Live data from Hacker News

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

angadh.com

221–230 of 365 posts

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

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't going to last for much longer with the way power density projections are looking. Consider that we've been at the point where layers of monitoring & lockout systems are required to ensure no humans get caught in hot spots, which can surpass 100C, for quite some time now.

You mean like every single kitchen?

You might be thinking of 100F, a toasty summer day. 100C on the other hand (about 212F) is fatal even in zero humidity.

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

#222
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Many small satellites also increases the surface area for cooling

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

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes cooling is difficult. Half the "solar panels" on the ISS aren't solar panels but heat radiation panels. That's the only way you can get rid of it and it's very inefficient so you need a huge surface.

This isn’t true. The radiators on ISS are MUCH smaller than the solar panels. I know it’s every single armchair engineer’s idea that heat rejection is this impossible problem in space, but your own example of ISS proves this is untrue. Radiators are no more of a problem than solar panels.

The radiators are significantly smaller than the PV arrays, but not by a massive ratio; looks like about 1:3.6 based on the published area numbers that I could find.

It looks like the ISS active cooling system has a maximum cooling capacity that could handle the equivalent of a single-digit number of racks (down to 1 for an AI-focused rack).

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

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What about food, water and air filtration needs?

Presumably those needs are handled on the habitat where the orbital maintenance team lives when they aren’t visiting satellite data centers.

Treat each maintenance trip like an EVA (extra vehicular activity) and bring your life support with you.

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

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What about food, water and air filtration needs?

Thats life support.

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

#226
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it's likely the overall rate would be higher, and you might find you need more aggressive burn-in, but even then you'd need an extremely high failure rate before it's more efficient to replace components than writing them off.

The bathtub curve isn’t the same for all components of a server though. Writing off the entire server because a single ram chip or ssd or network card failed would limit the entire server to the lifetime of the weakest part. I think you would want redundant hot spares of certain components with lower mean time between failures.

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

#227

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…

On the environmental front, when it comes to the of life the entire data center is incinerated in the Earth's upper atmosphere

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

#228
post #206

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…

I've talked to the founder of Starcloud about this, there is just going to be a lot of data generative stuff in space in the future, and further and further out into space. He thinks now is the right time to learn how to compute up there because people will want to process, and maybe orchestrate processing between many devices, in space. He's fully aware of all of the objections in this hn comments section, he just d…

Seems far more likely that the "data generative stuff" will get smaller and cheaper to run (like cell phones with on-device models) much faster than "run a giant supercomputer in orbit" will become easy.

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

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My initial thought was: ambiguous regulatory environment. Not being physically located the US, the EU, or any other sovereign territory, they could plausably claim exemption from pretty much any national regulations.

A bit like international waters. I wonder when we'll see the first space pirates.

> A bit like international waters.

Which is a good analogy; international waters are far from lawless.

You're still subject to the law of your flag state, just as if you were on their territory. In addition to that, you're subject to everyone's jurisdiction if you commit certain crimes - including piracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction

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

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then just provide spin gravity for the crew habitat.

“just” It's theoretically possible for sure, but we've never done that in practice and it's far from trivial.

Good points. Spin “gravity” is also quite challenging to acclimatize to because it’s not uniform like planetary gravity. Lots of nausea and unintuitive gyroscopic effects when moving. It’s definitely not a “just”
Post reply on HN