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

xAI joins SpaceX

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

831–840 of 1001 posts

Re: xAI joins SpaceX

#831

Post by spacebanana7 »

Ms-J wrote: post #819
Buttons840 wrote: post #50

SpaceX is too big to fail. It's important for national security. I wonder if Elon wants to tangle all his businesses into SpaceX so they are all kept afloat by SpaceX's importance.

That is what they want you to think it isn't too big to fail there are plenty of competitors with much stronger engineers and principles than this grifter.

Who? Finding great engineers is comparatively easy versus knowing how to navigate the DoD procurement process and having the balance sheet strength to run huge losses for ages. Blue origin might have the capital and talent, whilst Boeing has the DoD procurement locked down, but neither have both.

Re: xAI joins SpaceX

#832

Post by zarzavat »

mrweasel wrote: post #821
lugao wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only people who never interacted with data center reliability think it's doable to maintain servers with no human intervention.

Microsoft did do the experiment (Project Natick) where they had "datacenters" in pods under the sea with really good results. The idea was simply to ship enough extra capacity, but due to the environment, the failure rates where 1/8th of normal. Still, dropping a pod into the sea makes more sense than launching it into space. At least cooling, power, connectivity and eventual maintenance is simpler. The whole thing m…

> The whole thing makes no sense and is seems like it's just Musk doing financial manipulation again.

It's a fig leaf for getting two IPOs in one. There's no sense in analyzing it any further.

Re: xAI joins SpaceX

#833

Post by Traster »

asa400 wrote: post #732

Why not put these AI/PV installations somewhere out in the ocean instead? A tiny fraction of the energy required to ship them there, you can actually physically get there to fix them, can use seawater for cooling, can use existing Starlink for connectivity, etc. Why/how is space more economical than international waters?

Because Elon Musk owns a space company not a shipping company. If Elon Musk happened to own a tonne of boats sure as hell sea-steading data centres would be the future. But he doens't, so it's AAAAIIIII IIIIIN SPPPPPAAAAAAAACE.

Re: xAI joins SpaceX

#834

Post by Traster »

shrubble wrote: post #76
ecommerceguy wrote: post #25

Too me this smells of projected cash desperation. Do people actually pay for Grok?

You get Grok with paid x.com ; so there is some sort of cash from that, I would guess.

Almost certainly less than it cost them to train grok and definitely less than they're paying to service X.com's debt load.

Re: xAI joins SpaceX

#836

Post by amai »

Buttons840 wrote: post #50

SpaceX is too big to fail. It's important for national security. I wonder if Elon wants to tangle all his businesses into SpaceX so they are all kept afloat by SpaceX's importance.

This won’t help him. Because Elon is not important for national security. But our stupid oligarchs will soon learn the same lesson, the russian and chinese oligarchs have already learned.

Re: xAI joins SpaceX

#837

Post by seydor »

paxys wrote: post #103

If you had told me 4 years ago that Twitter would be merged into SpaceX I would have called you crazy. Yet here we are..

Would it blow your mind to say that SpaceX is merged into Twitter? His twitter handle is his greater asset currently.

Re: xAI joins SpaceX

#838

Post by seydor »

bigbuppo wrote: post #814

Not sure if this is stock manipulation trying to push the bubble a little further in a way that doesn't require showing something of substance immediately, or if Elon's having another manic episode after doing too many or not enough drugs, but who didn't see this coming? I'm sure next week he'll have SpaceX be bought by The Boring Company, sell that to Tesla, then rename all the companies as "X". Also, whatever happe…

After all is said and done, all will be renamed to Brawndo (it's got Electrolytes)

Re: xAI joins SpaceX

#839

Post by jstummbillig »

bgnn wrote: post #800
n_u wrote: post #463

A former NASA engineer with a PhD in space electronics who later worked at Google for 10 years wrote an article about why datacenters in space are very technically challenging: https://taranis.ie/datacenters-in-space-are-a-terrible-horri... I don't have any specialized knowledge of the physics but I saw an article suggesting the real reason for the push to build them in space is to hedge against political pushback pr…

The real reason is, Elon has SpaceX and xAI. He can create an illusion of synergy and orders of magnitude advancements to boost the market cap and pocket all the money. He realized long time ago you don't need to deliver to play the market cap game, in fact it's better if you are selling a story far in the future rather than a something you can deliver now.

I don't understand the claim. SpaceX is literally delivering? And I don't think there is any delusion about that being optional.

Re: xAI joins SpaceX

#840

Post by vidarh »

somenameforme wrote: post #737
rainsford wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We also shouldn't overlook the fact that the proposal entirely glosses over the implication of the alternative benefits we might realize if humanity achieved the incredible engineering and technical capacity necessary to make this version of space AI happen. Think about it. Elon conjures up a vision of the future where we've managed to increase our solar cell manufacturing capacity by two whole orders of magnitude an…

A lot of great inventions we now take for granted initially came with little motivation other than being able to kill each other more effectively. GPS, radar, jet engines, drones, super glue, microwaves, canned food, computers, even the internet. Contrary to the narrative of the internet being about sharing science, ARPANET was pushed by the DoD as a means of maintaining comms during nuclear war. It was then adopted…

Yes, but isn't that pretty much the point of the person you replied to? We know that a lot of inventions were motivated by that, and so it is incredibly myopic to not pause and try to think through the likely far broader implications.
Post reply on HN