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

61–70 of 365 posts

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

#61

Post by mulmen »

xyzzy123 wrote: post #47
bigiain wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While that's all true, it does hilariously increase the difficulty for the government showing up and seizing your server hardware...

They don't need to do that if they go after your ground station operators. To escape the law you need to hide or protect something on earth (your ground station(s), downlinks). If you can hide or protect that infrastructure on earth, why bother putting the computers in space?

Because you need an enormous amount of energy to run the servers. You may hide the downlinks but you still need power.

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

#62

Post by riknos314 »

mook wrote: post #41
malfist wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You answered it yourself, a sun synchronous orbit negates the need for large battery systems.

That would make communicating with bits on Earth kind of painful though; I suppose that would work for a server that serves other sun-synchronous objects, but that seems like a rather small market.

Maybe.

If starcloud integrated with something like starlink, using the laser inter satellite links to distribute ground comms across a network of satellites, then the datacenter maintaining a direct link to a base station is probably a non-issue for most purposes.

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

#63

Post by ThrowawayTestr »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #53
wkat4242 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes cooling is difficult. Half the "solar panels" on the ISS aren't solar panels but heat radiation panels. That's the only way you can get rid of it and it's very inefficient so you need a huge surface.

seems oddly paradoxical. ISS interior at some roughly livable temperature. Exterior is ... freakin' space! Temperature gradient seems as if it should take of it ... ... and then you realize that because it is space, there's almost nothing out there to absorb the heat ...

A great interactive example of this is the game Oxygen Not Included. By the late game, you're biggest problem is your base getting too hot from the waste heat of all your industry.

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

#64

Post by darth_avocado »

ggreer wrote: post #49
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…

If you read the Starcloud whitepaper[1], it claims that massive batteries aren't needed because the satellites would be placed in a dawn-dusk sun-synchronous orbit. Except for occasional lunar eclipses, the solar panels would be in constant sunlight. The whitepaper also says that they're targeting use cases that don't require low latency or high availability. In short: AI model training and other big offline tasks. F…

Let me alert all the NIMBY folks, let them know that data centers will be blocking their view of the moon and casting shadows on their backyards.

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

#65

Post by [deleted] »

mulmen wrote: post #61
xyzzy123 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't need to do that if they go after your ground station operators. To escape the law you need to hide or protect something on earth (your ground station(s), downlinks). If you can hide or protect that infrastructure on earth, why bother putting the computers in space?

Because you need an enormous amount of energy to run the servers. You may hide the downlinks but you still need power.

[deleted]

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

#66

Post by notepad0x90 »

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…

You're making lots of assumptions. They can put like 1000 Raspberrypi's which don't need all that much cooling and relatively little energy requirements.

For your other concerns, the risks are worth it for customers because of the main reward: No laws or governments in space! Technically, the datacenter company could be found liable but not for traffic, only for take-down refusals. Physical security is the most important security. For a lot of potential clients, simply making sure human access to the device is difficult is worth data-loss,latency and reliability issues.

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

#68

Post by Brian_K_White »

ggreer wrote: post #49
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…

If you read the Starcloud whitepaper[1], it claims that massive batteries aren't needed because the satellites would be placed in a dawn-dusk sun-synchronous orbit. Except for occasional lunar eclipses, the solar panels would be in constant sunlight. The whitepaper also says that they're targeting use cases that don't require low latency or high availability. In short: AI model training and other big offline tasks. F…

You can also drink from a shoe. It's absolutely possible.

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

#69

Post by Aperocky »

ggreer wrote: post #49
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…

If you read the Starcloud whitepaper[1], it claims that massive batteries aren't needed because the satellites would be placed in a dawn-dusk sun-synchronous orbit. Except for occasional lunar eclipses, the solar panels would be in constant sunlight. The whitepaper also says that they're targeting use cases that don't require low latency or high availability. In short: AI model training and other big offline tasks. F…

Same with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, inventing a detour because it sounds cool and ultimately don't work out because Occam's Razor.

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

#70

Post by xyzzy123 »

mulmen wrote: post #61
xyzzy123 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't need to do that if they go after your ground station operators. To escape the law you need to hide or protect something on earth (your ground station(s), downlinks). If you can hide or protect that infrastructure on earth, why bother putting the computers in space?

Because you need an enormous amount of energy to run the servers. You may hide the downlinks but you still need power.

I'm not sure how you maintain hidden ground stations while providing a commercial service that justifies many $MM in capital and requires state support to get launch permission.
Post reply on HN