Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Starcloud can’t put a data centre in space at $8.2M in one Starship

angadh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 365 posts

Re: Starcloud can’t put a data centre in space at $8.2M in one Starship

#141

Post by verzali »

Robotbeat wrote: post #97
oceanplexian wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it need to be robots? On Earth we have skeleton crews maintain large datacenters. If the cost of mass to orbit is 100x cheaper, it’s not that absurd to have an on-call rotation of humans to maintain the space datacenter and install parts shipped on space FedEx or whatever we have in the future.

Bingo. It's all contingent on a factor of 100-1000x reduction in launch costs, and a lot of the objections to the idea don't really engage with that concept. That's a cost comparable to air travel (both air freight and passenger travel). (Especially irritating is the continued assertion that thermal radiation is really hard, and not like something that every satellite already seems to deal with just fine, with a radi…

It is really hard, and it is something you need to take into careful consideration when designing a satellite.

It is really fucking hard when you have 40MW of heat being generated that you somehow have to get rid of.

Re: Starcloud can’t put a data centre in space at $8.2M in one Starship

#142

Post by verzali »

oceanplexian wrote: post #83
GlenTheMachine wrote: post #76

Space roboticist here. As with a lot of things, it isn't the initial outlay, it's the maintenance costs. Terrestrial datacenters have parts fail and get replaced all the time. The mass analysis given here -- which appears quite good, at first glance -- doesn't including any mass, energy, or thermal system numbers for the infrastructure you would need to have to replace failed components. As a first cut, this would re…

Why does it need to be robots? On Earth we have skeleton crews maintain large datacenters. If the cost of mass to orbit is 100x cheaper, it’s not that absurd to have an on-call rotation of humans to maintain the space datacenter and install parts shipped on space FedEx or whatever we have in the future.

If you want to have people you need to add in a whole lot of life support and additional safety to keep people alive. Robots are easier, since they don't die so easily. If you can get them to work at all, that is.

Re: Starcloud can’t put a data centre in space at $8.2M in one Starship

#144

Post by looofooo0 »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #104
GlenTheMachine wrote: post #76

Space roboticist here. As with a lot of things, it isn't the initial outlay, it's the maintenance costs. Terrestrial datacenters have parts fail and get replaced all the time. The mass analysis given here -- which appears quite good, at first glance -- doesn't including any mass, energy, or thermal system numbers for the infrastructure you would need to have to replace failed components. As a first cut, this would re…

Appreciate the insights, but I think failing hardware is the least of their problems. In that underwater pod trial, MS saw lower failure rates than expected (nitrogen atmosphere could be a key factor there). > The company only lost six of the 855 submerged servers versus the eight servers that needed replacement (from the total of 135) on the parallel experiment Microsoft ran on land. It equates to a 0.7% loss in the…

Power!? Isnt that just PV and batteries? LEO has like 1.5h orbit.

Re: Starcloud can’t put a data centre in space at $8.2M in one Starship

#145

Post by nusl »

weinzierl wrote: post #131

I worked in aerospace for a couple of years in the beginning of my career. While my area of expertise was the mechanical design I shared my office with the guy who did the thermal design and I learned two things: 1. Satellites are mostly run at room temperature. It doesn't have to be that way but it simplifies a lot of things. 2. Every satellite is a delicately balanced system where heat generation and actively radia…

What is room temperature in this context? The temp of the space it's sitting in or a typical room temp on Earth?

Re: Starcloud can’t put a data centre in space at $8.2M in one Starship

#146

Post by rwmj »

weinzierl wrote: post #131

I worked in aerospace for a couple of years in the beginning of my career. While my area of expertise was the mechanical design I shared my office with the guy who did the thermal design and I learned two things: 1. Satellites are mostly run at room temperature. It doesn't have to be that way but it simplifies a lot of things. 2. Every satellite is a delicately balanced system where heat generation and actively radia…

It's like a thermos flask where the spaceship is the contents and space is the insulating vacuum.

Re: Starcloud can’t put a data centre in space at $8.2M in one Starship

#147

Post by rwmj »

weinzierl wrote: post #138

Why do they want to put a data center in space in the first place? Free cooling? Doesn't make much sense to me. As the article points out the radiators need to me massive. Access to solar energy? Solar is more efficient in space, I'll give them that, but does that really outweigh the whole hassle to put the panels in space in the first place? Physical isolation and security? Against manipulation maybe, but not agains…

Ability to raise money from gullible investors.

Re: Starcloud can’t put a data centre in space at $8.2M in one Starship

#148

Post by intended »

verzali wrote: post #142
oceanplexian wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it need to be robots? On Earth we have skeleton crews maintain large datacenters. If the cost of mass to orbit is 100x cheaper, it’s not that absurd to have an on-call rotation of humans to maintain the space datacenter and install parts shipped on space FedEx or whatever we have in the future.

If you want to have people you need to add in a whole lot of life support and additional safety to keep people alive. Robots are easier, since they don't die so easily. If you can get them to work at all, that is.

Life support can be on the shuttle/transport. Or it can be its own hab… space office ? Space workshop ?

Re: Starcloud can’t put a data centre in space at $8.2M in one Starship

#149

Post by intended »

GlenTheMachine wrote: post #76

Space roboticist here. As with a lot of things, it isn't the initial outlay, it's the maintenance costs. Terrestrial datacenters have parts fail and get replaced all the time. The mass analysis given here -- which appears quite good, at first glance -- doesn't including any mass, energy, or thermal system numbers for the infrastructure you would need to have to replace failed components. As a first cut, this would re…

It sounds like building it on the moon would be better.

Re: Starcloud can’t put a data centre in space at $8.2M in one Starship

#150

Post by HPsquared »

verzali wrote: post #141
Robotbeat wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bingo. It's all contingent on a factor of 100-1000x reduction in launch costs, and a lot of the objections to the idea don't really engage with that concept. That's a cost comparable to air travel (both air freight and passenger travel). (Especially irritating is the continued assertion that thermal radiation is really hard, and not like something that every satellite already seems to deal with just fine, with a radi…

It is really hard, and it is something you need to take into careful consideration when designing a satellite. It is really fucking hard when you have 40MW of heat being generated that you somehow have to get rid of.

It's all relative. Is it harder than getting 40MW of (stable!) power? Harder than packaging and launching the thing? Sure it's a bit of a problem, perhaps harder than other satellites if the temperature needs to be lower (assuming commodity server hardware) so the radiator system might need to be large. But large isn't the same as difficult.
Post reply on HN