xAI joins SpaceX
spacex.com
spacex.com
We currently make around 1 TW of photovoltaic cells per year, globally. The proposal here is to launch that much to space every 9 hours, complete with attached computers, continuously, from the moon.
edit: Also, this would capture a very trivial percentage of the Sun's power. A few trillionths per year.
>just use even more solar panels
Humanity has a finite (and too small) capacity for building solar panels. AI requires lots of power already. So the question is, do you want AI to consume X (where X is a pretty big chunk of the pie), or five times X, from that total supply?
Using less PV is great, but only if the total cost ends up cheaper than installing 5X the capacity as terrestrial PV farms, along with daily smoothing batteries.
SpaceX is only skating to where they predict the cost puck will be.
SpaceX knows that too, obviously.
It's probably not competitive at all without having fully reusable launch rockets, so the cost to LEO is a lot lower.
But those two parameters are not equals: 3x the cost per kg is a much higher number then 4x the solar power.
Except it doesn't melt like regular hail so when further storms come up you could end being hit by the same hail more than once :\
or would you prefer them to go to the bathroom upstairs?
at some point big tech is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation...
That's why people are trying to build solar here. Our power is expensive due partially to failing to build basically any new generation, and some land is very cheap, and the operational cost of a solar farm is minuscule.
Solar farming is basically an idle game in real life and my addiction is making me itchy.
You can overprovision, and you should with how stupidly cheap solar is.
That we aren't spending billions of Federal dollars building solar anywhere we can, as much as we can, is pathetic and stupid and a national tragedy.
We got so excited about dam building that there's no where to build useful dams anymore, and there is significant value to be gained by removing those dams, yet somehow we aren't deploying as much solar as we possibly can?
It's a national security issue. China knows this, and is building appropriately.
The southwest should be generating so much solar power that we sequester carbon from the atmosphere simply because there is nothing else left to do with the power.
You also don't usually use the same exact kind of panels as terrestrial solar farms. Since you are going to space, you spend the extra money to get the highest possible efficiency in terms of W/kg. Terrestrial usually optimizes for W/$ nameplate capacity LCOE, which also includes installation and other costs.
It is similar to the biological tradeoff of having a few offspring and investing heavily in their safety and growth vs having thousands off offspring and investing nothing in their safety and growth.
And then there’s that pesky night time and those annoying seasons.
It’s still not even remotely reasonable, but it’s definitely much higher in space.
The two options there are cluttering up the dawn dusk polar orbit more or going to high earth orbit so that you stay out of the shadow of the earth... and geostationary orbits are also in rather high demand.
https://wiki.pvmet.org/index.php?title=Standard_Test_Conditi...
So, a "400W panel" is rated to produce 400W at standard testing conditions.
I'm not sure how relevant that is to the numbers being thrown around in this thread, but thought I'd provide context.
STC uses an irradiance of irradiance 1000W/m2, in space it seems like you get closer to 1400W/m2. That's definitely better, but also not enormously better.
Seems also like they are rated at 25C, I am certainly not a space engineer but that seems kind of temperate for space where cooling is more of a challenge.
Seems like it might balance out to more like 1.1x to 1.3x more power in space?
Even with their cheapest home plan, we're getting like 100 Mbps down and maybe 20 to 50 up. So it's just not true at all that you would have connections that are a megabit or two per second.
Which satellites are operating from "deep space"?
1. the latency is going to be insane.
2. AI video exists.
3. vLLMa exist and take video and images as input.
4. When a new model checkpoint needs to go up, are we supposed to wait months for it to transfer?
5. A one million token context window is ~4MB. That's a few milliseconds terrestrially. Assuming zero packet loss, that's many seconds
6. You're not using TCP for this because the round trip time is so high. So you can't cancel any jobs if a user disconnects.
7. How do you scale this? How many megabits has anyone actually ever successfully sent per second over the distances in question? We literally don't know how to get a data center worth of throughput to something not in our orbit, let alone more than double digit megabits per second.
3 times the area of the heat dissipating surface compared to solar panel surface brings the satellite temp down to 27 deg C (300 K):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46862869
> There is to little matter in space to absorb excess heat.
If that were true the Earth would have overheated, molten and turned to plasma long ago. Earth cools by.... radiative cooling. Dark space is 4 K, thats -267.15 deg C or -452.47 deg Fahrenheit. Stefan-Boltzmann law can cool your satellite just fine.
> You'd need thermal fins bigger than the solar cells.
Correct, my pessimistic calculation results in a factor of 3,...
but also Incorrect, there wouldn't be "fins" thats only useful for heat conduction and convection.
However, the amount of available land is fixed and the demand for its use is growing. Solar isn't the only buyer in this real estate market.
Availability of land for solar production isn't remotely a real problem in the near term.
