I would not assume cooling has been worked out.

Space is a vacuum. i.e. The lack-of-a-thing that makes a thermos great at keeping your drink hot. A satellite is, if nothing else, a fantastic thermos. A data center in space would necessarily rely completely on cooling by radiation, unlike a terrestrial data center that can make use of convection and conduction. You can't just pipe heat out into the atmosphere or build a heat exchanger. You can't exchange heat with vacuum. You can only radiate heat into it.

Heat is going to limit the compute that can be done in a satellite data centre and radiative cooling solutions are going to massively increase weight. It makes far more sense to build data centers in the arctic.

Musk is up to something here. This could be another hyperloop (i.e. A distracting promise meant to sabotage competition). It could be a legal dodge. It could be a power grab. What it will not be is a useful source of computing power. Anyone who takes this venture seriously is probably going to be burned.

• lancewiggs

  today at 12:21 AM

  It's exiting the 5th best social network and the 10th (or worse) best AI company and selling them to a decent company.

  It probably increases Elon's share of the combined entity.

  It delivers on a promise to investors that he will make money for them, even as the underlying businesses are lousy.

  • gpt5

    today at 1:01 AM

    I'm confused about the level of conversation here. Can we actually run the math on heat dissipation and feasibility?

    A Starlink satellite uses about 5K Watts of solar power. It needs to dissipate around that amount (+ the sun power on it) just to operate. There are around 10K starlink satellites already in orbit, which means that the Starlink constellation is already effectively equivalent to a 50 Mega-watt (in a rough, back of the envelope feasibility way).

    Isn't 50MW already by itself equivalent to the energy consumption of a typical hyperscaler cloud?

    Why is starlink possible and other computations are not? Starlink is also already financially viable. Wouldn't it also become significantly cheaper as we improve our orbital launch vehicles?

  • ojbyrne

    today at 12:44 AM

    Plus government backstop. The federal government (especially the current one) is not going to let SpaceX fail.

    • mullingitover

      today at 1:02 AM

      Maybe not, but they might force it to sell at fire sale prices to another aerospace company that doesn't have the baggage.

• strangeloops85

  today at 12:47 AM

  The energy economics in space are also a bit more complicated than usually thought. I think Starlink has been using Si cells instead of III-V-based ones, but in addition to lower output they also tend to degrade faster under radiation. I guess that's ok if the GPU is going to be toast in a few years anyway so you might as well de-orbit the whole thing. But that same solar cell on Earth will happily be producing for 40+ years.

  Also the same issue with radiative cooling pops up for space solar cells - they tend to run way hotter than on Earth and that lowers their efficiency relative to what you could get terrestrially.

• atleastoptimal

  yesterday at 11:39 PM

  Its very simple, xAI needs money to win the AI race, so best option is to attach to Elon’s moneybank (spacex) to get cash without dilution

  • Findecanor

    today at 12:32 AM

    > win the AI race

    I keep seeing that term, but if it does not mean "AI arms race" or "AI surveillance race", what does it mean?

    Those are the only explanations that I have found, and neither is any race that I would like to see anyone win.

    • totetsu

      today at 12:49 AM

      It’s a graft to keep people distracted and allow for positioning as we fall off the end of the fossil energy boom.

    • ekidd

      today at 1:11 AM

      A significant number of AI companies and investors are hoping to build a machine god. This is batshit insane, but I suppose it might be possible. Which wouldn't make it any more sane.

      But when they say, "Win the AI race," they mean, "Build the machine god first." Make of this what you will.

    • strange_quark

      today at 12:47 AM

      It’s a framing device to justify the money, the idea being the first company (to what?) will own the market.

  • iknowstuff

    today at 12:23 AM

    Remember how he argued for Tesla’s Solarcity acquisition because solar roofs?

    Data centers in space are the same kind of justification imo.

    • MobiusHorizons

      today at 12:30 AM

      Solar roofs are much more practical to be honest.

      • darig

        today at 1:14 AM

        [dead]

  • georgemcbay

    today at 12:50 AM

    > xAI needs money to win the AI race

    Off on a tangent here but I'd love for anyone to seriously explain how they believe the "AI race" is economically winnable in any meaningful way.

    Like what is the believed inflection point that changes us from the current situation (where all of the state-of-the-art models are roughly equal if you squint, and the open models are only like one release cycle behind) to one where someone achieves a clear advantage that won't be reproduced by everyone else in the "race" virtually immediately.

    • CamperBob2

      today at 12:57 AM

      They ultimately want to own everyone's business processes, is my guess. You can only jack up the subscription prices on coding models and chatbots by so much, as everyone has already noted... but if OpenAI runs your "smart" CRM and ERP flows, they can really tighten the screws.

  • ben_w

    yesterday at 11:46 PM

    That may be the plan, but this is also a great way for GDPR's maximum fine, based on global revenue, to bite on SpaceX's much higher revenue. And without any real room for argument.

    • today at 12:15 AM

• tbrownaw

  today at 12:51 AM

  > I would not assume cooling has been worked out.

  There should be some temperature where incoming radiation (sunlight) balances outgoing radiation (thermal IR). As long as you're ok with whatever that temperature is at our distance from the sun, I'd think the only real issue would be making sure your satellite has enough thermal conductivity.

• bunderbunder

  today at 1:01 AM

  My guess is it’s just another example of his habit of trying to use one of his companies to manufacture demand for another of his companies’ products.

  Specifically: Starship makes no economic sense. There simply isn’t any pre-existing demand for the kind of heavy lift capacity and cadence that Starship is designed to deliver. Nor is there anyone who isn’t currently launching heavy payloads to LEO but the only thing holding them back is that they need weekly launches because their use case demands a whole lot of heavy stuff in space on a tight schedule and that’s an all-or-nothing thing for them.

  So nobody else has a reason to buy 50 Starship launches per year. And the planned Starlink satellites are already mostly in orbit. So what do you do? Just sell Starship to xAI, the same way he fixed Cybertruck’s demand problem by selling heaps of them to SpaceX.

  • drivebyhooting

    today at 1:12 AM

    There might be a lot of induced demand from starship. I’m sure defense is a big one.

• xupybd

  yesterday at 11:40 PM

  I think he has rocket company that needs more work.

  Sufficient hype funds more work for his rocket company.

  The more work they have the faster they can develop the systems to get to Mars. His pet project.

  I really think it's that simple.

  • croddin

    yesterday at 11:50 PM

    Starlink and Falcon 9 have been an excellent pairing, Falcon 9 partially reusable rockets created a lot launch capacity and starlink filled the demand. Starship if it meets its goals will create more launch fully reusable supply by orders of magnitude, but there is not the demand for all that launch capacity. Starlink can take some of it but probably not all so they need to find a customer to fill it in order to build up enough to have the volume to eventually colonize mars.

    • bunderbunder

      today at 1:08 AM

      Going to Mars is not a serious goal.

      We can tell because it’s not being treated as a serious goal. 100% of the focus is on the big vroom vroom part that’s really exciting to kids who get particularly excited by things that go vroom, and approximately 0% of the focus is on developing all the less glamorous but equally essential components of a successful Mars mission, like making sure the crew stays healthy.

    • ezst

      today at 12:38 AM

      > colonize mars

      Oh, that crap again.

    • belter

      today at 12:49 AM

      Nobody colonizing Mars. Get real. The most likely outcome, is him landing on a cell when the full Epstein files come out.

• bagels

  yesterday at 11:49 PM

  You can reject the heat by shedding hot mass, but only once.

  • denkmoon

    today at 12:07 AM

    Cooling by mass effect style yeeting hot chunks of metal out the back.

    Where will they go, nobody knows!

    • strange_quark

      today at 12:53 AM

      When the radiation burns out a GPU, just dump as much heat into it as possible and yeet it into the atmosphere. Ez.

• a-dub

  today at 1:09 AM

  apocalyptic space twitter with satellites shaped like whales that drop from the sky would have been cooler.

• simoncion

  today at 1:05 AM

  > I would not assume cooling has been worked out.

  That's wise.

  However, TFA's purpose in assuming cooling (and other difficulties) have been worked out (even though they most definitely have not) was to talk about other things that make orbital datacenters in space economically dubious. As mentioned:

    But even if we stipulate that radiation, cooling, latency, and launch costs are all solved, other fundamental issues still make orbital data centers, at least as SpaceX understands them, a complete fantasy. Three in particular come to mind:

• s0a

  today at 12:48 AM

  quantum computers on the sun!

