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

161–170 of 365 posts

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

#161

Post by literalAardvark »

looofooo0 wrote: post #144
NitpickLawyer wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a Datacenter... I guess solar is what they're planning to use, but the array will be so large it'll have its own gravity well

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

#162

Post by ricardobeat »

The launch costs in the article look quite off from the outset.

A Falcon Heavy launch is already under $100M, and in the $1400/kg range; Starship’s main purpose is to massively reduce launch costs, so $1000/kg is not optimistic at all and would be a failure. Their current target is $250/kg eventually once full reusability is in place.

Still far from the dream of $30/kg but not that far.

The original “white paper” [1] also does acknowledge that a separate launch is needed for the solar panels and radiators at a 1:1 ratio to the server launches, which is ignored here. I think the author leaned in a bit too much on their deep research AI assistant output.

[1] https://starcloudinc.github.io/wp.pdf

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

#163

Post by Coffeewine »

vidarh wrote: post #152
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…

I've had actual, real-life deployments in datacentres where we just left dead hardware in the racks until we needed the space, and we rarely did. Typically we'd visit a couple of times a year, because it was cheap to do so, but it'd have totally viable to let failures accumulate over a much longer time horizon. Failure rates tend to follow a bathtub curve, so if you burn-in the hardware before launch, you'd expect lo…

It would be interesting to see if the failure rate across time holds true after a rocket launch and time spent in space. My guess is that it wouldn’t, but that’s just a guess.

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

#165

Post by meepmorp »

philosophty wrote: post #106

"Terrestrial datacenters have parts fail and get replaced all the time." This premise is basically false. Most datacenter hardware, once it has completed testing and burn in, will last for years in constant use. There are definitely failures but they're very low unless something is wrong like bad cooling, vibration, or just a bad batch of hardware.

> unless something is wrong like ... vibration

so you might have problems if you were to do something that causes a lot of vibration, like launch the entire data center into space?

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

#167

Post by _w1tm »

HPsquared wrote: post #151
hamburglar wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems prudent to achieve fully robotic datacenters on earth before doing it in space. I know, I’m a real wet blanket.

The economics don't work the same on earth.

What makes the economics better in space?

Are there any unique use-cases waiting to be unleashed?

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

#168

Post by meepmorp »

MarkusQ wrote: post #33
fsh wrote: post #5

[flagged]

Recently had a conversation of space based solar power pros and cons screech to a halt when someone said "Well what about space based geothermal?"

I guess from a certain perspective, all our sources of geothermal energy are already located in space

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

#169

Post by HPsquared »

_w1tm wrote: post #167
HPsquared wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The economics don't work the same on earth.

What makes the economics better in space? Are there any unique use-cases waiting to be unleashed?

Regular maintenance methods are cheap on earth and infeasible in space.

Keep in mind economics is all about allocation of scarce resources with alternative uses.

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

#170

Post by Spooky23 »

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…

Don’t you need to look at different failure scenarios or patterns in orbit due to exposure to cosmic rays as well?

It just seems funny, I recall when servers started getting more energy dense it was a revelation to many computer folks that safe operating temps in a datacenter should be quite high.

I’d imagine operating in space has lots of revelations in store. It’s a fascinating idea with big potential impact… but I wouldn’t expect this investment to pay out!

Post reply on HN