111–120 of 155 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Satellites for surveillance purposes. Budget is infinite.
More than they're launching now? It's not like a surveillance payload costs dramatically more to launch than a non-surveillance payload. Even the US doesn't have that many satellites to launch.
The people who want to put data centers in orbit must be either much smarter than me, or much dumber than me, because I just don't get how that makes any technical or economic sense. Of course, it's possible nobody actually wants to do this, they just want to get funded to do it. (Old joke: "I wish I had enough money to buy an elephant...")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
At present it's like railroad building across the Wild West; get some notional national 'permission' and then chuck them up there into a globally-shared space. That's not sustainable as the important orbits become crowded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
Of course not. The only people to stop you is like 6 nation states that have the capability to tell you no, you know? Maybe less? And most of them all need your launch capabilities?
Cmon. Who is going to tell them no? The US government? And jeopardize NRO satellite launch abilities or whatever? No, the Feds won’t stand in the way.
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…
That is one wild, batshit insane assumption. So much so that I did not bother to read the rest of your post.
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…
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…
> Most people likely don’t think about how often they use satellite communications. But that Instagram post you made? You used a satellite. This article seems to confuse Starlink with ordinary cellular communications
Facebook Messenger already works with Starlink - https://one.nz/faq/one-nz-satellite-frequently-asked-questio... so Instagram is probably not far off. Edit: wow even apple music is included in this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While true, this is insufficient to make the new claim credible. If the proposed satellites only weighed 100kg and remain on orbit for 3 years, to keep a million up requires: (150 metric tons/100kg) = 1500 satellites per Starship launch 1e6/1500 = 666 launches per MTBF (3 years) 666/(3 years) = 222 Starship launches/year This is significantly higher than even the current cadence of Falcons. If the proposed satellites…
They've been approved for 44 Starship launches from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, and are aiming for 160 total launches in 2026. They've recently purchased a giant tract of land in Louisana to build a third starport. 222/year is looking doable.
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…
How did you come to 10 launches / 1000 tons as what it takes to launch a 100MW data centre in space?