I feel like everyone just lost their mind.
https://inhabitat.com/worlds-largest-solar-project-sahara-de...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/nov/01/solar-power...
(and a retrospective from 2023 - https://www.ecomena.org/desertec/ )
Orbit gets you the advantage of 1/5th the PV and no large daily smoothing battery, but also no on-site installation cost, no grid interconnect fees, no custom engineering drawings, no environmental permitting fees, no grid of concrete footers, no heavy steel frames to resist wind and snow loads. The "on-site installation" is just the panels unfolding, and during launch they're compact so the support structure can be relatively lightweight.
When you cost building the datacenter alone, it's cheaper on earth. When you cost building the solar + batteries + datacenter, it (can be) cheaper in space, if you build it right and have cheap orbital launch.
But yeah, I didn't include that delivering all that stuff by truck (including all the personnel) to a terrestrial PV site isn't free either.
Besides making PV much more consistent, the main thing this seems to avoid is just the red tape around developing at huge scale, and basically being totally sovereign, which seems like it might be more important as tensions around this stuff ramp up. There’s clearly a backlash brewing against terrestrial data centers driving up utility bills, at least on the East Coast of the US.
The more I think about it, the more this seems like maybe not a terrible idea.
Like this argument just gets absurd: you're claiming building a data center on earth will be harder from a permitting perspective than FAA flight approval for multiple heavy lift rocket launch and landing cycles.
Mining companies routinely open and close enormous surface area mines all over the world and manage permitting for that just fine.
There's plenty of land no one will care if your build anything on, and being remote with maybe poor access roads is still going to be enormously cheaper then launching a state of the art heavy lift rocket which doesn't actually exist yet.
A regular set of servers will straight up be destroyed if put on a rocket and launched into space: the motherboards and PCBs aren't mounted or rated to survive the vibration. The connectors and wiring isn't rated for that vibration. Sure, some probably make it, but you will lose machines from just launching them alone. Any electrolytic capacitors in there? If your system exposes them to vacuum or even just low pressure, then those likely die too. Solar panels? We can launch them obviously, there's a reason people send up expensive solar panels: because you're doing a lot of work making sure they'll physically survive the launch.
So of course, now you have to build a space-rated server frame, PCBs and GPUs. You ain't going to buying bulk H100's from Nvidia. And you have to package and mount it to get it both survive the launch and physically fit into the payload bay. Then you have to add a deployment system for it, sensors etc. And then you have to add an assembly system, because if it doesn't fit in one launch (you're proposing 250+ launches for power alone) then all of these systems need to be assembled in orbit. How are they going to be assembled? How are they going to be maneuvered? Even if you could rendezvous accurately with the construction orbit, we're talking months of drift from every little thing knocking stuff around, putting it into a spin, etc.
So either each of these is now a fully contained satellite, complete with manoeuvering system and power, or you're also needing to develop a robotic assembly system - with power and manoeuevering in order to manage and assemble all this.
And let's not forget mission control: every single one of these steps is incurring a bunch of labor costs to have people manage it. And not cheap labor costs: you're going from "guys who roll racks in and plug stuff in and can be trained up easily" to "space mission control operators".
Is this doable? Probably. Is this going to be in anyway cheaper then Earth? Not in the slightest, and it's not going to be close.
I wonder if this is actually true.
And permitting is challenging in part because it’s so different from place to place. Their permitting process with the FAA seems pretty streamlined.
Right? So if that's the case why would putting them in Space, far less accessible in every conceivable way, with numerous additional expenses and engineering constraints, be cheaper?
Maybe there's a concentration in VA because there's a set of deals/procedures in place with infra providers there that make it easy to scale up, similar to how DE has well developed corporate infrastructure, so everyone incorporates there. But that stops when the area hits its limit in power provision (which seems to be happening right now). In which case, being able to do this yourself end to end by putting this stuff in space with your own power generation makes it the ultimate scale-up opportunity - no real limits on space or power availability, so once you get that method down, you can mass-scale and get great economies of scale. Maintenance isn't a thing, these will be disposable.
I think that's it, money's not the limiting factor if they can pitch this successfully, which I think they will. They want massive scale without the constraints you hit when doing it on earth. I think he's aiming for scale that we haven't seen in DCs on earth.
>why would putting them in Space, far less accessible in every conceivable way, with numerous additional expenses and engineering constraints, be cheaper?
As it turns out, this matters more than launch costs or cooling radiators or radiation bit flips. This is why you need to do the math instead of assuming you know what the solution looks like.
I’m not saying this is a good idea. I’ve got a lot of SpaceX stock, and I wasn’t really happy to hear the news, this is mostly me trying to understand why they might think this is a good idea, and brainstorming out loud, with a dash of coping. Seems most here think that it’s just stupid, but then, most commenters thought Starlink was stupid, iirc, and that turned out to be wildly wrong. But it might also just be stupid this time.
