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.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 170 points 3 weeks ago (2 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 4 child comments
  • [–] 49 points 3 weeks ago (3 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 5 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 3 weeks ago (6 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 9 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 3 weeks 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
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 10 points 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 58 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    I believe Apartheid Pedo cited space being cold as a reason (ie don't have to worry about cooling the servers), except as usual he's a fuckwit with no idea what he's talking about. Space is empty, which means there's nothing to carry heat away, so the only way to lose heat is via radiation. And that takes forever.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Yeah I think space stations have to literally worry about not radiating enough heat away. If there is no medium to transfer the heat into the heat can't really go away. One of the many unintuitive features of space

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 40 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    There's no reason, Musk is just bullshiting like with Mars colony by 2025.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 30 points 3 weeks ago

    No, it seems like you understand it perfectly.

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 3 weeks ago

    It's a shameless attempt to loop in their own assets to a free for all money spree. There is literally nothing about it that makes any sense. It would be more efficient to beam laser light back to earth to power a dc than this, and that's a stupid idea too.

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 3 weeks ago

    It's a terribly inneficient idea, but it sounds futuristic, which is basically what Elon trades on to acquire government subsidies and investor buy-in.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    My theory is that it's so they are beyond the reach of protesters, the law, etc. I think that is going to be a very in-demand property for servers going forward.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 13 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

    With the money that it costs to send an entire data center to space you can easily fortify and militarize your data center on earth to the extent that no protester will ever come close?

    The law is anyway already largely under their control right? They don't have to go to space to evade the law.

    And to the extent that the law still applies to them and constraints then, doesn't it also still apply to the necessary ground-based necessities for space based data centers? As in, if the state wants to shut them down, they can still do so?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • [–] 17 points 3 weeks ago

    Snake oil. As almost everything else.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    You answered half of your own question.

    "it would raise the value of rocket producers like SpaceX and Blue Origin."

    The other thing is a complete lack of jurisdiction. At least theoretically, nobody can go after them for generating grossly illegal content in space.

    Also, pure hypermasculine fetishism.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

    The tech billiionaires got annoyed by regulations and complaints and are looking for a easier way.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 17 points 3 weeks ago

    They're harder for us to burn to the fucking ground if we can't reach them.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 3 weeks ago

    Because it sounds like "future" to stupids.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    I feel like "data centers in spaaaaaaaace!" is an idea that could only come from someone completely removed from the day-to-day of how computers actually work. Like no matter how you slice it, these are physical objects that are going to need servicing by human beings fairly regularly. Putting them in space vastly complicates that process.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    As stated elsewhere it's a scam but their stated reason is because they want to build massive data centres on earth but there's a huge backlog in getting electricity for them. Even generating their own electricity is troublesome because every single natural gas/methane turbine is already spoken for years into the future and solar etc takes a lot of land which they may have trouble getting the rights to build on. Thus, if you could build in space you can theoretically collect a lot more solar and more strongly than what you get on the planet's surface. It just ignores all the other costly parts but I guess if you are being given unlimited money by venture capitalists what else are you going to promise them when they want more more more AI infrastructure

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 12 points 3 weeks ago* (3 children)

    Ding ding!

    • It's not better for cooling. - No air or water to dissipate heat.
    • It's not better for communication. - Beaming data is always more lossy than its physically connected counterpart.
    • It's not less expensive. - Just submerge it, or build closer to the poles with wind and solar to power it

    Also, it throws more junk in our orbit, is more difficult to maintain and upgrade, and has a significantly more catastrophic fail result.

    But why do things logically or sustainably when you* can make money?

    * you = someone who already is hoarding a large portion of our wealth.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    They want to see if AI can still function while getting randomised bitflips?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 12 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

    Solar power and low latency laser communications.

    Power is free* in space.

    Communications between satellites is as fast as fast can be, fast enough that it can be faster to go earth-sat-sat-sat-earth than via fibre under the ocean.

    The absolute con is that heat is really really hard to shed in space and it's really really expensive to get big heavy things to space.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 12 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    Can't raid Elons CP database if its floating in space.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 11 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    Solar energy is more efficient in space because there's no atmosphere and depending on the orbit can be in the sun for much, much longer than on earth over the day. Apparently you can beam the energy down to earth somehow, but you lose something like 50%. So the solution is to put the data center up where you get the power. The downside is that it costs a fuckton to send it up, cooling becomes an issue, temperature gradients become an issue, heat and cold cycles as it goes from sun to the dark side of earth is an issue, and the funnest part is that cosmic rays can fry electronics like GPUs.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 11 points 3 weeks ago* (2 children)

    So I can actually think of a few reasons: Preprocessing vast amounts of super high resolution satellite imagery to save bandwidth, and jurisdictional black site processing data some countries would want to steal or arrest you for having or processing, particularly if you were hiding it from internal audit. You would be paying an extreme premium over ground based for ever FLOP, so, the customer base of practical customers is limited to a handful of very well funded intelligence agencies or scientific projects in very niche use cases.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

    I don't think it makes any sense either:

    • Cooling will be large and expensive as hell
    • Getting computers there will be expensive
    • Getting solar cells there will be expensive
    • The radiolink to earthbound networks will be expensive and slow

    The only positive is that the energy will be cheap, and that the computers are safe except from nation state actors and untracked space debris.

    I lean towards this being a narrative for the markets. Space Exploration Technologies Corp. claimed a 370 billion USD total addressable market (TAM) in space enabled solutions, and a 26.5 trillion USD TAM for AI in their S-1 filing before going public. They state within that their goal over time is to launch 100 gigawatts of compute to space each year.

    By making the claim that this would be worthwhile they present themselves as uniquely positioned to profit from this situation. Moreso than other AI compute companies or other rocket launch companies.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago

    it would raise the stock value of rocket producers like SpaceX and Blue Origin.

    Nailed it. Data centers in space is an objectively terrible idea but most people are too stupid to understand why. They see it as free real estate in the ignorance of the logistical problems of constructing structures in space large enough to be of any use, let alone powering and cooling them. The failure of the American education system has made the populace an easy hunting ground for modern Snake Oil salesmen.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago

    Skynet. They want to build skynet. Go watch Terminator. I guess that's going to become a posthumous documentary.

    • Global geographic coverage with very low dependence on local infrastructure
    • Extremely difficult physical access compared with a conventional datacenter
    • Enormous distributed sensor/communications/computing network
    • Integration with Starlink's existing global communications infrastructure
    • Resilience against localized disasters or attacks
    • Direct access to governments and militaries that want autonomous communications, sensing, and computation
    • Essentially uninterruptible power source
    • Guided weapon systems, military intelligence and recon

    Etc... come on. It's skynet! That's the funny thing you called a data center but really that's kind of the least of what's going on.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago

    Because they're money for space projects and some billionaire wants it.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›