| ▲ | joshuastuden 2 hours ago |
| SpaceX also wants to put data centers in space. That's the big market for SpaceX and how it ties into AI. |
|
| ▲ | fcarraldo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Which hasn't yet been proven to be either technically or economically viable, even on paper. It's a pipe dream. The cynical viewpoint is that this is Elon capitalizing on current datacenter hype to inflate SpaceX's valuation based on theoretically overcoming tremendous amounts of hard physics problems, over the next 5-10 years. As he did with FSD, Boring Company / Hyperloop, Twitter, etc. |
| |
| ▲ | lbreakjai an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | We've been through it over and over. "Tesla is not a car company it's a X company" where X is the current trending theme. So far, Tesla has been a blockchain, energy, robotics, and now a compute company. | |
| ▲ | inglor_cz an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Neither was reuse of rockets and I remember the ex-boss of Arianespace laughing at those bozos of SpaceX who try to pretend that they are a serious space business. Musk made some bad bets, but also some good ones (Falcon rockets, Starlink) and some at least promising ones (Starship, Neuralink). And Twitter bought him enormous political influence - I wouldn't consider this a failure either, from the realistically-cynical point of view. That cannot be measured by revenue alone. | | |
| ▲ | Jtarii 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Twitter was a "success" for musk sure, it was also a catastrophic failure for the rest of western civilisation. Musk has been coasting on his successes from 10+ years ago. He has nothing good to offer anyone in 2026. | |
| ▲ | petra 35 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | For most of his sucsessful ideas he had sophisticated investors, VC's, to judge the idea and take the bet(at an early stage). Would any VC(one without a conflict of interest) invest now, for the long term, based on those visions? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | scoofy 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I still have no idea how that would work. Imagine launching an entire data center building into space, and then imagine also launching a solar array to power it, and then also launching a gigantic radiator to cool it... and the radiator is full of some kind of liquid that can never leak even though it's in a vacuum. Like, sure, but also, that seems like a lot of work, a lot of extra cost, and a lot of risk, all just to avoid building it in Kansas. |
| |
| ▲ | rlt 11 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | It was also hard for many people to imagine a reusable booster, a belly flopping Starship, catching the largest booster ever built with “chopsticks”, a 10,000 satellite constellation, etc. Orbital compute is technically very feasible. We’re not talking about a datacenter-sized structure, but a lot of rack-sized satellites connected by laser links. SpaceX has gotten pretty good at building, launching, and managing large constellations. Economically it obviously it has challenges, but there are some advantages (6x solar production, free real estate, less regulation, arguably simpler cooling) to balance the extra costs (launch, radiators, lack of access for maintenance, limited lifespan, etc). | |
| ▲ | scottyah 29 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's the cool part, scoofy. You don't need to understand how it will work, you don't need to take any physics classes, round up enough investors, seek out and explain the basic ideas with the people who will make it happen, or invent anything new. Nor do you need to understand political sciences, taxation, jurisdictions, supply chains, or anything else needed to understand the question behind the Data Centers in Space solution. You aren't even being roped into it with taxes, nor do you have to buy a single share. Other than willingly reading about it on whichever news sources you choose, your observed life will not change a single bit. You can choose to seek out that info, or you can remain blissfully ignorant. But please don't join the online cacophony of people polluting the threads thinking everyone wants to understand just how ignorant they are. I get it, I really do. It's a hard task and you don't understand it. But WHY do you feel the need to share that you don't understand? Do you think it makes you look smarter? Do you feel like you fit in more now? If you seek to understand, why aren't you asking questions?? |
|
|
| ▲ | mftrhu 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Do they, really? Because putting data centers in space would mean multiplying the infrastructure cost by a few orders of magnitude, while being far, far away from cheap energy - photovoltaics would work, certainly, but it will take a lot of it, and it's not like you can just slap panels on the roof - easy cooling, and people. It's a ridiculous idea, and I don't believe it's what they are really pursuing. |
|
| ▲ | AmericanOP an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A great business for the rocket logistics company since radiators are a thing. A less good business for the data center company. |
|
| ▲ | chorsestudios 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| xAI could tie in just fine without Cursor in the picture. |
|
| ▲ | infinitewars 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dead] |
|
| ▲ | monegator 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| yes musk said that, but that's retarded, a statement made to fill as many bingo spaces as possible |
| |
| ▲ | tnel77 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Why is this the case? I want him to be correct, but I am also skeptical. | | |
