Sure, I think everyone knows he's not batting 1000. I've used Waymos and FSD, and they were both great, so I don't think we're too far off now.

I have seen 3 people use iPhones in 18 years.

He's sending the weirdest mixed signals. If we want to hit anywhere near 1 on the Kardashev scale we're gonna need a planet wide high speed rail system. They should just give the major tech companies naming rights to the stations for 35 years for like 2-3 billion a pop and scale up construction 5x.

I don't get the slow roll on this thing. The stations in LA and SF are gonna end up sort of like Tokyo station for the Shinkansen. A giant mall area with a huge amount of commerce. Why isn't this thing done yesterday?

Pinning CAHSR jobs program as hyperloop's fault is pretty funny. Maybe he did intend to upset it but since both turned out to be massive boondoggles doesn't seem like it worked - they managed to delay it themselves just fine.

I don't think he's dumb at all, if what you say is correct. He wanted to block something for his own benefit and he achieved it.

> the California High-speed Rail project

The state government of California was doing a bang up job of destroying this project on their own. He didn't really need to help them. Moreover given the rise of remote work I'm not sure it has as much value as it would have had it been constructed when it was designed.

> but he's not dumb enough to actually believe all the bullshit he spouts.

Yet he's not afraid of the consequences either. This seems more telling to me.

The issue with AI datacenters in orbit is not science or engineering but economics. There is no practical reason why it can't be done, but why would anyone want to buy compute from such a datacenter when they could pay substantially less money for better capacity on Earth?

Orbit is a bad place for a datacenter. Your equipment will be hot and bombarded with radiation. You can't do any repairs. Even with reusable rockets you still have to pay for fuel to launch everything into orbit. You get a small benefit of more efficient power generation but it's not worth all the downsides.

If you want to have solar-powered AI datacenter that you can't service, you'd be way better off building the power generation in a coastal desert and building your datacenter underwater.

With the rockets, it was more, “wow that seems impossible, but incredible if you can pull it off versus existing options.”

With the space data centers, it’s more, “Okay yeah so let’s say you do…why?”

It just seems like a really hard thing to do when the available options are, like, the Chinese building data centers on the Tibetan plateau where it is cold, ample renewable energy, tons of land, and, like, oxygen.

Is the equilibrium temperature in orbit not somewhere between freezing and room temperature? If so spreading the heat evenly across the solar panels must necessarily be sufficient. Issues only arise if you try to get away with a smaller radiator or expose the radiator to direct sunlight or commit some other own goal.

The radiators then need to be protected from earth's heat/light if you want to reach 0K. I agree with GP, it doesn't seem great.

Bear in mind that you could take the solar panels that you would have launched into orbit, use the launch costs to purchase additional solar panels, batteries, and some additional land, and build a data center plus solar farm plus grid scale battery bank on the ground for probably (almost certainly) less than the combined launch costs.

I think the only way compute in space works out financially is if there's so much bulk data already up there that downlink bandwidth becomes a serious bottleneck.

Half a billion in JUST the rocket launches, you've still got to build the actual data center too.

That's assuming he can get launches down to $10 million which I'm sure will be right behind his flying roadster and cybertruck boat

The comparison isn't half a billion for a datacenter, it's half a billion for a big shed (and some solar panels). The problem of space based data centers is that the only effort they save you is building a big shed to put the GPUs in (and potentially cheaper power at the cost of more expensive cooling)

Are you for real? HN yep

I bet you could build a fully off-grid DC that didn't guzzle water for less money than launching a rocket today, and there would be thousands of people lining up down the block to sell you more than enough land to do it a thousand times for cheap. This just isn't happening yet because it is still quite possible to build on-grid DCs supplied with fresh water for cooling despite what some people would have you believe.

And then when you build on the ground you could even send people to it to swap hard drives and GPUs when they inevitably fail or upgrade them to keep them current. At lower rates of failure than they would in space because we have a planetary magnetosphere protecting us from cosmic rays.

It would be extremely funny if putting things in space is cheaper and faster than dealing with zoning and local politics.

It implies that China, which can cut through much red tape and has great (and improving) utilities and infrastructure, lots of energy, can just build normal datacenters and save the cost of dozens of space flights.

Building in space adds engineering complexity. Heat output requires radiators. Radiation damages equipment without shielding. Repairs require a spacewalk. All this for what, better solar panels? If you think local zoning challenges are an obstacle, then you have 194 other countries to build in. Going to space is probably the worst option. Even putting a data center on a boat is probably a better choice and that still sounds like a stupid idea.