it here is because it's too expensive. | |
| ▲ | protimewaster 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Isn't a solar panel going to be a poor heatsink, though? It's flat, and thus has relatively small surface area compared to its size. | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | In atmosphere, yeah, relatively speaking. But it doesn't matter since in this scenario each chassis is powered exclusively by the respective panel. How hot does a black panel sitting in the midday sun get? That's your equilibrium temperature. As long as it's within the operational limit of the device there's no problem. The reason earthbound DCs are difficult to cool is because of density. When you match up panels to devices and shelter in their shadow you no longer have anywhere near the same power density. |
|
| |
| ▲ | wuschel 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Thermals are one among many really big challenges that require costly solutions. | |
| ▲ | dgellow 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It won’t. It’s not supposed to work, it’s a mirage to raise dumb money. It’s way, way more challenging to cool something a vacuum. The only option is radiative cooling, which is far from being performant. The idea is as realistic as Musk previous grifts such as his digging company and there hyperloop, both absurd and supposed to revolutionize transport, both created as grifting devices and ensure public transport doesn’t develop in the US |
| |
| ▲ | saimiam 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > won’t work A datacenter (earthbound or space) itself is a fantastical idea until a mix of events and inventions made it feasible to build them to sell compute. | |
| ▲ | newsclues 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You think the military can’t or won’t dump billions into this to make killing people with drones more effective? It’s a engineering challenge not impossible. | | |
| ▲ | Drakim 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | There are asteroids with concentrations of precious metals more valuable than earth's entire economy. Why don't we just send up spaceships to mine them and send the haul back to earth? What country would say no to free money? After all, it's just an engineering challenge, not impossible. | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | The numbers on that are at least somewhat questionable. Even ignoring that you'd crash the market (thus it's not actually worth what it first appears to be) what is the total fuel cost to adjust the orbit of the target asteroid to land the entire thing back on the earth? Because that's what you're doing bit by bit as you shuttle loads of ore back. Now if you have space based manufacturing or fuel production on the other hand ... | | |
| ▲ | XorNot an hour ago | parent [-] | | That's the point. Basic rule of thumb: anytime someone is arguing that the military will fund something, they're wrong. Its not a real argument it's just used because to most people the military is a big mysterious thing they don't understand which they think has an infinite budget for things. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | formerly_proven 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | When I hear space I think "that's the perfect location for a data center", since data centers are lightweight, small, require little power, don't need human intervention, have lifetimes measured in decades and don't have to reject heat. Since space easily satisfies these requirements, space is an ideal deployment location for data centers. | | |
| ▲ | bonsai_spool 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah... What am I missing? Like why isn't this just laughed at when it's proposed? | | |
| ▲ | jordanb 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I felt the same way about the "tube with an air hockey table in it." But here I am fifteen years later eating crow as I take the hyperloop to Vegas. | | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It seems off at first glance but actually appears to work out if you do the math. You can model a solar panel as a flat, opaque rectangle. You can calculate power generation and equilibrium temperature for it based on surface area. If you require additional radiative surface area to achieve the desired equilibrium temperature you can place a flat triangle orthogonal to and behind the solar panel in its shadow. Compute is "free" at that point because waste heat is coming out of the total energy flux which was already accounted for (because we modeled it as opaque). Of course swapping out the equipment poses a bit of a challenge. The "helping hands" rate is entirely unaffordable and wait until you see this new DC's physical access policies. 0/10 would not rack with them again. |
| |
| ▲ | readthenotes1 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This may be one of the rare instances where the sarcasm is obvious without using the sarcasm font |
|
|
