Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX wants to launch a million satellites

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 155 posts

Re: SpaceX wants to launch a million satellites

#101

Post by hommelix »

GMoromisato wrote: post #88

I don't buy the opposition to orbital datacenters. I think that's just the perfect being the enemy of the good, which (sadly) is very common in environmental activism. Let's assume two premises: 1. Demand for AI compute will continue to grow for the next 10 years. 2. The cost of orbital datacenters will approach the cost of terrestrial datacenters (in $ per token terms). If you don't buy either of these two premises…

There is already some trash flying around in space from decommissioned satellites. Reentering the atmosphere needs some energy to initiate the process and that was/is not always planned for. The combustion during reentry is producing CO2. This CO2 emission will scale up when the number of satellites is scaled up.

The alternative of collecting debris in space is discussed by some space agencies. I really don't think it is a good behavior from SpaceX to put more trash in space and let public money take care of the cleanup later.

Re: SpaceX wants to launch a million satellites

#103

Post by hackernudes »

timschmidt wrote: post #89
Zigurd wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They seem to have constructed a rocket with 10x the payload to LEO of the one they used to put those 10k satellites in orbit They seem to have constructed a rocket that consistently gets heavier and more complex and more expensive and farthrt behind schedule and hasn't demonstrated specified payload. IOW it ain't better than falcon heavy.

I checked the publicly released stats over Starship's development, and this is what I found: compared with the initial ~5,000 t / ~73.5 MN concept, the latest V3-class Starship/Super Heavy is trending toward roughly 35%+ more loaded propellant mass and about 40% more maximum liftoff thrust if you use the FAA’s ~103 MN figure. Payload capability has also moved upward from the early 100+ t reusable LEO baseline to Spac…

Pretty sure they mean that Starship is not working reliably yet

Re: SpaceX wants to launch a million satellites

#104

Post by GMoromisato »

hommelix wrote: post #101
GMoromisato wrote: post #88

I don't buy the opposition to orbital datacenters. I think that's just the perfect being the enemy of the good, which (sadly) is very common in environmental activism. Let's assume two premises: 1. Demand for AI compute will continue to grow for the next 10 years. 2. The cost of orbital datacenters will approach the cost of terrestrial datacenters (in $ per token terms). If you don't buy either of these two premises…

There is already some trash flying around in space from decommissioned satellites. Reentering the atmosphere needs some energy to initiate the process and that was/is not always planned for. The combustion during reentry is producing CO2. This CO2 emission will scale up when the number of satellites is scaled up. The alternative of collecting debris in space is discussed by some space agencies. I really don't think i…

Satellites below 500 km do not need energy to reenter. Their orbits will naturally decay from friction with the upper atmosphere.

CO2 emissions from reentering satellites is far lower than CO2 emissions from terrestrial datacenters. If you need 1,000 tons of satellite for a 100 MW of compute, you're not going to get more than 1,000 tons of CO2. In fact, you'll get much less since metal doesn't release CO2 when it melts.

1,000 tons of CO2 is negligible compared to 40,000 tons at launch and invisible compared to 1.5 million tons for a terrestrial datacenter.

Re: SpaceX wants to launch a million satellites

#106

Post by x-complexity »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #96
GMoromisato wrote: post #88

I don't buy the opposition to orbital datacenters. I think that's just the perfect being the enemy of the good, which (sadly) is very common in environmental activism. Let's assume two premises: 1. Demand for AI compute will continue to grow for the next 10 years. 2. The cost of orbital datacenters will approach the cost of terrestrial datacenters (in $ per token terms). If you don't buy either of these two premises…

I don't see how orbital datacenters will ever be able to compete with terrestrial. And assuming that the current mix of electric generation isn't going to become cleaner over time is an interesting take.

> I don't see how orbital datacenters will ever be able to compete with terrestrial.

An orbital DC makes fiscal sense when the cost to launch one to space is lower than the cost to build one on Earth.

Key point: The cost of building on Earth will inevitably trend upwards as more restrictions & costs are (~80% rightfully) placed onto Earth-bound datacenters.

Re: SpaceX wants to launch a million satellites

#107

Post by conception »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #86
6d6b73 wrote: post #37

Spacex will cause Kessler syndrom and bring the world economy down.

As long as those satellites are in a self-clearing orbit (below about 300 miles of altitude), Kessler is not a concern.

I like that “not being able to use space for 25 years or more” is not a concern.

Re: SpaceX wants to launch a million satellites

#108

Post by rasz »

GMoromisato wrote: post #88

I don't buy the opposition to orbital datacenters. I think that's just the perfect being the enemy of the good, which (sadly) is very common in environmental activism. Let's assume two premises: 1. Demand for AI compute will continue to grow for the next 10 years. 2. The cost of orbital datacenters will approach the cost of terrestrial datacenters (in $ per token terms). If you don't buy either of these two premises…

orbital datacenters are the new vertical farming

Re: SpaceX wants to launch a million satellites

#109

Post by sifar »

piloto_ciego wrote: post #92
CamperBob2 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be a hell of a lot easier than placing one in space. Much less thousands of them. Remember that one satellite doesn't represent a data center, it represents maybe 0.1% of a data center.

In theory it "should" be much easier to build on earth, but in some ways it's just different challenges. On earth you're forced to deal with those pesky government things and in the Sahara not a lot of them are exactly reliable or good-faith actors. Then there's night time. So out of the gate, you're dealing with needing massive power storage for the night time. So you invest $5b into a solar farm and data center out…

>> No, space is an end run around dealing with bureaucracy and politics. It's space. There's basically nobody to tell you "no" up there.

>> So they'll go to the place where they do not need to ask anyone.

>> Anyway, space has none of those problems. Indeed, the problems are almost all technical.

This is pretty naive. What happens when one of the other sovereign nation destroys your space assets or holds them hostage. There is also no defense in space.

Re: SpaceX wants to launch a million satellites

#110

Post by jurgenburgen »

GMoromisato wrote: post #99
whatisthiseven wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first premise is reasonable. The second premise is so outlandish as to require dozens of other assumptions, optimistic outcomes for launch, and pessimistic views on the cost of earthbound systems. I care about the environment and I think we can keep earthbound systems, and also reduce their impact . Making assumptions about the feasibility of launch and the economic absurdity of orbital compute, but not affording…

I get skepticism that orbital datacenters will make sense economically. It would not surprise me if they never happen. But if they made economic sense, then they would be much more environmentally friendly. On CO2 emissions, we're talking about a factor of 37. That's not a small amount. Even a factor of 10 would be a major issue multiplied by terawatts of power. Sure, maybe Earth-bound energy gets cleaner, but it's n…

> Even a factor of 10 would be a major issue multiplied by terawatts of power. Sure, maybe Earth-bound energy gets cleaner, but it's not going to get 10 times cleaner before 2036.

Currently we’re not on that trajectory but if we don’t get there we might be too busy with civilizational collapse to need space data centers.

It would require doubling the rate of 2025 renewable deployments on average for the next 11 years so technically and economically it’s feasible.

Post reply on HN