• eek2121

  yesterday at 11:55 PM

  Not going to read the article, because Data centers in space = DOA is common sense to me, however, did the article really claim cooling wasn't an issue? Do they not understand the laws of thermodynamics, physics, etc?

  Sure, space is cold. Good luck cooling your gear with a vacuum.

  Don't even get me started on radiation, or even lack of gravity when it comes to trying to run high powered compute in space. If you think you are just going to plop a 1-4U server up there designed for use on earth, you are going to have some very interesting problems pop up. Anything not hardened for space is going to have a very high error/failure rate, and that includes anything socketed...

  • tzs

    today at 12:19 AM

    > Not going to read the article, because Data centers in space = DOA is common sense to me, however, did the article really claim cooling wasn't an issue?

    No. Nearly everyone that talks about data centers in space talks about cooling. The point of this article was to talk about other problems that would remain even if the most commonly talked about problems were solved.

    It says:

    > But even if we stipulate that radiation, cooling, latency, and launch costs are all solved, other fundamental issues still make orbital data centers, at least as SpaceX understands them, a complete fantasy.

    and then talks about some of those other issues.

• aunty_helen

  yesterday at 11:43 PM

  The equation has a ^4 to the temperature. If you raise the temperature of your radiator by ~50 degrees you double its emission capacity. This is well within the range of specialised phase change compressors, aka fancy air conditioning pumps.

  Next up in the equation is surface emissivity which we’ve got a lot of experience in the automotive sector.

  And finally surface area, once again, getting quite good here with nanotechnology.

  Yes he’s distracting, no it’s not as impossible as many people think.

  • sfink

    yesterday at 11:52 PM

    > And finally surface area, once again, getting quite good here with nanotechnology.

    So your hot thing is radiating directly onto the next hot thing over, the one that also needs to cool down?

  • jamiek88

    today at 12:20 AM

    This makes zero sense.

  • vel0city

    today at 12:15 AM

    > Next up in the equation is surface emissivity which we’ve got a lot of experience in the automotive sector.

    My car doesn't spend too much time driving in vacuum, does yours?

    • aunty_helen

      today at 12:54 AM

      Engine bays have a lot of design go into where to keep heat and where to get rid of it. You can look up thermal coatings and ceramics etc.

      • vel0city

        today at 1:00 AM

        Sure and it all routes to dump the heat to...where again? A vacuum? Or to a radiator with a fan with some kind of cooler fluid/gas from the environment constantly flowing through it?

        Seems like quite a massive difference to ignore.

    • MillionOClock

      today at 12:51 AM

      Let's just hope the person you are responding to isn't Elon Musk!

• TacticalCoder

  today at 12:08 AM

  Not disagreeing with you at all: that physics fact always come up. My honest question is: if it's a perfect thermos, what does, for example, the ISS do with the heat generated by computers and humans burning calories? The ISS is equipped with a mechanism to radiate excess heat into space? Or is the ISS slowly heating up but it's not a problem?

  • breput

    today at 12:22 AM

    Massive radiators. In this photo[0], all of the light gray panels are thermal radiators. Note how they are nearly as large as the solar panels, which gives you an idea about the scale needed to radiate away 3-12 people's worth of heat (~1200 watts) + the heat generated by equipment.

    [0] https://images-assets.nasa.gov/image/jsc2021e064215_alt/jsc2...

    • gpt5

      today at 12:55 AM

      The ISS is designed to emit 126kW of heat radiation between the active cooking systems and the solar array cooling system.

    • OrvalWintermute

      today at 12:53 AM

      I agree, all the good papers definitely talk about custom designed radiators being used on the dark sides of data center in space.

  • cluckindan

    today at 12:18 AM

    Let me google that for you.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_Active_Thermal_Contro...

  • vidarh

    today at 12:19 AM

    The ISS has giant heat sinks[1]. Those heat sinks are necessary for just the modest heat generated on the ISS, and should give an idea of what a sattelite full of GPU's might require...

    [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_Active_Thermal_Contro...

  • jamiek88

    today at 12:20 AM

    The ISS has MASSIVE radiators. Most of its volume is radiator. 900 cubic meters of space 2500 square meters of radiator.

    • today at 12:30 AM

  • stouset

    today at 12:21 AM

    The TL;DR is they radiate it into space via large, high surface area arms that stick out of the station.

• lofaszvanitt

  today at 12:00 AM

  It will be the communications, not the compute part.

• jcgrillo

  yesterday at 11:39 PM

  A glaring lack of oceans to boil

• stouset

  today at 12:03 AM

  Fucking thank you. The number of people who take this at face value despite the unavoidable thermodynamic elephant in the room is too damn high.

  • scottyah

    today at 12:45 AM

    There are several companies working on this, and the first generation tech is already proven, working in space on the ISS. Even Paul G is on board. https://x.com/paulg/status/2009686627506065779?s=20

    • CamperBob2

      today at 1:08 AM

      https://xcancel.com/paulg/status/2009704615508586811#m for those who don't partake.

      I liked one comment someone made: if it's just about dodging regulation, then put the data centers on container ships. At any given time, there are thousands of them sailing in international waters, and I'm sure their operators would love to gain that business.

      That being said, space would be a good place to move heat around with Peltier elements. A lot of the criticisms revolve around the substantial amount of coolant plumbing that will be needed, but that may not necessarily be what SpaceX has in mind.

• idontwantthis

  yesterday at 11:42 PM

  One man able to put a data center worth of mass in orbit is one man able to crash a datacenter worth of mass into Earth anywhere he wants.

  • recursive

    today at 12:27 AM

    Not a given. Re enter the atmosphere. Sure. Avoid vaporization? Much harder problem.

    • debatem1

      today at 12:36 AM

      There is some evidence to suggest that spacex knows how to reenter an object without burning it up.

      • TheOtherHobbes

        today at 1:11 AM

        The engineering overlap between between a small object designed for reentry and a flying (crashing...) warehouse is not a circle.

        Once upon a time there was a bonkers "rods from god" mass bomb idea, but that didn't work either.

      • duskwuff

        today at 12:53 AM

        Sometimes without even meaning to:

        https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/spacex-cbc-debris-s...

As far as I can tell, Data centres in space only seem viable because their advocates are comparing them to standard terrestrial data centres.

Data centres which are optimised for reliability, redundancy, density, repairability, connectivity and latency. Most of the savings come not from placing the data centre in space, but the fact that advocates have argued away the need for absolutely everything that modern data centres are designed to supply, except for the compute.

If they can really build a space data centre satellite for as cheap as they claim, why launch it? Just drive it out into the middle of the desert and dump it there. It can access the internet via starlink, and already has solar panels for power and radiators for cooling. IMO, If it can cool itself in direct sunlight in space, it can cool itself in the desert.

The main thing that space gains you over setting up the same satellite in the desert is ~23 hours of power, vs the ~12 hours of power on the ground. And you suddenly gain the ability to repair the satellite. The cost of the launch would have to be extremely cheap before the extra 11ish hours of runtime per day outweighed the cost of a launch; Just build twice as many "ground satellites".

And that's with a space optimised design. We can gain even more cost savings by designing proper distributed datacenter elements. You don't need lightweight materials, just use steel. You can get rid of the large radiators and become more reliant on air cooling. You can built each element bigger, because you don't have to fit the rocket dimensions

An actual ground optimised design should be able to deliver the same functionality as the space data centre, for much cheaper costs. And it's this ground optimised distributed design that space data centres should be compared to, not today's datacenter which are hyper-optimised for pre-AI use cases.

• MagicMoonlight

  today at 1:09 AM

  You don’t even need the desert. Just put it in India and use coal power or whatever. AI training doesn’t care about latency to the data centre, so you could put it anywhere, as long as it is cheap.

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 out some economic engine to make it happen. "Data centers" are (A) in-vogue for investment right now and (B) vaguely plausible, at least compared to having a space-casino.

• mbb70

  yesterday at 10:44 PM

  That's not fair! Sometimes the ideas come from Snow Crash, which gave us the Metaverse because Zuckerberg wanted to cut a guy in half with a katana from a motorcycle.

  • Avicebron

    yesterday at 11:30 PM

    Wait is that why they didn't put legs on anyone?

