I am just honestly confused. There seem to be no logical reason for it, except that it would raise the stock value of rocket producers like SpaceX and Blue Origin.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 171 points 1 month ago (13 children)

This idea is a total scam. This is just a way of asking investors for an enormous amount of money, with literally no intention of actually following through with it.

They might throw a couple of cheap satellites in orbit, just to say they "did it"...but no one with any actual comprehension of these things is honestly expecting it to yield results. The vast majority of that investment money, is going to be used for unrelated things.

In any sane world, this would be considered fraud. But, here we are.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    Remember when Microsoft dumped containers of servers in the ocean to test things.

    If they couldn't make that work they obviously can't make space work.

    It was always a scam.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    You're talking about project Natick. All reports I saw was that it was actually a resounding success. The only reason I've seen for why it was cancelled is because it wasn't able to be kept at the bleeding edge as they couldn't upgrade the servers randomly. It doesn't really compare to launching them into space which gives basically zero benefit but adds an insane amount to the cost.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Not only upgrading hardware, but maintaining any issues along the way. Hard drives fail, Memory fails, etc. That's just stuff that happens and can be easily remedied in a normal data center.

    Now take all of those issues, and instead of being underwater... move it 500 miles into the vacuum of space. And take the heat dissipation of all that water, and make it a fraction because the vacuum of space is terrible at radiating heat despite the ambient temperature being so cold.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago

    Yeah... No maintenance... Which is a thing that datacenters require.

    Enterprise Hardware can have redundancy but things still break.

    If it was a success they would have done it. Ergo, not a success.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    IDK about success.

    I think it went predictably in that the cooling was ok but maintenance was an issue.

    Seawater is a real bitch. If you could cool things with it we would just pump it onshore.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    "resounding success" but given up as a bad idea.

    The fact that it could possibly "work" was not really in question, it was whether it would be worth the costs and drawbacks. It was not.

    But either way you are right, space even worse than water with no benefit compared to ocean.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    The core reason space datacenters are uneconomical, is the 5 year replacement cycle. Includes trashing the solar and radiators every 5 years even if they could last 30+ because datacenter modules need to auto-deploy their own power and radiators. Ocean deployments would be far better. Wind/solar/batteries doesn't need frequent change. Just drop in a new module every 5 years, while taking out the old one, and rebuilding its insides.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Nah nah, we aren't allowed to do wind and solar anymore. The US president is paying a shitload of money to a lot of companies to stop them from developing renewables in the US and abroad.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago

    Microsoft? Hahaha. Like Microsoft would know shit about doing anything in space?

    While Elon has no issues crashing and burning, no matter how many times it takes, until he succeeds.... That's a true commitment to trial and error!

  • source
  • parent