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

Starship V3

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 667 posts

Re: Starship V3

#471

Post by kamaal »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #284
kamaal wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Elon Musk is quite literally the living example of what high agency lifesytle would look like. One could argue he likely knew way less than your day job rocket scientist or battery experts when he started out. But these people believe so as long something is not impossible by known physics it is doable, and hence there is a way to get it done. And then they do it. That is you wake up everyday, and do whatever…

I think you mean "luck"

Unfortunately that is also how luck works as well.

You are lucky if you think you are, start on this path you are likely to increasing make choices that tend towards increasing your chances of success(i.e luck).

Re: Starship V3

#472

Post by saalweachter »

mrandish wrote: post #67
slac wrote: post #20

Gotta pump that Grok IPO /s Seriously though, the whole SpaceXAI makes zero sense to me. SpaceX was a wonderful company and there was zero need to pollute it with Twitter and a service that creates sexual images of people without their consent.

I was initially very skeptical about the viability of space-based data centers but after a couple hours reading papers, studies and summary technical assessments I realized there are a range of credible expert viewpoints from, "pretty unlikely" to "it could actually work". There at least appear to be plausible, though unproven, solutions to the most obvious drive-by objections I had off the top of my non-expert head.…

If you spot Datacenters In Space as making sense, why does SpaceX acquiring XAi make sense to do it?

Why not have SpaceX build datacenter satellites and lease them to XAi et al, or XAi design and manufacture satellite datacenters and pay SpaceX to launch them? Heck, why not start a third company which focuses exclusively on datacenters in space, buying services from one company and selling them to another, so they can concentrate on this rather specialized skillset without distraction?

How does SpaceX acquiring XAi help anything but Elon Musk's personal portfolio?

Re: Starship V3

#473

Post by logancbrown »

AntiUSAbah wrote: post #294

He again mentions data center in space. He has to be the biggest richest idiot on the planet. It should be a lot cheaper to just buy massive solar (wait, couldn't he just make them himself with his tesla roofs?) and batteries (which Tesla also makes) and put Datacenter in some dessert and put fiber to that place... But it seems he needs some angle to push all this necessary investment into something? Are we now in th…

Solar doesn't work as well as you think in deserts because the decrease in light hitting the ground increases desertification. Desert plants require sun to thrive. Take that precious sunlight away, and the desert turns into an even worse dustbowl prior to the solar being there.

Re: Starship V3

#474

Post by Paradigma11 »

geertj wrote: post #384
Paradigma11 wrote: post #233

"My estimate is that within 2 to 3 years, the lowest cost way to generate AI compute will be in space" Soooo, how much did he put on that outcome on polymarket?

If you mean whether he’s putting his money where his mouth is, he is doing that by risking the future of the company that is his biggest asset on it. It may not be exactly 3 years. But is will very likely happen.

The point is that he is not putting his money where his predictions are and we should not put any more stock in them than he does.

Re: Starship V3

#475

Post by Schiendelman »

philipallstar wrote: post #375
svantana wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How hot do you think black objects in space get? Something like 10°C. Look up thermal equilibrium of an ideal black body.

But are they doing work internally that generates heat? Genuine question.

They are. But only as much heat as they get from the solar radiation that's hitting them anyway. Exactly that amount.

Re: Starship V3

#476

Post by AntiUSAbah »

signatoremo wrote: post #438
AntiUSAbah wrote: post #294

He again mentions data center in space. He has to be the biggest richest idiot on the planet. It should be a lot cheaper to just buy massive solar (wait, couldn't he just make them himself with his tesla roofs?) and batteries (which Tesla also makes) and put Datacenter in some dessert and put fiber to that place... But it seems he needs some angle to push all this necessary investment into something? Are we now in th…

So you think China is also idiot [0], or Google [1], [2], or Blue Origin [3]? Do you have aerospace engineering background? what are your arguments? I don't know how all of these turn out to be, but when you keep repeat the same arguments, without anything to back it up, you should have some reflection. [0] https://news.cgtn.com/news/2026-01-29/China-unveils-space-am... [1] https://www.reuters.com/science/google-spac…

For china its a future investment. Its R&D, an image topic and its the job of a state anyway to do fundamental R&D.

Google has so much money, I don't know why they are doing this, perhaps because they can, because the people in their lab would like to shoot something up, but thats not the core selling point of Google.

Blue Origin, you are referencing, is doing Terawave its a Starlink competitor. Which is not a AI DC in Space.

Re: Starship V3

#477

Post by AntiUSAbah »

Why was this flagged?

Its clearly stating real numbers and I do make a clear point:

Space is a 700 Billion dollar business split between building the stuff you want to send up, the 'sending up' part, and the operations part. Space-X 'magic' evaluation is between 800 Billion and 2 Trillion.

snicker

And this doesn't even calculate in, that if Space would really become interesting and profitable as another big disruptive market, everyone else will join.

Or lets say they are joining already anyway.

Re: Starship V3

#478

Post by Schiendelman »

munksbeer wrote: post #341
pveierland wrote: post #116

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…

> What is really going to be that difficult with space-based compute? Stopping some random rogue nation blowing it up.

Having a space program is extremely difficult, much more difficult than blowing up basically anything on earth.

Re: Starship V3

#479

Post by ponector »

ActorNightly wrote: post #150
AlexErrant wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_stations_in_Antarctic... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanza_Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Las_Estrellas

Permanent means self sustaining. I.e biodome completely isolated from outside with its own atmosphere. None of those are self sustaining.

According to this, New York is not permanent settlement because it's not self sustaining.
Post reply on HN