    • ben_w

      yesterday at 11:51 PM

      Wow, now you say it, that finally makes sense. Especially given it looked stupid and all the other VR chat solutions could already do legs.

  • shermantanktop

    today at 12:57 AM

    It also gave us Mechanical Turk and microdrones!

• threecheese

  today at 1:12 AM

  Stole Grok from Heinlein. At least it’s a good heuristic for people-I-don’t-have-to-take-seriously.

• dgxyz

  yesterday at 11:56 PM

  I wouldn’t credit science fiction for much of this.

  It appears to have come out of a crack pipe.

  • lokar

    today at 12:54 AM

    Can you smoke ketamine?

    • TheOtherHobbes

      today at 1:12 AM

      In space, ketamine smokes you.

• fullshark

  yesterday at 11:53 PM

  This idea came from musk wanting to fold his X and xAI investments in with his (likely successful) spaceX IPO.

  • MagicMoonlight

    today at 1:11 AM

    Yeah, if he gets more SpaceX shares in exchange for the xAI garbage shares then he wins, because the SpaceX shares will sell well.

• turtletontine

  yesterday at 10:34 PM

  I’ve come to think of interviews with people like Sam Altman as “freestyle science fiction.” They’re just saying stuff off the top of their head. Like you say, that often entails vague ideas from other sci fi percolating up and out, with no consideration of if they actually make sense. And like most freestyle, it’s usually pretty bad.

  • Spooky23

    yesterday at 10:42 PM

    That is possible because DOGE and their comrades gutted the SEC and indirectly FINRA like a fish. The government is run by confidence men running crypto scams.

    That’s how the CFO of OpenAI can essentially say “we need a Federal bailout”, and then turn around and say “lol just joking”.

    • TheOtherHobbes

      today at 1:14 AM

      [checks today's bitcoin price]

      Oh.

      Is it below the level where mining and blockchain updates become uneconomic yet?

• scottyah

  today at 12:28 AM

  I mean definitely, and they're not shy about admitting it. They see cool stuff in imagination-land, think it's cool, and work to make it a reality. Many people have worked to make the fantastical things shown in Star Trek.

• lofaszvanitt

  today at 12:04 AM

  A lot more. Everyone is chasing scifi ideas, ridiculous. This shows that even people with high IQ lack fantasy/imagination and creativity. They are intelligent robots.

  So whenever I see here or anywhere else that your ideas mean nothing I just laugh at it. Of course, these come from people who are bland, doesn't have any imagination and they are not creative at all at all, but they have brute force, which is money.

  • scottyah

    today at 12:26 AM

    Write some books with good ideas then so future human-robots will be inspired to make your dreams into reality.

• GuinansEyebrows

  today at 12:07 AM

  well, don't forget, freeside's initial moneymaker was a datahaven for less-reputable banks!

It seems like every argument in favor of doing this is: "yeah sure but what if X was Y% cheaper?"

And some of us are reading these things and trying to be polite.

But at some point patience runs thin and the only response that breaks through the irrationality is some variation of "what if unicorns and centaurs had teamed up with Sauron?"

The limit of the ratio of useful:useless "what if's" approaches zero.

Very confused by this plan. Data centers on Earth are struggling with how to get rid of waste heat. It's really, really hard to get rid of waste heat in space. That seems to be about the worst possible place to put a data center.

• Spooky23

  yesterday at 10:37 PM

  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.

• palmotea

  yesterday at 10:06 PM

  That's not Elon's problem. He's an ideas guy. Data centers in space is definitely an idea.

  • Mordisquitos

    yesterday at 10:31 PM

    Indeed. I would go so far as to assert that, of all the ideas that have ever been proposed in the history of humanity, data centres in space is most certainly one of them.

    • emchammer

      yesterday at 11:15 PM

      Just ask this scientician.

      • AlexandrB

        yesterday at 11:27 PM

        Uhhhh

  • mhh__

    yesterday at 11:27 PM

    Yeah he only micromanages (look at his old blog) every detail he has time for at an extremely successful aerospace engineering company, just an ideas guy.

    • youarentrightjr

      yesterday at 11:32 PM

      > Yeah he only micromanages (look at his old blog) every detail he has time for at an extremely successful aerospace engineering company, just an ideas guy.

      Have you ever spoken to someone who works at SpaceX? I have multiple friends in the industry, who have taken a trip through the company.

      The overwhelming consensus is that - in meetings, you nod along and tell Elon "great idea". Immediately after you get back to real engineering and design things such that they make sense.

      The folks working there are under no delusion that he has any business being involved in rocket science, it's fascinating that the general public doesn't see it that way.

      • mhh__

        today at 12:44 AM

        Why are they doing any better than any other firm then? Why has Tesla been successful? Why is xAI pretty similar in terms of approach? My idea has less variables than yours. It also doesn't fly with his tendency to fire people.

        • lokar

          today at 1:00 AM

          Shedding the very slow process of “legacy” defense/aerospace companies, taking more risks, moving faster, accepting some setbacks etc does not mean you need to go full Musk. There is a middle ground.

      • ta988

        yesterday at 11:37 PM

        Or you are actively trying to have the meetings when you are sure he cannot be present because he keeps derailing them.

      • lokar

        today at 12:58 AM

        I have heard similar things

• Keyframe

  yesterday at 10:12 PM

  Very confused by this plan.

  How about now? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3ex92557jo

  • general1465

    yesterday at 10:43 PM

    Well this explains why, but does not answer how to get rid of excessive heat in space.

    • avmich

      yesterday at 11:33 PM

      What kind of the problem you're talking about compared to existing satellites? That is, all existing satellites generate power, and need to dissipate that power, and most of it goes to waste heat, and the satellites somehow do that successfully - what is the specific problem you're talking about, which can't be solved by the same means?

      • verytrivial

        yesterday at 11:59 PM

        The numbers matter. The thermal budget a satellite is an tightly controlled thing. Large modern ones are in the order of a few to a couple of 10s of kilowatts, so something like a few to several low 10s of modern GPU compute power. Even with thousands of yet to be designed or launched satellites, it's going to have trouble competing with even a single current DC, plus it is in SAPCE for some reason, so everything is more expensive for lots of reasons.

        • avmich

          today at 12:26 AM

          > it's going to have trouble competing with even a single current DC

          This looks like a valid argument to me, yes. Elon mentioned 1,000,000 satellites - I'm thinking about 3rd version of Starlink as a typical example, 2 tons, 60 satellites per Starship launch, 16,000 Starship launches for the constellation, comparing with 160 launches per year of today's Falcon 9...

          The argument about problems of dissipating heat still stands - I don't see a valid counterargument here. Also "SAPCE" problem looks different from the point of view of this project - https://www.50dollarsat.info/ . Basically, out launch costs go way down, and quality of electronics and related tech today on Earth is high enough to work on LEO.

      • jasonwatkinspdx

        yesterday at 11:53 PM

        Even the buses for giant communications satellites are still at the single digit kilowatt scale. The current state of the art in AI datacenters is 500+ kw per rack.

        So you're talking about an entirely different scale of power and needed cooling.

      • protocolture

        today at 12:10 AM

        I mean you have this around the wrong way.

        The reason we dont have a lot of compute in space, is because of the heat issue. We could have greater routing density on communication satellites, if we could dissipate more heat. If Starlink had solved this issue they would have like triple the capacity and could just drop everything back to the US (like their fans think they do) rather than trying to minimise the number of satellites traffic passes through before exiting back to a ground station usually in the same country as the source. In fact, conspiratorially, I think thats the problem he wants to solve. Because wet dreams of an unhindered, unregulated, space internet are completely unanswered in the engineering of Starlink.

        I have actually argued this from the other side, and I reckon space data centres are sort of feasible in a thought experimental sense. I think its a solvable problem eventually. But heat is the major limiting factor and back of the napkin math stinks tbh.

        IIRC the size/weight of the satellite is going to get geometrically larger as you increase the compute size due to the size of the required cooling system. Then we get into a big argument about how you bring the heat from the component to the cooling system. I think oil, but its heavy again, and several space engineering types want to slap me in the face for suggesting it. Some rube goldberg copper heatpipe network through atmosphere system seems to be preferred.

        I feel like, best case, its a Tesla situation, he clears the legislative roadblocks and solves some critical engineering problem by throwing money at it, and then other, better people step in to actually do it. Also triple the time he says it will take to solve the problem.

