Live data from Hacker News

Starship V3

spacex.com

271–280 of 667 posts

Re: Starship V3

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your feelings are obviously your own, but a Starlink terminal isn't that big and can transfer quite a lot of tokens. Every single satellite has sufficient cooling for its power production, otherwise they would be frying. Waste heat from a GPU is not materially different from waste heat from an amplifier. That's not cooling entire racks, but I don't think anybody talks about putting entire racks in space anymore. I'm…

> Every single satellite has sufficient cooling for its power production But here we're talking about putting data centers in space. It means stuffing as many gpus as possible into each satellite and running them at constant max power.

They're talking about launching a million satellites, not one massive satellite.

I don't think they can avoid a Kessler cascade at that scale, but if launch costs were cheap enough (questionable because Musk habitually overpromises and underdelivers, but not inconceivable as sometimes he succeeds too) then patterning each of those million on Starlink satellites is essentially viable.

Re: Starship V3

#273
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In space, that solar panel is always in the sunlight. No clouds, no night time. Weirdly enough, earth is a more challenging environment in some ways for solar. You need to lay out >3x the number of panels on earth to get the same power production, and you need batteries or a grid interconnection as a buffer. Also, there's a populist backlash on building datacenters, power transmission infra, and power generation in m…

> In space, that solar panel is always in the sunlight Only in a Sun-synchronous orbit, at specific elevations. Most 'normal' orbits have periods of shade.

Right, sorry, I meant in the orbits they're considering for these - I think they're mainly considering sun-sync.

Re: Starship V3

#274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I think he's spot on, and I normally am not fond of Elon's public behavior. I mentioned in another thread that they're getting around having to ask permission to build datacenters by doing it in space. The entire thing is to avoid NIMBY stuff I'd bet.

The model 3 was Elons last great idea (if it was even his). Since then, he has been wrong pretty much about everything. Its to the point where anything he says is guaranteed to be wrong just on the merit that its coming out of his mouth.

Starlink?

Re: Starship V3

#275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flag has been coopted as a symbol of right wing nationalist politics. It's the easiest way to identify the right - their very strange love of the flag.

One of the dumbest things ever was the left giving up on the flag. The only way this makes sense is if much of the left actively disdain most of the nation (ie Stanford vocabulary guide around American flag being a triggering symbol or something ridiculous). I dont see how the left and patriotism are incompatible...

>The only way this makes sense is if much of the left actively disdain most of the nation

That's basically what the logical conclusion of anti-colonialism or anti-imperialism is. If you don't think your culture is worth spreading, possibly through violence, you can't be very fond of it.

You can't say that the US should return the land to the natives and then say that US culture had a positive influence on north america. It's mutually incompatible.

Re: Starship V3

#276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not saying the math checks out, but the argument is that you get full sun with no atmospheric losses 24/7, so you produce way more energy per panel, and you don’t need batteries, because the power production is consistent and predictable.

Problem wont be energy input it'll be heat dumping. You can't transfer heat in a vacuum effectively -- just go google how large the International Space Station's radiators are just to ensure its electrical systems are cooled adequately. Unless someone figures out how to break the laws of thermodynamics there's never going to be a cost effective DC in space.

ISS needs its radiators for the humans rather than for the electronics, which can run hotter than we can remain alive. However, main thing is compare them to the size of the ISS's solar panels: both are big, but similarly big.

Re: Starship V3

#277

Spacex may be the most important company on the planet. What greater goal is there than expanding humanity to the stars!

Ok, but most of Blue Origins plans rely on off planet infrastructure so SpaceX can have earth and Blue Origin the rest of space.

Re: Starship V3

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beyond aggressively optimistic timelines, I find it difficult to disagree with the premise. The aggressively optimistic timelines is also what makes it feasible to even attempt these things, where e.g. the amount of iteration required for Starship would have broken most other companies. > In the long term, space-based AI is obviously the only way to scale. In the long term - all mass and energy available is outside o…

You can put computers underground. Cheaper than launching into space. Why put them in space? Power? We have that on earth.

There are literally enormous problems powering AI data centers on the Earth right now. No, we don't have the power on Earth.

In terms of launch cost, Starship makes launch cost negligible. Some estimates are that it will cost less to launch a tonne to orbit, than to ship across the US by train.

Even if this figure is slightly low, that has nothing compared to the cost of real estate, construction costs, all of the building codes required to build a data center on Earth. These things all still apply underground, and underground is going to require additional shoring and structural engineering, to ensure that the structure is not crushed, damaged, and so forth.

Re: Starship V3

#279
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the underrated topics about space right now is the potential supply of rockets outstrips demand by a lot. We're simply out things we can profitably send to space so SpaceX and others are trying to come up with ideas to induce demand. My understanding is that Starlink mostly grew out of the same need to justify scaling up rocket production.

I don't know why space marines aren't a thing yet. The USA could put a rapid reaction force of Tier 1 Special Forces onto a space station and deploy them through atmospheric re-entry anywhere on Earth within 30 minutes. I can only assume "too easy to track" is part of the logic. Ditto for kinetic strikes. That was super hyped up.

Kinetic strikes sure. It seems like space marines would be incredibly easy to shoot down. They would be on a ballistic re-entry and must slow down without extreme g-forces before they reach the ground.

Re: Starship V3

#280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn’t found Tesla, he bought it then called himself founder.

That's pointless nitpicking, when he bought it it was so early you can easily say he made everything of it.

The other side of the coin of praising him personally for success like that, is blaming him personally for everything that goes wrong, like Cybertruck being simultaneously late and far more expensive than announced and far worse than announced and that even the announcement itself wasn't well done, or the majority of this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...

With Tesla, Musk invested in a neat startup, where the original founders didn't have the right skills to make it work and/or it was too soon for the tech, Musk managed to get the right talent in to turn the loss-maker and laughing stock into a decent middling output car company. That's fantastic! But it also isn't what Tesla is seen as by those who idolise Musk: he didn't make everything out of it; and even with all the talent, he found he got lucky that battery tech advanced as fast as it did and made EVs viable when they did.

Post reply on HN