It's still the same 1TW theoretical peak in space, it's just that you can actually use close to that full capacity all the time, whereas on earth you'd need to over-provision substantially and add storage, so 1TW of panels can only drive perhaps a few hundred GW of average load.
Wouldn’t something like half of the panels be in shadow at any time?
Well, what happens over the course of a year of night and clouds is that 1 TW-peak becomes an average of about 110 to 160 GW.
We're making ~1 TW-peak per year of PV right now.
> it is possible to put 500 to 1000 TW/year of AI satellites into deep space
This is 500-1000 times as much as current global production.
Musk is talking about building on the Moon 500-1000 times as much factory capacity as currently exists in aggregate across all of Earth, and launching the products electromagnetically.
Given how long PV modules last, that much per year is enough to keep all of Earth's land area paved with contiguous PV. PV doesn't last as long in space, but likewise the Moon would be totally tiled in PV (and much darker as a consequence) at this production rate.
In fact, given it does tile the moon, I suspect Musk may have started from "tile moon with PV" and estimated the maximum productive output of that power supply being used to make more PV.
I mean, don't get me wrong, in the *long term* I buy that. It's just that by "long term" I mean Musk's likely to have buried (given him, in a cryogenic tube) for decades by the time that happens.
Even being optimistic, given the lack of literally any experience building a factory up there and how our lunar mining experience is little more than a dozen people and a handful of rovers picking up interesting looking rocks, versus given how much experience we need down here to get things right, even Musk's organisation skills and ability to enthuse people and raise capital has limits. But these are timescales where those skills don't last (even if he resolves his political toxicity that currently means the next Democrat administration will hate his guts and do what they can to remove most of his power), because he will have died of old age.
> In fairness, solar cells can be about 5x more efficient in space (irradiance, uptime).
Clearly this person was referencing a financial efficiency predominantly through uptime.
Your other points: I agree :)
I read the person you are quoting differently, as them misunderstanding and thinking that the current 1 TW-peak/year manufacturing was 1 TW-after-capacity-factor-losses/year.
Finally, if we limited ourselves to earth-based raw materials, we would eventually reach a point where the remaining mass of the earth would have less gravitational effect on the satellite fleet than the fleet itself, which would have deleterious effects on the satellite fleet.
Seven reasons are intuitive; I’m sure there are many others.
There is plenty of material in the solar system (see my other response), and plenty of orbits, and launch capability can scale with energy harvested so the launch rate can grow exponentially.
Lots of people will probably decide they don't want any more satellites. But it only takes a few highly determined people to get it done anyway.
That's how that argument sounds like, particularly when you hear it from someone who is as broke as it can be.
It's easy to type those ideas in a comment, or a novel, or a scientific paper ... bring them to reality, oh surprise! that's the hard part.
1: The dumb version to invest
The Earth's crust has an average thickness of about 15-20 km. Practically we can only get at maybe the top 1-2 km, as drill bits start to fail the deeper you go.
The Earth's radius is 6,371 km.
So even if we could somehow dug up entire crust we can get to and flung it into orbit, that would barely be noticeable to anything in orbit.
That would suck to do to Earth, but we can launch all of Mars's mass into the swarm.
And the robot army being used to do the construction and resource extraction will likely have a much shorter lifespan. So needs to be self-replicating/repairing/recycling.
> What do you think the limiting factor is?
You need to be able to harness enough raw material and energy to build something that can surround the sun. That does not exist in the solar system and we do not yet have the means to travel further out to collect, move, and construct such an incredibly huge structure. It seems like a fantasy.
You don't build a rigid shell of course, you build a swarm of free-floating satellites in a range of orbits.
See https://www.aleph.se/Nada/dysonFAQ.html#ENOUGH for numbers.
Do tell.
The manufacturing scale comes from designing factory factories. They aren't that far in the future. Most factory machinery is made in factories which could be entirely automated, so you just need some robots to install machines into factories.
A reason. I'm sure that theoretically it's possible, assuming infinite money and an interest to do so. But literally, why would we? There's no practical ways to get the power back on earth, it's cheaper to build a solar field, etc.
And I don't believe datacenters in space are viable, cost wise. Not until we can no longer fit them on earth, AND demand is still increasing.
Also, he literally said it was a joke, and was miffed that he was best know for something he didn't take seriously.
To be fair, he later added this:
>in a later interview with students from The University of Edinburgh in 2018, he referred to the premise of the Dyson sphere as being "correct and uncontroversial".[13] In other interviews, while lamenting the naming of the object, Dyson commented that "the idea was a good one", and referred to his contribution to a paper on disassembling planets as a means of constructing one.