        And then, ultimately, as parts fail theres diminishing returns on the satellite. And you dont even get to take the old hardware to the secondary market, it gets dropped in the ocean or burnt up on reentry.

      • nilamo

        yesterday at 11:44 PM

        Are there many of those current satellites running gpus and actually generating lots of heat?

        • avmich

          today at 12:34 AM

          Principally speaking, as much energy as satellite receives from solar panels it needs to send away - and often a lot of it is in the form of heat. So, the question is, how much energy is received in the first place. We currently have some quarter of megawatt of solar panels of ISS, so in principal - in principal - we know how to do this kind of scale per satellite. In practice we perhaps will have more smaller satellites which together aggregate the compute to the necessary lever and power to the corresponding level.

      • idontwantthis

        yesterday at 11:54 PM

        The ISS's radiators weigh thousands of kilograms to radiate around 70 KW. He's talking about building data centers in space in the GW range.

        Assuming he built this in LEO (which doesn't make sense because of atmospheric drag), and the highest estimates for what starship could one day deliver to LEO (200 metric tons), and only 1 metric ton of radiators per 100KW, that's 50 launches just to carry up the radiators.

    • reactordev

      yesterday at 11:25 PM

      It’s a vacuum

      • floren

        yesterday at 11:33 PM

        Vacuum being so famous for not conducting heat that we use it to keep our coffee hot

        • reactordev

          today at 1:03 AM

          which is why the whole idea of data centers in space is ridiculous.

• general1465

  yesterday at 10:48 PM

  Well the issue is that a lot of people believe that space is cold. If you will ask Google/Gemini what is a temperature of space, it will tell you:

  The average temperature of deep space is approximately -270.45°C or 2.73 Kelvin), which is just above absolute zero. This baseline temperature is set by the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiatio...

  Which is absolute nonsense, because vacuum has no temperature.

  • jfengel

    yesterday at 11:38 PM

    Vacuum does have a temperature; it has a blackbody temperature.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation

    It has nothing to do with the movements of atoms, but just with the spectrum of photons moving through it. It means that eventually, any object left in space will reach that temperature. But it will not necessarily do it quickly, which is what you need if you're trying to cool something that is emitting heat.

  • drowsspa

    yesterday at 11:57 PM

    That's not how it works. Two bodies are in thermal equilibrium if there's no heat transfer between them: that's the zeroth law of thermodynamics. If you're colder than 2.73K in deep space, you will absorb the heat from the Cosmic Microwave Background. If you're hotter, you will irradiate heat away. So it does have a temperature.

  • aqme28

    yesterday at 11:20 PM

    Well it isn't a perfect vacuum and it does have a temperature. But temperature is only a part of the story, just like how you go hypothermic a lot faster in 50 degree water than in 50 degree air.

  • ZeroGravitas

    yesterday at 11:11 PM

    I saw a news personality say that space is cold and that solves a big problem with datacenters as justification for why it made sense.

    • iancmceachern

      yesterday at 11:24 PM

      Space is cold because there isn't anything there.

      There is also no matter to wick the heat away.

  • emkoemko

    yesterday at 11:22 PM

    but if you did use thermometer in space it would eventual read 2.73 kelvin right? so whats the issue? and also for a space based server it would have to deal with the energy coming from the sun

    • iancmceachern

      yesterday at 11:24 PM

      There is no matter.

      It's cold there because there isn't anything there.

      So there is nothing to conduct or convect the heat away.

      It's like a giant vacuum insulated thermos.

      Is putting data centers in thermos' a good idea?

    • legohead

      yesterday at 11:32 PM

      what thermometer would you use to measure the temperature of space?

  • guluarte

    yesterday at 11:33 PM

    I'm not a scientist but i am also sure it will be fucking hard to dissipate heat in a vacuum

You guys clearly didn't read the full blog post where Musk mentions lunar mining. They're going to put an ASML machine on the moon and turns regolith into chips and solar panels automatically. Literally free compute

• reactordev

  yesterday at 11:24 PM

  If you believe that, you’re Musks target investor group.

• triceratops

  yesterday at 11:27 PM

  I was skeptical until you mentioned this. Now I'm onboard

• dwroberts

  yesterday at 11:33 PM

  This is your brain on Factorio

• Keyframe

  yesterday at 11:52 PM

  Makes sense. I hope their plasma coolant supplies last long enough to get self sustained.

  • scottyah

    today at 12:31 AM

    They'll just mine up Hemium-3 for that.

• dgxyz

  yesterday at 11:58 PM

  They’re going to have to deal with the moon nazis first. Oh no wait a minute.

• guluarte

  yesterday at 11:34 PM

  Also cities in Mars, like who the fuck wants to live there?

  • MagicMoonlight

    today at 1:15 AM

    I would, it would be an adventure.

    You could have said the same thing about Europe or America. We could have just stayed in Africa, and the people like you did. But taking the leap worked pretty well, even if it was tough at the beginning.

  • gct

    today at 12:25 AM

    Mars which is literally covered in poisonous perchlorate soil

  • andrepd

    yesterday at 11:56 PM

    We can't keep our already perfect planet livable, but we're going to terraform a totally new one. Yeah right buddy.

    • scottyah

      today at 12:32 AM

      It'd probably be easier to terraform than convince everyone it's possible.

• __loam

  yesterday at 11:25 PM

  I can't even tell what's sarcasm anymore lol.

  • Ifkaluva

    yesterday at 11:48 PM

    The comment you are replying to is definitely sarcasm… I hope?

One way to work around the heat dissipation issues in space (and also on earth) is to move to computing systems that operate entirely at cryogenic temperatures to take advantage of superconducting circuitry.

I've heard stories that over a decade ago teams inside hyperscalars had calculated that running completely cryogenically cooled data centers would be vastly cheaper than what we do now due to savings on resistive losses and the cost of eliminating waste heat. You don't have to get rid of heat that you don't generate in the first place.

The issue is that at the moment there are very few IC components and processes that have been engineered to run at cryogenic temperatures. Replicating the entirety of the existing data center stack for cryogenic temps is nowhere near reality.

That said, once you have cryogenic superconducting integrated circuits you could colocate your data centers and your propellant/oxidizer depots. Not exactly "data centers off in deep space" since propoxd tend to be the highest traffic areas.

• today at 12:50 AM

To get on the same page as SpaceX, they patented a satellite chassis optimized for heat dissipation in 2020:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US11834205B1/en

The sample they built gets 12.6 watts / kilogram, a good deal better than state of the art, but still short of competitive with ground data centers even with optimistic cost assumptions. But at least SpaceX is way beyond the napkin, and has real data to work with. Going ahead would seem to be a bet on terrestrial data centers getting much more expensive.

They're gonna propose something dumb like ejecting coolant out into space as a disposable heatsink and then they're gonna spend a bunch of money trying to build a proof-of-concept but it will never go anywhere because it's really some kinda money laundering scheme or whatever the Hyperloop nonsense was.

As a thought experiment, if humanity wanted to go all in on trying to move industrial processes and data centers off planet, would it make more sense to do so on the moon?

The moon has:

- Some water

- Some materials that can be used to manufacture crude things (like heat sinks?)

- a ton of area to brute force the heat sink problem

- a surface to burry the data centers under to solve the radiation problem

- close enough to earth that remote controlled semi-automated robots work

I think this would only work if some powerful entity wanted to commit to a hyper-scale effort.

• strangeloops85

  today at 12:38 AM

  The elephant in the room for all lunar scenarios is lunar regolith. Even ignoring the toxicity to humans (big problem and will happen quite quickly for any humans there!), it will be a big long-term problem for robots and machinery in general.

• snewman

  today at 12:25 AM

  Water on the moon is limited and difficult to collect, it wouldn't make sense to use it for industrial purposes. It's a very challenging thermal environment (baking during the day, freezing at night). But perhaps worst of all, every month there's a 14-day period with no solar power. Overall seems worse than low-earth orbit.

• vidarh

  today at 12:21 AM

  Probably a lot easier, but the moon looses a major selling point of data centres in space, namely reasonable latency. To be clear, I don't think it's a good idea. But I think that specifically the way Musk is trying to position it, the moon would be an even harder sell.

  • TacticalCoder

    today at 12:56 AM

    > But I think that specifically the way Musk is trying to position it, the moon would be an even harder sell.

