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

211–220 of 365 posts

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

#211

Post by VectorLock »

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…

The original article even addresses this directly. Plus hardware returns over fast enough that you'll simply be replacing modules with a smattering of dead servers with entirely new generations anyways.

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

#213

Post by aleph_minus_one »

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…

> Why do they want to put a data center in space in the first place?

At https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44397026 I speculate that in particular militaries might be interested.

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

#214

Post by empath75 »

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 think what you actually do is let it gradually degrade over time and then launch a new one.

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

#215

Post by VectorLock »

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 is solar and cooling is radiators. They did the math on it, its feasible and mostly an engineering problem now.

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

#216

Post by aleph_minus_one »

xyzzy123 wrote: post #70
mulmen wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you need an enormous amount of energy to run the servers. You may hide the downlinks but you still need power.

I'm not sure how you maintain hidden ground stations while providing a commercial service that justifies many $MM in capital and requires state support to get launch permission.

> I'm not sure how you maintain hidden ground stations while providing a commercial service that justifies many $MM in capital and requires state support to get launch permission.

Who said that Starcloud's business model is about commercial services? At https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44397026 I rather speculate that Starcloud's business model is about getting big money defense contracts.

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

#217

Post by angadh »

v5v3 wrote: post #39
ericyd wrote: post #34

This site is unusable on my mobile android phone, even tried multiple browsers. The body text extends beyond the window and I can't scroll or zoom to fit.

Same for me. But does work if I rotate phone to landscape mode.

should be fixed now.

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

#218

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

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…

The analysis has zero redundancy for either servers or support systems.

Redundancy is a small issue on Earth, but completely changes the calculations for space because you need more of everything, which makes the already-unfavourable space and mass requirements even less plausible.

Without backup cooling and power one small failure could take the entire facility offline.

And active cooling - which is a given at these power densities - requires complex pumps and plumbing which have to survive a launch.

The whole idea is bonkers.

IMO you'd be better off thinking about a swarm of cheaper, simpler, individual serversats or racksats connected by a radio or microwave comms mesh.

I have no idea if that's any more economic, but at least it solves the most obvious redundancy and deployment issues.

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

#219

Post by angadh »

ricardobeat wrote: post #162

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]…

please read Table 1.
Post reply on HN