Top
Best
New

Posted by simonebrunozzi 5 hours ago

Will we put data centers in space?(www.forethought.org)
47 points | 142 commentspage 3
alcomatt 1 hour ago|
What happens to all the rare earth materials once the space DC have been decommissioned? Isn't it a horrible waste of the already hard to come-by resources to send it to a disposable trash heap in space, all in the name of forever chasing profits?
pfdietz 1 hour ago|
What rare earth materials? Are you referring to Shellenberger's BS that PV uses rare earths?
jp0001 1 hour ago||
Underground or in skyscrapers make more sense
flossly 4 hours ago||
It's really hard to get electronic "space grade" there is a lot more radiation there.

Also I wonder how long the ODC needs to operate to offset the energy spend on getting it in orbit.

pokstad 1 hour ago|
Isn’t “space grade” a result of high space launch costs? If it becomes cheap enough to launch hardware into space, it doesn’t need to last as long to meet ROI.
semiquaver 41 minutes ago||
No
jpgvm 2 hours ago||
Earth has massive amounts of mostly unused land that is comparatively close enough by speed of light in fibre.

vs Space:

* Can drive a truck out there

* No limit on weight or dimensions (within reason)

* No giant explodey thing transporting it to into where it needs to be

* No constant falling towards the earth that needs to be averted with thrusters

* If building in the middle of nowhere there is also lots of space for solar panels

* Heat can be rejected into the atmosphere/earth/nearby bodies of water etc instead of radiation into the vacuum of space

* De-comissioning it doesn't also involve slamming a DC worth of mass into the atmosphere and burning up otherwise recyclable materials.

* You don't look like a doofus for doing bad math.

pokstad 1 hour ago|
Drive through Nevada outside of Vegas and you’ll see land everywhere. Yet, solar plants still build out slowly. It’s more than just land availability.
groos 4 hours ago||
I fail to see the economic case. You will need very large solar arrays and radiation hardened components, both of which make it uneconomical compared to a data center on Earth. This is another of Musk's genius ideas like the tunnels that were supposed to be carrying us under cities by now.
vlovich123 4 hours ago||
The problem is that experiments into this by Google have concluded that radiation hardening is unnecessary. HBM memory far surpassed their expectations for survival, exceeding 5 years in their simulated proton beam on earth. Localized shielding for consumer equipment is more than enough, especially combined with ECC.

Solar power and power dissipation are similarly solvable. The only bottleneck currently is launch costs which is why it’s expected around 2030 is when these DCs will explode

pfdietz 1 hour ago|||
The PV at least can potentially be much less robust than on Earth, since it doesn't have to contend with wind and weather. CdTe thin films, for example, can be just 1 micron thick (the absorption length of solar photons in that material is ~0.1 microns). So potentially the material cost of space PV can be much less than the same peak power PV on Earth.
K3UL 1 hour ago|||
The bet that they are making is that, in the near-future, energy on Earth will be such an issue (especially if you want to scale) that DCs on Earth will cost more than components + launch costs
drum55 4 hours ago|||
It's difficult to imagine any sort of compute in space given the state of the art rad hardened processor is about as fast as a computer Apple sold in 1998.
emtel 2 hours ago||
You don’t have to imagine. The starlink constellation is a working and profitable massive deployment of orbital compute. (It doesn’t use rad hardened hardware as far as I can tell)
za_creature 1 hour ago||
Starlink is impressive but calling it compute is a stretch.

It's not that far off from a residential router with a bigger antenna.

FireBeyond 4 hours ago||
Musk's "genius idea" there was to (pardon the pun) derail high speed rail and other similar investments so he could sell more cars.

What are Hyperloop/Boring actually doing now? It doesn't take that much investment to human-drive a 10-20 Teslas up and down the Vegas Strip in a straight tunnel at normal speeds.

rdtsc 4 hours ago||
> and becomes cheaper than any current terrestrial energy source at around $50/kg

Heck for $50/kg I could see it, too. Now with Falcon 9 or Heavy it's on the order of thousands, isn't it? Just need a measly two orders of magnitude improvement and then we can start talking.

topspin 2 hours ago|
Does gauging this based on Falcon 9 launch costs make sense now? SpaceX has already deployed two payloads of satellites using Starship. Falcon 9 is a deprecated system because SpaceX intends to use Starship for future payload missions.

We can't yet know the ultimate cost of Starship payloads. All we have is SpaceX projections of $10-100/kg. Maybe that is realized, maybe not. Given the scale of the LA launch site they're building, they intend to have the launch cadence to deliver lower launch costs than anything achieved with Falcon 9 or any other launch system ever created.

rgmerk 2 hours ago||
Underlying this seems to be the assumption that those pesky governments, pushed around by public opinion, will keep on blocking or delaying terrestrial data centres, but space-based ones will be fine.

The idea that launch rates could increase to the rates required to launch gigawatts of computing into space, without attracting a huge backlash, is fantasy. And such a backlash would be entirely justified - the only reason why the environmental effects of space launch aren't a focus of environmentalists is because there aren't many of them.

zelphirkalt 4 hours ago||
No we will not. The reason is simple: Space is not in the cloud, it is above. Anything that's not in the cloud is bad.

Silliness aside, has anyone come up with a cooling system that would work well for a friggin data center in space? Or is it still all just a wishful thinking game, ignoring physics?

vlovich123 4 hours ago||
The plan as I understand it is to pack it tightly with TPUs with liquid cooling out to radiators and flying a tight cluster of these next to each other using high bandwidth laser links. That lets you balance the amount of thermal radiation you need to emit vs the amount of TPUs in a single satellite. Thus it’s not a DC in a single satellite but more like a rack and then a bundle of racks flying beside each other.
ben_w 4 hours ago|||
> Silliness aside, has anyone come up with a cooling system that would work well for a friggin data center in space? Or is it still all just a wishful thinking game, ignoring physics

That cooling is already perfectly viable.

However at the temperatures chips operate at, because stuff on the ground is getting convective cooling as well as radiative, a radiator designed for LEO will reject slightly more heat on the ground than it would in orbit.

exogeny 4 hours ago|||
It is absolutely a wishful thinking game, ignoring physics. It's a bet made by investors who don't know or care about the science, and are looking for a modal outcome of a failed company purchased by SpaceX or by an even dumber company looking to compete with SpaceX.
pfdietz 1 hour ago|||
Whenever I asked someone to dig down into "against the laws of physics" arguments, they turned out to instead rest on a pile of tacit and pessimistic technological assumptions.

Perhaps you could explain in detail why you think the laws of physics have to be violated for space data centers to work.

vlovich123 4 hours ago|||
I recommend reading up on the results of Google’s project suncatcher. IMHO the results have provided a roadmap to space DCs with the only blocker being launch cost which are targeted to become economically viable in 2030s; sooner for spacex because they can lower their margins to zero or even negative for the launch itself.
freecodeio 1 hour ago||
it's the equivalent of PMs asking "can we just make our own llm to save costs"
ggm-at-algebras 4 hours ago|
Do we need to? Do we want to? Who is "we" here?
More comments...