    I agree. I would be quite a moonshot.

• vel0city

  today at 12:18 AM

  What if instead we moved it all to a closer rock that has even more water, even more materials to manufacture crude (and even advanced) things, even more surface, more protection from radiation, and even crazier still had significantly less launch costs?

  Almost any reason why the moon is better than in orbit is a point for putting it on earth.

  • bs7280

    today at 12:21 AM

    I think there's something to be said about imagining a future where we can keep the earth clean of all the nasty industrial processes we have grown accustomed to living next to. A big part about this proposed idea is that you could do a lot of manufactoring in space.

    I have long theorized there will be some game changing manufacturing processes that can only be done in a zero gravity environment. EX:

    - 3d printing human organ replacements to solve the organ donor problem

    - stronger materials

    - 3d computer chips

    I do not work in material science, so these crude ideas are just that, but the important part I'm getting at is that we can make things in space without any launches once that industry is bootstrapped.

    • chuckadams

      today at 12:59 AM

      Human organs manage to grow pretty well in 1G. In fact, they're almost certainly going to be terrible at it in zero g.

    • vel0city

      today at 1:02 AM

      We're able to make 3D computer chips on Earth today, and I don't know about you but all my organs managed to get made just fine on Earth. Doesn't seem like we need zero g to do either of these things.

      Either way, this isn't about 3D printing organs, this is about launching AI compute into space. To do important stuff, like making AI generated CSAM without worry of government intervention.

I bet they can already weaponize their satellites to prevent the launch of other satellites.

Putting data centers in space keeps them out of reach of humans with crowbars and hammers, which may have been a vulnerability for those robots Tesla is building.

AI data-centers use upwards of 100MW. The biggest solar panels in space could produce around 240KW. When they speak of AI data-centers in space what do they actually mean in realistic non theoretical terms and where are the materials for this coming from?

If the AI data-center used only 10MW then each could have two redundant SMR's assuming the cooling challenges have been worked out but then we could have nuclear reactor disposal and collision issues.

• vitaflo

  today at 12:10 AM

  This is the thing I don’t get. Everyone talking about the “how” but nobody talking about the “why”? It makes literally no sense.

  • Bender

    today at 12:37 AM

    The only thing that keeps bouncing around in my thick skull is something "data-center sized" whatever that means to them could hold some interesting objects. 2 Peta Watt laser, Rods from God, Tactical nukes, Miniature Rail-gun to quickly eradicate other satellites, Off-Planet archives of stuff, Doomsday clusters of brainwave transmitters to shut off all the humans or force everyone to defecate at once.

    Those are just some guesses. Some of those could also explain the "why" for SpaceX Falcon Heavy and it's future iterations. It can carry 63,800 kg (140,660 lbs) to Low Earth Orbit and that load capacity will only increase with future versions.

  • whynotmaybe

    today at 12:59 AM

    Snake oil, like bitcoin.

    A lot of people will invest in this because "it's the future" and a few will make a lot of money on that.

• shetaye

  yesterday at 10:31 PM

  I assume the idea is to have the entire constellation be the data center in question. Laser back haul transceiver bandwidth is in the same order of magnitude of rack-to-rack bandwidths [1][2]. I could see each sat being a rack and the entire mesh being a cluster.

  [1] https://hackaday.com/2024/02/05/starlinks-inter-satellite-la... (and this is two years ago!) [2] https://resources.nvidia.com/en-us-accelerated-networking-re...

  • reactordev

    yesterday at 11:28 PM

    This is how Starlink works however, you would need orders of magnitude more compute than those router pucks. Orders of magnitude more power needs unless you combined a nuclear reactor to it. It’s just such a fever dream at this stage that he’s really doing it to muddy accounting and consolidate debts from Grok failures.

> Data centers in space only make sense if they are cost effective relative to normal data centers.

Author made a fatal mistake. By flying enough hardware in space, you can simply blot out the sun and steal their solar capacity. Drink their milkshake with a long straw!

I don't get the point at all of these. You:

- have very non-deterministic latency

- are located outside of a country that can protect you (ie China could disrupt your space data center)

- have to pay millions of dollars to swap out hardware

• jonshariat

  today at 1:05 AM

  And what about servicing? Last I checked these data centers don't run without incident and need people (or fine robots) to physically interact with them.

• frotaur

  today at 1:00 AM

  and : kessler syndrome

How about we just make a giant heatsink that reaches into space instead. Then we can cool the whole planet. Coming up with crazy ideas is cheap, but the logistics are obviously impractical.

• 0x53

  yesterday at 10:10 PM

  Look into radiative cooling. Basically this, but more practical. Several companies working on it: https://www.skycoolsystems.com/

  • morshu9001

    today at 12:25 AM

    This looks like it depends on the outside air to cool the coolant. "Radiative" can mean that too, not just IR radiation.

  • grim_io

    yesterday at 10:50 PM

    I don't quite believe this.

    Is it really better than just using solar panels to run a heat pump?

    • pidge

      today at 12:28 AM

      > Our core innovation is a radiative cooling material that we’ve combined with a panel system to improve the efficiency of any vapor-compression based cooling system

      A heat pump is a “ vapor-compression based cooling system” so that tech is an addition-to not an instead-of.

      Whether it’s better probably depends on how expensive the additional efficiency is in practice.

      > SkyCool’s Panels save 2x – 3x as much energy as a solar panel generates given the same area.

      So if you’re area constrained maybe.

It possibly makes sense if you're preparing for war, harder to hit, harder to physically break into, beyond the range of nuclear EMP, and accessible from anywhere on earth.

• Mountain_Skies

  yesterday at 10:15 PM

  Any country capable of producing nuclear warheads will also be able to toss up enough BBs and other small objects into LEO to wipe out most of Starlink and anything else in LEO. At least on Earth data centers in theory can be hidden and physically hardened. In orbit, even a crude rocket able to reach that plane can become a weapon of mass satellite destruction. Even if those orbits clear out in four or five years, by then whatever ugliness is going on down on the surface of Earth will likely have resolved one way or the other. Starlink is a great military asset for a superpower pushing around smaller states in ways that aren't an existential threat to them. In a real conflict, it's a fragile target beyond the strike capacities of much of the developing world but easily destroyed by any moderate level industrial nation.

  • philipkglass

    yesterday at 10:25 PM

    Any country capable of producing nuclear warheads will also be able to toss up enough BBs and other small objects into LEO to wipe out most of Starlink and anything else in LEO.

    South Africa built nuclear weapons in the 1980s:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_ma...

    But it never had an orbital launch capability.

    Pakistan doesn't have a domestic orbital launch capability but it does have nuclear weapons.

    Surprisingly, the United Kingdom doesn't have a domestic orbital launch capability at present though it has had ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for many decades.

    At present, I would say that building a basic implosion-assembled atomic bomb is easier than building a rocket system that reach low Earth orbit. It's a lot easier to build a bomb now than it was in the 1940s. The main thing that prevents wider nuclear weapon proliferation is treaties and inspections, not inherent technical difficulties.

    • blibble

      yesterday at 11:53 PM

      presumably the UK could figure out how to remove the top of a trident missile and replace it with a load of ball bearings

      • mr_toad

        today at 12:58 AM

        Tridents can reach mach 19. Orbital velocity is more like mach 100.

        Not that the UK manufactures trident missiles anyway.

        • blibble

          today at 1:04 AM

          if only you could put some sort of explosive charge on the top

  • proggy

    yesterday at 10:45 PM

    Satellites. Are. Fragile. People really don’t seem to intuitively understand this. Earth based assets are orders of magnitude more difficult to attack simply by virtue of being able to be placed inside of fortified structures anchored to, or inside of, the ground. The cost to deploy hardened buildings at scale is peanuts compared to orbiting constellations.

  • reactordev

    yesterday at 11:30 PM

    They also fail to realize how devastating an attack a BB canister grenade would be in LEO. Nothing would stay in orbit. Eventually everything would collide and come down.

    • IcyWindows

      today at 1:01 AM

      LEO is big, really big. Even at the smaller radius of ground level, large volcanos, forest fires, etc. Don't affect the whole earth.

    • bethekidyouwant

      today at 12:20 AM

      No?

  • nvader

    yesterday at 11:56 PM

    Isn't the eventual plan to park these data centers out by the Lagrange points?

