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

Data centers in space makes no sense

civai.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: Data centers in space makes no sense

#691

Post by turtlesdown11 »

ehnto wrote: post #409
Terr_ wrote: post #31

I'm convinced that >30% of this comes from ideas leaking out of fiction such as like Neuromancer , and percolating through the minds of wealthy people attracted to some of the concepts. Namely, the dream of being a hyper-wealthy dynasty, above any earthly government, controlling an extraterritorial Las Vegas Fiefdom In Space. (Which in the book, also hosted a powerful AI.) Then they work backwards, trying to figure o…

I am surprised the space casino hasn't been done to be honest. Or some kind of space resort. I guess we are stepping across the stepping stones now, with private space flights, and private space fairing companies. Maybe it is just a matter of time before the Crystal Palace sees its first billionare clients.

> I am surprised the space casino hasn't been done to be honest. Or some kind of space resort.

The ISS is the single most expensive thing built by humankind ($100b+). What makes you think that building a "space casino" or "space resort" is commercially viable?

Re: Data centers in space makes no sense

#692

Post by dhab »

By combining ai with space, in addition to any other plays that he might be playing around legal or financial areas, he's positioning (marketing) spaceX for the bandwagon that everyone else might jump into to deploy a space datacentre. He's providing the medium (spacex rockets) to realise this potentially unfeasible idea. He makes additional money that way - to then create a new type of money-making fuel after that. HN audience might be calculative - but the rest of the population is far less so.

This might also be a new vehicle to mask any space warfare technology deployments.

Re: Data centers in space makes no sense

#694

Post by red75prime »

trymas wrote: post #533
energy123 wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What in particular is wrong/misleading in the Starcloud whitepaper, then? https://starcloudinc.github.io/wp.pdf

Previous discussions on HN: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44390781 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45667458 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43977188 I will not re-read them, but from what I recall from those threads is numbers don't make sense. Something like: - radiators the multiple square kilometers in size, in space; - lifting necessary payloads to space is multiples of magnitudes more than…

A giant space datacenter with square kilometers of solar panels doesn't make sense. A cluster of Starlink-sized satellites, which orbit near each other(1) and which are connected using laser-links might make sense.

(1) There are orbital arrangements that allow satellites to stay close together with minimal orbital corrections. Scott Manley mentioned this in one of his videos.

Re: Data centers in space makes no sense

#695

Post by trashb »

laverya wrote: post #684
trashb wrote: post #586

As others point out this is a bad idea. Asside from the other excellent comments on power consumption, cooling and radiation. One point I didn't see being made in the comments much is maintenance costs. Now I don't find myself in the facility of a data center often in daily life, however I do know that medium to big data centers require 24/7 hardware replacement. I believe this is what those 5 guys with the bikes and…

Do those people actually _repair_ hardware, or do they swap bad hardware for good chips? Can SpaceX not just say "OK, GPU #7 on satellite #15872 is broken, don't use it" and just accept that they're now overbuilt on power/cooling for that sat?

From what I understand it is in part swapping it, in part upgrading it. Some of it is preventative some of it is reactive. They could overbuild the hardware and slowly disable capacity I think that will not really work. Data centers are static in infrastructure but not in the systems running within them. Actually they are constantly changing to meet the needs.

Overbuilding also comes with a cost when talking about space, it is still very costly to get stuff up there and there is limited bandwidth downstream, you want to balance those two. So if you're overbuilding it costs a lot to get up there, if you disable what's up there you don't fully utilize the bandwidth.

For example AI data centers now use very different hardware compared to 5 or 10 years ago that upgrade path is just a lot harder when your data center is in space.

Re: Data centers in space makes no sense

#696

Post by monooso »

mike_hearn wrote: post #682
monooso wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no expertise is this area, so I'm not getting into whether or not this idea makes sense. That being said, this statement strikes me as missing the point: > Solving cost of launching mass has been the entire premise of SpaceX since day one and they have the track record. As I understand it, SpaceX has a good track record of putting things into space more cost effectively than other organisations that put things…

The cost of "launching" mass on Earth is not zero, though.

I didn't suggest that it was.

Re: Data centers in space makes no sense

#697

Post by andix »

It's a scam for investors.

The self-driving car worked too well. Tesla is promising that for over a decade now, and still can't deliver. They came much closer to the goal, but are still very far away from it. Shareholders don't seem to care.

Re: Data centers in space makes no sense

#698

Post by turtlesdown11 »

jtrn wrote: post #564

This sentence proves the author has no ability for logical thinking: Data centers in space only make sense if they are cost effective relative to normal data centers. I too don't think it's currently a sensible solution. But the author completely unable to make a proper case. For instance, just to refute that one claim, there are many reasons to do it in space even at an cost. Space-based data centers provide an off-…

> Data stored in space can exist outside of national borders, protecting it from seizure, censorship, or the legal jurisdiction of unstable governments.

You are aware physical persons exist on Earth and can be taken into custody? Additionally, space weapons exist, several governments could destroy any orbital satellite.

This whole pipe dream is nonsense.

Re: Data centers in space makes no sense

#699

Post by trymas »

red75prime wrote: post #694
trymas wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Previous discussions on HN: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44390781 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45667458 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43977188 I will not re-read them, but from what I recall from those threads is numbers don't make sense. Something like: - radiators the multiple square kilometers in size, in space; - lifting necessary payloads to space is multiples of magnitudes more than…

A giant space datacenter with square kilometers of solar panels doesn't make sense. A cluster of Starlink-sized satellites, which orbit near each other(1) and which are connected using laser-links might make sense. (1) There are orbital arrangements that allow satellites to stay close together with minimal orbital corrections. Scott Manley mentioned this in one of his videos.

Sounds like we would want to elevate from water wasting on Earth to pollution in space.

Re: Data centers in space makes no sense

#700

Post by turtlesdown11 »

93po wrote: post #345
Spooky23 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a distraction as they suck out as much value from Tesla as possible before the music stops and they go bust. There are a few really big IPOs this year including SpaceX, which will likely trigger significant market volatility.

yes, tesla, famously the worst performing car manufacturer with the worst profit margins, is definitely going bust any day now

> with the worst profit margins

The 2025 profit margin for Telsa was 4.6%. Toyota's was 9.4%. Telsa is famously on a multi-year sales and revenue decline.

Post reply on HN