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

321–330 of 365 posts

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

#321

Post by jjmarr »

Robotbeat wrote: post #306
littlestymaar wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1g of acceleration is enormous compared to a child in a merry go round actually. > And Gemini tested it once as well. From Wikipedia: They were able to generate a small amount of artificial gravity, about 0.00015 g So yes, you need an effect 60 000 times stronger than this. And you want that to be relatively uniform over the size of an astronaut so you need a very big merry go round. Nuclear fission is also a basic f…

It’s not, actually. I’ve swung my kids around at multiple gees.

Kids enjoy having their head and feet at different levels of gravity.

When was the last time you spun yourself around in a desk chair?

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

#322

Post by bigfatkitten »

Robotbeat wrote: post #296
littlestymaar wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah, “just.” Every child on a merry go round experiences it. Every car driving on a curve. And Gemini tested it once as well. It’s a basic feature of physics. Now why NASA hasn’t decided to implement it in decades is actually kind of a mystery.

If it’s that straightforward, why haven’t you done it?

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

#323

Post by gundmc »

teekert wrote: post #140
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…

Lay people associate space with cold because nearly every scifi movie has people freezing over in seconds when exposed to the vacuum of space (insert Picard face-palm gif). Even The Expanse, even them! Although they are otherwise so realistic, that I have to say I started doubting myself a bit. I wonder what would really would happen and how fast... People even complained that Leia did not freeze over (in stead of co…

I'm reading through the Expanse books and a passage that I read after seeing your comment jumped out at me. It's a quote from Havelock:

"As a boy living planetside, he had always thought of space as cold. And while that was technically true, mostly it was a vacuum. And so a ship, mostly, was a thermos. The heat from their bodies and systems would bleed into the void off over years and decades of it had the chance."

So at least the books got it right!

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

#324

Post by AtlasBarfed »

conradev wrote: post #222
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Like a neo-fractal surface? There's no atmosphere to wear it down.

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

#325

Post by danans »

ggreer wrote: post #320
danans wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.wesa.fm/environment-energy/2024-02-19/weirton-fo... > Optimistically assuming 12 hours of sunlight per day, a 40MW datacenter would need 480MWh of batteries to cover the dark period, costing $50 million. A 40MW data center doesn't run constantly at 40MW. That's its load rating. Like any industrial facility, actual peak loads are probably around 80% and average loads are lower. Also, why do you assume that…

You quoted me saying, "There's not much point in launching a datacenter into space if you can power it on the ground 24/7 with solar + batteries." and suggested, "...that the price of batteries is already cheap enough for terrestrial data centers to make more economic sense than launching a datacenter." So I replied with some napkin calculations estimating the cost of powering a datacenter 24/7 with current solar + b…

> If you look at my other comments in this thread, you'll see I predict they will fail.

Yep, we agree on that.

> off-grid datacenters could be cost competitive in some regions, but the upfront costs don't make them worthwhile right now.

I still don't understand why the alternative to space based datacenters being proposed is off-grid datacenters.

Why not compare it to grid-connected datacenters with enough behind the meter generation and storage to avoid peak grid prices? After all the ultimate comparison metric is cost (and ideally C02 emissions)

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

#326

Post by hamburglar »

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.

No, they don’t work the same. They are much more difficult in every way in space.

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

#327

Post by MobiusHorizons »

Robotbeat wrote: post #296
littlestymaar wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah, “just.” Every child on a merry go round experiences it. Every car driving on a curve. And Gemini tested it once as well. It’s a basic feature of physics. Now why NASA hasn’t decided to implement it in decades is actually kind of a mystery.

Relevant Scott Manley video: https://youtu.be/nxeMoaxUpWk?si=QOO9KJCGS_Q8JeyR

Relevant tom Scott video: https://youtu.be/bJ_seXo-Enc?si=m_QjHpLaL8d8Cp8b

There is a lot of research, but it’s not as simple as operating under real gravity. Makes many movements harder and can result in getting sick.

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

#328

Post by dyauspitr »

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…

I think you’re a little too dismissive of the 24/7 always available solar power, and the free cooling.

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

#329

Post by dyauspitr »

energywut wrote: post #4

Putting a datacenter in space is one of the worst ideas I've heard in a while. Reliable energy? Possible, but difficult -- need plenty of batteries Cooling? Very difficult. Where does the heat transfer to? Latency? Highly variable. Equipment upgrades and maintenance? Impossible. Radiation shielding? Not free. Decommissioning? Potentially dangerous! Orbital maintenance? Gotta install engines on your datacenter and kee…

Why do you need a lot of batteries with the right orbit can’t you have solar energy 24/7?

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

#330

Post by nandomrumber »

dyauspitr wrote: post #328
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…

I think you’re a little too dismissive of the 24/7 always available solar power, and the free cooling.

There’s no free cooling in space.

In space there’s no ambient environment to speak of, so you’re limited to radiative cooling, which is massively inferior to refrigeration.

There’s also no 24/7 solar in low Earth orbit, which is where you want to be for latency and serviceable.

Post reply on HN