• general1465

  yesterday at 10:53 PM

  You don't need EMP for that. Few ASAT missiles will start the avalanche and turn orbits around Earth into shooting range. Good luck talking to your satellites with shredded antennas and solar panels.

But it's absolutely amazing hype and memevestors love it.

A month and a half ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46286645

What data centers in space enable is protection for the compute of near-superintelligent AIs from the interference of humans.

As an alleged human, I'd like to preserve my option to interfere.

• e12e

  yesterday at 11:59 PM

  No, no, no - Villa Starlight was the prison the Tessier-Ashpool AI needed help to escape from!

Comments full of EDS. Everyone is a rocket scientist in here also.

Don't let common sense stop you from a good time.

I guess the xAI/SpaceX thing is mainly a financial move and they made up an interesting story to give it some context

To Steelman the topic, Musk’s whole alleged mission is to make humans a multi-planet species that can survive an earth killing event.

To that end, a small data center space isn’t about unit-economics, it’s a bigger mission. So the question we should consider is what can we put into space the further that mission. Can we put a meaningful sum of human knowledge out there for preservation? It sounds like “yes,” even if we can’t train ChatGPT models out there yet.

• awakeasleep

  yesterday at 10:14 PM

  When I was a kid, I had to go to CCD, a religious after school program for Catholics.

  The whole time I was there it was a mental game of trying to steel man the contradictory or incoherent stuff, using my brain power to try and rewrite things to make sense.

  After some years, I woke up and realized that’s what I was doing, and even if I could do it in my mind, that didn’t make the source material rational.

  Heres hoping you have a similar moment.

  • antonymoose

    yesterday at 10:24 PM

    > Heres hoping you have a similar moment.

    I do not politically align with Musk. I’ve always thought Tesla was important in popularizing electric cars while being a low-quality built product with repair and supply chain issues. I think The Boring Company is a joke. Twitter was a power-grab.

    I also think SpaceX is societally beneficial, a good means to shake-up a stagnant industry and a humanity-wide area of interest.

    If you think I’m a member of a religious cult, I respectfully suggest you evaluate what led You to believe that itself.

• estimator7292

  yesterday at 11:00 PM

  The problem of datacenters in space and knowledge preservation/disaster redundancy are entirely disjoint.

  Datacenters in space have a lifespan measured in years. Single-digit years. Communicating with such an installation requires relatively advanced technology. In an extinction level crisis, there will be extremely little chance of finding someone with the equipment, expertise, and power to download bulk data. And don't forget that you have less than a decade to access this data before the constellation either fails or deorbits.

  Meanwhile people who actually care about preserving knowledge in a doomsday crisis have created film reels containing a dump of GitHub and enough preamble that civilizations in the far future can reconstruct an x86 machine from scratch. These are buried under glaciers on earth.

  We've also launched (something like) a microfilm dump of knowledge to the moon which can be recovered and read manually any time within the next several hundred or thousand years.

  Datacenters in space don't solve any of the problems posed because they simply will not last long enough.

• mongol

  yesterday at 10:18 PM

  Let's say there is an earth killing event, and let's say there is an outpost on Mars with some people on it. How much does it really matter that some humans survive, in light of the enormous catastrohophe that killed all life on earth? Is it a very worthwhile objective for our species to persist a while longer, or should we not just accept that also life itself will will die out on geological or astronomical time scales?

  • antonymoose

    yesterday at 10:31 PM

    I would suppose there is a gap we face between true species-wide survival capability and where we sit today. I have no true idea how hard we must go to bridge that gap, but it’s quite hard and far.

    I also see no reason to “lay down and die” as I feel is somewhat implied here. I think it’s a truly noble cause, but maybe I read too much sci-fi as a young lad.

    • mrguyorama

      yesterday at 11:22 PM

      No matter what anyone does, the universe will end, and reality will stop changing.

      Everything dies. Deal with it.

      Instead of empowering shithead grifters who promise you a way out, grow trees to create shade for people you will never know. You do that by improving things, not burning limited resources on a conman.

      • icepush

        yesterday at 11:33 PM

        If this outcome is guaranteed, why hasn't it already happened ?

        • ben_w

          yesterday at 11:56 PM

          Because we exist inside time, not outside it.

        • olyjohn

          today at 12:19 AM

          How do you know it hasn't?

  • icepush

    yesterday at 11:22 PM

    The whole point of the space stuff is not accepting all life dying out on any timescale.

• grim_io

  yesterday at 10:28 PM

  A data center in space is probably toast after some years of space radiation.

  High performance chips are made for the shielded atmosphere. Imagine the cost launching all the extra shielding that you don't need on earth.

  It is beyond stupid. Comical levels. I can't believe people are trying to find any justification.

  • antonymoose

    yesterday at 10:46 PM

    I’m not the right type of engineer to know and, hell, software largely isn’t engineering anyway…

    Can you not provide any type of shielding at scale to wrap a (small, not Google tier) data center? To be honest my criticism with TFA is its focus on “you can’t do massive scale” rather than the premise entirely.

    • estimator7292

      yesterday at 11:03 PM

      Yes, but the added mass makes it prohibitively expensive. Shielding is heavy and every kilogram of added payload results in a geometric increase in fuel load.

      The rocket equation will kick your ass every time.

• kklisura

  yesterday at 11:35 PM

  If that's really the case: wouldn't merging or collaborating with Nvidia make more sense then with xAI?

• redwood

  yesterday at 10:13 PM

  Sure but you could do that with a simple disc in space

  • mongol

    yesterday at 10:25 PM

    Actually, the data centers can be the discs. As long as the data centers can crunch on, we don't need to stay alive here on earth

• gf000

  yesterday at 10:20 PM

  Musk's whole mission is to scam even more people. Unfortunately people still buy his bullshit even though he couldn't deliver on anything, and just converts one failure to hyping up his next idiotic product.

  (Yes, I know what steel manning is)

  • jsumrall

    yesterday at 10:29 PM

    Couldn’t deliver on anything?

I'm not sure datacenters in space have to make suense to everyone, or from the perspective of earth.

Taking a creative step back, perhaps datacenters in space support something with Mars?

As much as that might not seem realistic, I also have to counterbalance it with operationalizing and commercializing SpaceX, Starlink and Tesla relatively quickly when so much stays at the R&D stage for so long.

It doesn't make any sense to me either, but there are lots of things like that where the other thing is harder. As an example, a thing people say online a lot is something like "Why do the techbros build self-driving cars instead of just putting it on rails for efficiency and then they could call it a TRAIN?"

The answer to that is that coordination problems are really hard. Much harder even than what are currently unsolved engineering problems. In fact, SpaceX can only launch from California because they have DOD coverage for their launches. Otherwise the California Coastal Commission et al. would have blocked them entirely. Perhaps the innovation for affordable space Internet is combining it with mixed-use technology.

The truth is that in America today self-driving cars (regulated by a state board run by bureaucrats) are easier to build than trains (regulated by every property owner on the train route). Mark Zuckerberg tried to spend some money evaluating a train across the Bay and had to give up. But Robotaxi service is live in San Francisco.

So if there is an angle that makes sense to me it's that they anticipate engineering challenges beatable in a way where regulatory challenges are not.

• constantius

  yesterday at 11:42 PM

  Interesting insight. I can think of some objections, but they don't change your point.

  I also checked out your blog and got 2 interesting articles in 2 tries. If you have some personal favourites and listing them is not a bother, I'd be happy to read them.

  • arjie

    today at 1:12 AM

    That's awfully kind of you to say! I added a section to the Main Page listing a couple of ones that people have mentioned to me before, though it's a bit of a cluttered page so I doubt it works as it stands.

    A few things I think of more frequently than they affect my life are:

    * https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Abolish_The_First_Lady - arguing that the FLOTUS role shouldn't exist

    * https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Upward_Mobility,_Downward_So... - perhaps a less original idea that economic mobility leads to poorly performing lower-paying services.

    * https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Blog/2026-01-17/Citogenesis - an example of one way that factoids get upgraded to facts

Is there any insight into how Starlink solved cooling? One 'expert' insisted that there is no reason to expect that data center satellites would generate any more heat than starlinks.

• thfuran

  yesterday at 10:44 PM

  Those have a power budget of about 1 rack. I would expect a datacenter satellite to need more cooling if it has more compute.