| ▲ | tavavex an hour ago | parent [-] | | > I want him to be correct Why? If you're curious, I explained why space data centers are such an irredeemably stupid idea in my eyes a few comments up. |
| |
| ▲ | jcpham2 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes but the statement is in fact a milestone to meet in order to vest Class B stock options, specifically SPCX needs to put 100 terawatts of compute [1] in outer space and beam it back to somewhere, my guess is Earth. There's even more rewards for putting a million people on Mars and reaching a market cap of 7.5T by a certain date. Oh yeah he has to stay employed too. From the SEC Form 3 filed June 12th:
1) This Form 3 does not include 1,302,072,285 shares of restricted Class B Common Stock issued to and held of record by the Reporting Person, which may be voted by the Reporting Person, and the vesting of which is subject to the satisfaction of certain performance and other conditions. 1,000,000,000 shares of restricted Class B Common Stock vest upon (i) the Issuer's achievement of specified market capitalization milestones across 15 equal tranches ranging from $500 billion to $7.5 trillion, with each milestone reflecting $500 billion in additional valuation, and (ii) the Issuer's establishment of a permanent human colony on Mars with at least one million inhabitants, in each case, subject to the Reporting Person's continued employment ("SpaceX CEO Award"). 302,072,285 shares of restricted Class B Common Stock vest upon (i) the Issuer's achievement of specified market capitalization milestones across 12 equal tranches ranging from $1.065 trillion to $6.565 trillion, with each milestone reflecting $500 billion in additional valuation, and (ii) the Issuer's completion of non-Earth-based data centers capable of delivering 100 terawatts of compute per year, in each case, subject to the Reporting Person's continued employment ("AI CEO Award") | |
| ▲ | slg 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The way people just casually use that word again now is so sad. And I don't even mean that in an "I'm offended" way, but more of "I'm embarrassed by the way you're trying to be offensive" way. | | |
| ▲ | monegator an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | oh, no it's exactly as jimmy valmer puts it, there is nothing against mentally disabled people, it is just it's something so stupid that one can't even decide were to start to describe all the points in which is stupid, so stupid doesn't possibly cut it | | |
| ▲ | slg an hour ago | parent [-] | | If you can't think of any other intensified synonyms for "stupid", you just might be... |
| |
| ▲ | chucksmash 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I'm embarrassed by the way you're trying to be offensive Oooor, try this one on for size: What if they're not out to cause offense and the malice you impute is just an illusion under which you yourself are laboring alone? What if it was a well understood and not particularly offensive vernacular usage from before people decided they ought to spend their time being offended on behalf of hypothetical listeners? | | |
| ▲ | slg an hour ago | parent [-] | | Why use a word that has some offensive quality to it when other words would be just as effective in communicating whatever you're trying to communicate? You're actively making a decision that you know will cause some level of offense. So the only conclusion I can make is that some level of offense is intended. | | |
| ▲ | chucksmash an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | In 2004 I used to volunteer as a tutor at an afterschool center in a low income housing project. One day a middle schooler was complaining about how much homework they had and I ribbed them a little, "oh, poor baby." They were stung. "I'm not poor!" I felt so bad about it that it's stuck with me all these years. Does that mean because I've seen first hand how hurtful it can be that I should chide people whenever they use the P word? | | |
| ▲ | slg an hour ago | parent [-] | | "Chide" is not the word I would use because there is a very obvious difference between the offensiveness of "poor" and "retard", you obviously know that. But yes, if I heard another volunteer at a program for low income kids use "poor" in that offhanded context and I saw the pain it caused in those kids, I think it's reasonable to take that volunteer aside and say "be careful using terminology like 'poor' as it can be surprisingly hurtful to kids that are self-conscious about that". You can do that sort of thing in an informative and compassionate way without being "chiding". And that analogy isn't even accurate because I'm not the one informing you that the word can be hurtful. You're using it already knowing that. So a better question is did you continue to say "oh, poor baby" to the kids who were hurt by your original comment? | | |
| ▲ | chucksmash an hour ago | parent [-] | | Why would you think I'd continue to say it after realizing I'd inadvertently hurt the kid's feelings? You are making assumptions of ill will from me in the anecdote I shared just like you are making assumptions about the OP intending offense because you didn't like their word choice. | | |
| ▲ | slg 40 minutes ago | parent [-] | | >Why would you think I'd continue to say it after realizing I'd inadvertently hurt the kid's feelings? I don't think you would continue using it, that was the point I was making and it sounds like you now agree with me that we shouldn't be knowingly offensive. | | |
| ▲ | chucksmash 25 minutes ago | parent [-] | | And my point is that I went out of my way not to use it any more in that circumstance. Yet in the years since, I still talk about poor decisionmaking, poor luck, poor performance, and poor word choice. Because it would be poor logic to go through life auditing everything I say just in case a middle schooler with a somewhat poor vocabulary might mistake my meaning. | | |