  • morshu9001

    today at 12:27 AM

    And 1 ML rack uses the power of like 10 regular racks

This is written by someone that is not in aerospace that thinks terrestrially.

Engineering is always a question of tradeoffs.

Launch costs are dropping, and we’re still using inefficient rockets. Space elevators & space trains, among others, can drop this much more, the launch costs are still dropping, even using rockets, maybe we’ll never get to elevators & trains the costs will drop so low!

Radiation shielding is not required for VLEO or LEO, and phenomenally more capable aerospace processors are near - hi Microchip Inc! There are many other radiation solutions coming, no doubt with nuclear power.

Satellites can be upgraded at scale, though for many things, it does not make $ sense to upgrade them, but fuel , reaction wheels, solar panels, among other things do make $ sense to replace.

Latency was technically solved in 1995 & 2001 with the first laser comms missions NASDA’s ETS-VI kiku-6 and ESA’s Artemis , and Laser crossbars for comms are common. A full laser TDRS no RF is not yet extant but soon. Earth to deepspace was just demonstrated by ESA.

Cooling can be significantly improved due to lower launch costs, heat piping, RTGs, TEGs, and thermoradiative cells, not to mention sunside solar and darkside inline radiators

Furthermore, it is very likely that as neuromorphics with superior SWaP emerge, we could see very different models of space based computation.

Economic tradeoffs should drive many of these decisions as I’m not discussing the other applications of datacenter in space

you know you're looking at some hard analysis when they use the number "gazillion". can I get that one in scientific notation?

I am willing to bet the whole xAI/SpaceX merger is simply a ploy by Musk to evade releasing accurate historical information about SpaceX's finances. How much did it actually cost SpaceX to launch a kilogram of payload into space each year? How much is NASA actually donating them, per each year?

I mean, I still remember promises of $1000-per-kg for space launches, and how e.g. Gigafactory will produce half of the world battery supply, and other non-scientific fiction peddled by Musk. Remember when SpaceX suggested in 2019 that the US Army could use its Starship rockets to transport troops and supplies across the planet in minutes? I do. By the way, have they finished testing Starship yet, is it ready?

If we won't stop what he is doing with grok and ai-generated CSAM, he will be completely free from oversight up there.

The bigger issue: datacenters in space are disposable. All the extremely recyclable aluminum, silica - you extract it, manufacture it and instead of recycling it when it’s done you incinerate it in the atmosphere and scatter the ashes far and wide across the earth, the harder to recapture later.

You do this when the most fragile part in the system fails. Solar panels good for 25 years but the SSDs burn out after 2? Incinerate the lot!

This kind of thinking is late capitalist brain rot. This kind of waste should be a crime.

No no, let Musk cook. This definitely won't be SpaceX's Cybertruck moment, where they completely throw away their first-mover advantage by wasting five years chasing after the egotistical boondoggle of a delusional megalomaniac.

There are two very distinct kinds of AI workloads that go into data centres:

    1. Inference
    2. Training

Training is a whole other ballgame. It is parallelisable, sure, but only through heroic efforts involving fantastically expensive network switches with petabits of aggregated bandwidth. It also needs more general-purpose GPUs, access to petabytes of data, etc. The name of the game here is to bring a hundred thousand or more GPUs into close proximity and connect them with a terabit or more per GPU to exchange data. This cannot be put into orbit with any near-future technologies! It would be a giant satellite with square kilometers of solar and cooling panels. It would certainly get hit sooner or later by space debris, not to mention the hazard it poses to other satellites.

The problem with putting inference-only into space is that training still needs to go somewhere, and current AI data centres are pulling double-duty: they're usable for both training and inference, or any mix of the two. The greatest challenge is that a training bleeding edge model needs the biggest possible clusters (approaching a million GPUs!) in one place, and that is the problem -- few places in the world can provide the ~gigawatt of power to light up something that big. Again, the problem here is that training workloads can't be spread out.

Space solves the "wrong" problem! We can distribute inference to thousands of datacentre locations here on Earth, each needs just hundreds of kilowatts. That's no problem.

It's the giaaaant clusters everyone is trying to build that are the problem.

It's lala land nonsense.

- Data centres need a lot of power = giant vast solar panels

- Data centres need a lot of cooling. That's some almighty heatsinks you're going need

- They will need to be radiation-hardened to avoid memory corruption = even more mass

- The hardware will be redundant in like 2 years tops and will need replacing to stay competitive

- Data centres are about 100x bigger (not including solar panels and heat sinks) than the biggest thing we've ever put in space

Tesla is losing market share (and rank increasingly poorly against alternatives), his robots are gonna fail, this datacentre ambition needs to break the laws of physics, grok/twitter is a fake news pedo-loving cesspit that's gonna be regulated into oblivion. Its only down from here on out.

• geoffeg

  yesterday at 10:32 PM

  Maybe instead of housing life, civilizations develop Dyson's spheres to house data centers. Solar panels on the interior, thermal radiators on the exterior and the data centers make up the structure in between. Combine that Von Neumann probes and you've got a fun new Fermi paradox hypothesis!

  • sfink

    today at 12:46 AM

    Don't combine it with von Neumann probes and you've solved the Fermi paradox: a civilization that puts that much work into computing power is either doing the equivalent of mining crypto and going nowhere, or is doing AI and is so dependent on it that they inevitably form a vast echo chamber (echo sphere?) that only wants to talk to itself (itselves?) and can't bear to be left out by adding the latency unavoidably added by distance.

    tl;dr: civilizations advanced enough to travel between stars end up trapped by the resources and physics required to keep up with the Joneses.

• cyberax

  yesterday at 10:30 PM

  > - The hardware will be redundant in like 2 years tops and will need replacing to stay competitive

  Hey! It can be de-orbited onto the location of your choosing. I bet you can sell this service to the DoD!

  Barring that, you can sell it on the global market to the highest bidder.

How else would you secure skynet against Sarah Connor?

We were supposed to be on Mars right now, but I guess data centers in space are nice too. Kinda disappointed they aren't on the moon.

Next up, the Boring Company gets imaginary contract for underground datacenters, is now valued at $500B.

• kklisura

  yesterday at 11:40 PM

  Nah. They get contract for mining on Mars, valued north of $1T.

• m463

  yesterday at 10:45 PM

  there was an article recently about a company wanting to put nuclear reactors at the bottom of very deep boreholes (like km deep).

  I thought that was actually quite interesting/practical, because if there is a problem, you can just bury the problem.

  not like tmi/fukushima/chernobyl

how much latency would a minecraft server in space have?

• wmf

  yesterday at 10:22 PM

  With live migration it could be quite low, like 10 ms.

Facts.

Just do the basic thermal heat transfer math.

I'd be curious to know simply how large the thermal radiator necessary to keep a typical GPU server cooled would be. Do they completely dwarf the server size? Can you do something with some esoteric material that is not particularly load-bearing but holds up well in space to get around some of these challenges?

Admiral Grace Hopper is famous for using a length of wire to explain to others what a nanosecond was.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/pentagon-embraces-musks-g...

Data centers in space make absolute sense when you want as close to real time analysis on all sorts of information. Would you rather have it make the round trip, via satellite to the states? Or are you going to build these things on the ground near a battlefield?

Musk is selling a vision for a MASSIVE government contract to provide a service that no one else could hope to achieve. This is one of those projects where he can run up the budget and operating costs like Boeing, Northrup etc, because it has massive military applications.

Like I’ve always said love him or hate him Elon Musk is a SPACE OIL SALESMAN!

I can assure this author: strapping a company that lights money on fire (today, maybe not tomorrow) to a cash flow enterprise makes the IPO harder, not easier, in the absence of credible plan. The market speculates, but it’s not being completely irrational. I’d actually be surprised if we didn’t have factories or data centers in space one day.

[dead]

Data centers in space are the logical progression from the multi trillion business of m2m and edge computing. It removes all physical limits to investment.

• gf000

  yesterday at 10:23 PM

  You mean physical reality

Counterpoint: https://x.com/CJHandmer/status/1997906033168330816

(If you can't xcancel it yourself your hacker card is revoked.)

• turtletontine

  yesterday at 10:31 PM

  That post does not appear to address or acknowledge any of these problems: 1) thermal management in space, 2) radiation degrading the onboard silicon, 3) you can’t upgrade data centers in orbit

• burkaman

  yesterday at 10:29 PM

  This is not a counterpoint, it is a post discussing the same topic but it doesn't address any of the points in this article.

*Data centers in space only make sense if they are cost effective relative to normal data centers*.

Disagree there are bunch of scenarios where Data Centers in space make sense. Like nuclear annihilation and having vaults across the globe to communicate and get back lost information because ground data centers would be wiped out by EMP from blasts.

• proggy

  yesterday at 10:28 PM

  Has it occurred to anyone that you can put computers underground? In this apocalyptic scenario you are describing, how do you expect the ground based command and control infrastructure to survive? Satellites are 100% reliant on ground based operations. That is a hard requirement. And if you put the command and control underground, might as well just skip the whole space based plan and just put the data underground.

  • ozim

    yesterday at 10:57 PM

    Why is it hard requirement?

    You can make some part of operations on high orbit that won’t decay as much then more ops on lower orbits that decay faster.

    If you put stuff underground it is much harder to communicate.

  • grim_io

    yesterday at 10:35 PM

    And here I thought Musk's fans are all about digging holes in the ground. The flamethrower fumes might have caused temporary amnesia.

    • ozim

      yesterday at 11:03 PM

      To say so I am not a Musk fan - I am sci-fi fan and I make imaginary/silly stuff up on my own.

      I also like reading how people argue with not what I wrote but with what they imagined I wrote.

      • grim_io

        yesterday at 11:27 PM

        It was not my intention to single you out, my apologies.

        There is nothing wrong to imagine anything you like. But if you do it as a CEO, i personally consider that as fraud. Guess I'm weird and old-fashioned like that.

• 0cf8612b2e1e

  yesterday at 10:28 PM

  After the bulk of humanity is wiped out, it will be a comfort that I can still use AI to generate dank memes.

If you read these comments carefully, you see that they can all be summed up as:

"That Musk guy is so naive to think you can put data centers in space, what a doof".

Similar comments were probably made regarding electric cars, reusable rockets, buying Twitter, and so on.

Space offers some unique benefits that enable computing that’s impossible or very hard to do on earth. E.g. Super conducting computing is possible, which can be thousands times to millions times faster than current CPU while using very little energy. When the satellite moves in the shade of the earth, temperature drops significantly. It can be low enough to enable superconducting. When the satellite moves under the sun, the solar panel can start charging up the battery to power the ongoing operation.

• emkoemko

  yesterday at 11:26 PM

  i don't understand? you won't insulate the craft from the sun? and you expect the craft to get rid of its heat just from being behind the earth for a moment?

What’s there not to like? Superconductors. Free electricity. No cooling necessary.

Put those three together and maybe it’s possible to push physics to its limits. Faster networking, maybe 4x-5x capacity per unit compared to earth. Servicing is a pain, might be cheaper to just replace the hardware when a node goes bad.

But it mainly makes sense to those who have the capability and can do it cheaply (compared to the rest). There’s only one company that I can think of and that is SpaceX. They are closing in on (or passed) 8,000 satellites. Vertical integration means their cost-base will always be less than any competitor.

• jasonpeacock

  yesterday at 10:12 PM

  > No cooling necessary.

  This is false, it's hard to cool things in space. Space (vacuum) is a very good insulator.

  3 are ways to cool things (lose energy):

    - Conduction
    - Convection
    - Radiation
  

  In space, only radiation works, and it's the least efficient of those 3 options.

  • yesterday at 11:59 PM

  • sheepscreek

    yesterday at 10:19 PM

    Superconductors.

    • IshKebab

      yesterday at 10:35 PM

      Magnets.

      (We're just saying random physics things right?)

      • sheepscreek

        yesterday at 11:30 PM

        No, just you. Superconductors don’t get hot. There is 0 resistance in superconducting mediums. Theoretically you could manufacture a lot of the electricity conducting medium out of a superconductor. Even the cheapest kind will superconduct in space (because it’s so cold).

        Radiation may be sufficient for the little heat that does get produced.

        • sfink

          yesterday at 11:59 PM

          Right. You build your computers out of superconductors, and they don't get hot.

          Sadly, they also don't compute.

          > Even the cheapest kind will superconduct in space (because it’s so cold).

          Is this a drinking game? Take a drink whenever someone claims that heat is not a problem because space is cold? Because I'm going to have alcohol poisoning soon.

          Let's see how cold you feel when you leave the Earth's shadow and the sun hits you.

        • ben_w

          yesterday at 11:59 PM

          If/when we get high-performance superconducting computers, we wouldn't need to put the computers in space in the first place.

        • haddonist

          today at 12:19 AM

          You've invented a room-temperature superconducting material? No?

          Didn't think so.

          Currently available superconductors still need liquid nitrogen cooling, meaning they're not feasible for in-orbit installations.

      • whh

        yesterday at 11:30 PM

        Could we use a constant stream of micro-asteroids as a heatsink?

      • emkoemko

        yesterday at 11:28 PM

        i think so, next is Quantum right?

  • roman_soldier

    yesterday at 10:17 PM

    [dead]

• pgalvin

  yesterday at 10:11 PM

  Do you mean to suggest that computer hardware does not need to be cooled when it is in space? Or that it is trivial and easier to do this in space compared to on Earth? I don’t understand either claim, if so.

  • sfink

    today at 12:01 AM

    The computer hardware only needs to run enough AI compute to be smart enough to convince Musk that it's working. It should be fine.

  • sheepscreek

    yesterday at 10:19 PM

    Superconductors. Average temperature in space is around 4 K.

    • cyberax

      yesterday at 10:33 PM

      Even assuming that this la-la-land idea has merit, the equilibrium temperature at the Earth's orbit is 250 Kelvin (around -20C). The space around the Earth is _hot_.

      • sheepscreek

        yesterday at 11:20 PM

        There are people literally working on accomplishing this. I don’t understand what’s with the arrogance and skepticism.

        Edit: Not trying to single out the above commenter, just the general “air” around this in all the comments.

        I honestly believed folks on HN are generally more open minded. There’s a trillion dollar merger happening the sole basis of which is the topic of this article. One of those companies put 6-8,000 satellites to space on its own dime.

        It’s not a stretch, had they put 5 GPUs in each of those satellites, they would have had a 40,000 GPU datacenter in space.

        • cyberax

          yesterday at 11:42 PM

          > There are people literally working on accomplishing this.

          They're reinventing physics? Wow! I guess they'll just use Grok AI to fake the launch videos. Should be good enough for the MVP.

          For the superconductivity idea to work, the entire datacenter needs to be shielded both from sunlight and earthlight. This means a GINORMOUS sun shield to provide the required shadow. But wait, the datacenter will orbit the Earth, so it also will need to rotate constantly to keep itself in the shadow! Good luck with station-keeping.

          There's a reason the Webb Telescope (which is kept at a balmy 50K) had to be moved to a Sun-Earth Lagrange point. Or why previous infrared telescopes used slowly evaporating liquid helium for cooling.

          > I don’t understand what’s with the arrogance and skepticism.

          Because it's a fundamentally stupid idea. Stupid ideas should be laughed out.

          I'm not talking about "stupid because it's hard to do" but "stupid because of fundamental physical limitations".

    • emkoemko

      yesterday at 11:33 PM

      you do know about the Sun? Earth? and the Moon? where would you get this 4 kelvin?

• DougN7

  yesterday at 10:11 PM

  Why is there no cooling necessary?

  • sheepscreek

    yesterday at 10:21 PM

    Space is cold - 4 K. Superconductors.

    • grim_io

      yesterday at 10:57 PM

      Repeating the word "superconductor" does not convince anyone of anything.

      • sheepscreek

        yesterday at 11:21 PM

        I don’t care about convincing anyone. A question was asked and I answered the best I could with the time I had at hand.

        Also read by comment above that discusses WHY superconductors could be the key to cooler electronics in space.

      • roman_soldier

        yesterday at 11:29 PM

        [dead]

• browningstreet

  yesterday at 10:19 PM

  Do you know the lifespan of those satellites? Do you know how many of those fall out (sorry, de-orbited) of space every year?

  Do you know the cost of sending up a payload of them?

  Do you know how much $$ you need to extract from those payloads to make the cost of sending them up make sense?

  Do you know how much they've lied about Starlink revenue and subscription counts?

• tenuousemphasis

  yesterday at 10:15 PM

  Your exuberance for this topic is only matched by your lack of understanding about it.