| ▲ | slg 12 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Which brings me right back to "there is a very obvious difference between the offensiveness of 'poor' and 'retard', you obviously know that." "Poor" has non-offensive uses so you can continue to use it in other ways. You don't need to advocate for the non-offensive uses of a slur. You know regardless of the context, some people will be offended by its use. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | marknutter 5 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do you just.. never swear? |
|
| |
| ▲ | fcarraldo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Ironically, we can thank Elon Musk for that too. edit: Gross that you're being downvoted. HN crowd needs a serious look in the mirror. | | |
| ▲ | scottyah 24 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Bringing back and pinning the word to not derail the discussion of "mental illness", "mental handicap", "slow learner", etc or its use as an offensive? I think the main issue is that no matter which word/phrase is used, some people will use it as a slur, and changing it so often causes more issues than it solves. |
| |
| ▲ | tnel77 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | For what it’s worth, I’m not trying to be offensive or edgy when I say that word with friends. “The grass is green and that thing (random topic) is retarded.” | | |
| ▲ | slg 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You know that many people are offended by that word and yet you use it anyway when other words would get the exact same message across without the offense. The only reasons to use that specific word are either the desire to cause offense or to revel in the possibility of causing offense. | |
| ▲ | monegator an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | exactly. |
|
| |
| ▲ | nozzlegear 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There's no need to use slurs. | | |
| ▲ | a34729t an hour ago | parent [-] | | Musk himself has identified as such: “For the record, I am a fat retard.” So, that is in fact, his word. | | |
| ▲ | Octoth0rpe 12 minutes ago | parent [-] | | If someone refers to themselves by a particular slur, that does not grant you any social leniency to call them that too. Consider that exact situation with any other particular slur. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jonator 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Energy will be the biggest bottleneck to data centers on land. Is not an issue in space. Space is the perfect env for running compute. | | |
| ▲ | tavavex an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Space is an abysmal environment for running compute. It offers no real advantages over doing the same thing on Earth, and it's more expensive, too! Energy is far cheaper and more abundant here than in space. And get ready to figure out things like: - Heat dissipation - Radiation shielding - Either the most complex in-space construction ever undertaken, or the most complex distributed computing problem ever undertaken (no, Starlink satellites aren't good enough, we're orders of magnitude away from replicating the speed and reliability of connections within a single room) - Zero flexibility, zero repairability, zero upgradability. Either it's working, or you make it burn up in the atmosphere with no in-between. Add on that the rationality of sending mountains of precision-manufactured tech containing many uncommon metals only for them to be completely lost. This makes the pricing even worse, in addition to - Already high costs for designing, building and launching all that in addition to all the extra weight overhead you're taking in components that don't do computation, when the alternative is building a glorified warehouse in the middle of nowhere. It just doesn't make any sense. It's a project tied up in hype and created solely so spaceflight can be hastily duct taped to the AI investment hysteria. Ask yourself why no one brought this up before or outside the context of AI, despite the lowering of space launch prices and data centers both existing before any of it. | | |
| ▲ | jonator 31 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Assume reusable spaceflight eventually brings launch cost close to the cost of fuel. This is close to happening. The overhead of building out grid and power infrastructure on land would then exceed the installation speed and cost relative to space based deployments. Also assume the compute that does make it to space has a short shelf life anyways so lack of ability to repair is a non issue. As we scale manufacturing on land this will increasingly be the case. China has already run experiments and served models from space, so we know the heat dissipation equation is solvable. Finally you’d arrive at a similar model that’s already proven successful with Starlink but applied to serving inference. The key question is speed to scale new deployments to meet demand. If the markets demand is near infinite, they will choose to fund space based deployments over slower land deployments. |
| |
| ▲ | andruby an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Space-grade photovoltaics are >10x more expensive than ground based panels. Add some (Tesla) utility scale batteries and it can run 24/7. No need for expensive radiators or rocket launches. And personnel can upgrade the hardware every time there's a new generation of GPU's. Putting datacenters in deserts around the equator is a much better idea than in Space. If you're really optimizing for cost that is. If you're optimizing for SpaceX meme-stock valuation the former wins | |
| ▲ | AmericanOP an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Perfect, minus that pesky law of thermodynamics. | |
| ▲ | deadbolt 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What about the heat? |
|
|