Sources are in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere
> correct and uncontraversial
From the original quote it is clear he was referring to the idea of aliens being detectable by infrared because they will absorb all of their sun's energy. Later in the same paragraph he says:
> Unfortunately I went on to speculate about possible ways of building a shell, for example by using the mass of Jupiter... > These remarks about building a shell were only order-of-magnitude estimates, but were misunderstood by journalists and science-fiction writers as describing real objects. The essential idea of an advanced civilization emitting infrared radiation was already published by Olaf Stapledon in his science fiction novel Star Maker in 1937.
So the Dyson Sphere is a rhetorical vehicle to make an order-of-magnitude estimate, not a description of a thing that he thought could physically exist.
Full quote from the video cited before "the idea was a good one":
> science fiction writers got hold of this phrase and imagined it then to be a spherical rigid object. And the aliens would be living on some kind of artificial shell. a rigid structure surrounding a star. which wasn't exactly what I had in mind, but then in any case, that's become then a favorite object of science fiction writers. They call it the Dyson sphere, which was a name I don't altogether approve of, but anyway, I mean that's I'm stuck with it. But the idea was a good one.
Again he explicitly says this "wasn't exactly what I had in mind." This one hedges a bit more and could be interpreted as his saying the idea of a Dyson Sphere is a good one. He may have meant that in the sense of it being a good science fiction idea though, and he subsequently goes on to talk about that.
The Dyson Sphere is good for order-of-magnitude calculations about hypothetical aliens, and also for selling vapourware to the types of people who uncritically think that vapourware is real.
He thought SETI listening to space radio waves was dumb, so made essentially a satirical paper saying we should look for heat instead, because "an advanced civilization would be using these Shells to capture all star energy, so we could only see the heat"
The "dyson sphere" was a made up and entirely unfounded claim, without justification.
He was throwing shade.
China made 1.8 TW of solar cells in 2025.
The raw materials required to make these are incredibly abundant, we make as much as we need.
We can make ten or hundred times the number of solar cells we make right now, we just don't have a reason to. The technology is fairly ancient unless you want to compete on efficiency, and the raw materials abundant.
>We can make ten or hundred times the number of solar cells we make right now
The limit isn't just about the current capacity or the maximum theoretical capacity, it's also about the maximum speed you can ramp.
Eventually :)
Markets are forward looking, and not really bound to 'tomorrow'.
Not just for startups either. If you ramp up the Polio vaccine in 1 year vs 10 years, that has a big impact on human wellbeing. The two scenarios are not equivalent outcomes, even though it still happens "eventually."
Speed matters.
Developing new technology happens to matter more.
I'm sure investors are going to do their own analysis on this and reach their own conclusions, you should try betting against it.
1. quite good at making solar cells
2. quite motivated to increase their energy production via solar
We have increased the manufacturing of pretty much every piece of technology you see in front you by 200x at some point in history. Often in a matter of years.
Full paragraph quote comes from:
> While launching AI satellites from Earth is the immediate focus, Starship’s capabilities will also enable operations on other worlds. Thanks to advancements like in-space propellant transfer, Starship will be capable of landing massive amounts of cargo on the Moon. Once there, it will be possible to establish a permanent presence for scientific and manufacturing pursuits. Factories on the Moon can take advantage of lunar resources to manufacture satellites and deploy them further into space. By using an electromagnetic mass driver and lunar manufacturing, it is possible to put 500 to 1000 TW/year of AI satellites into deep space, meaningfully ascend the Kardashev scale and harness a non-trivial percentage of the Sun’s power. >
In the meantime, how about affordable insulin for everybody?
It's a political problem, not a tech problem
Which Musk has no intention to fix, of course, because he's more about money and (buying) status with it. He had an opportunity but decided to aid the regime in extracting people's data instead (probably selling it to adversaries).
The moon mfg makes significantly more sense than the hilarious plan to establish a permanent Mars base in the next 50 years, but that's not saying much.
From lunar regolith you would extract: oxygen, iron, aluminum, titanium, silicon, calcium, and magnesium.
From the poles you can get fuel (water ice -> water + hydrogen + oxygen).
The real constraint is not materials, but rather power generation, automation reliability, and initial capital investment.
So you have to shuttle machines, energy systems, and electronics.
The moon can supply mass, oxygen, fuel, and structure.
Satellites that would benefit most are: huge comms platforms, space-based power satellites, large radar arrays, deep-space telescopes, etc.
Do we actually know how to do that?
>From the poles
From the poles! So the proposal includes building a planetary-scale railway network on bumpy lunar terrain.
>The moon can supply mass, oxygen, fuel, and structure.
None of those are things we are hurting for down here, though.
And that’s from a fascist who barely managed to dig ONE small one lane tunnel under Las Vegas and called it a revolution.
I’m sorry to be rude but people who are still giving musk any credit are stupid at this point.
Oh boy, IA data centers in space. It’s not only ridiculous, but it’s also boring and not even exciting at all.
It's solvents, lubricants, cooling, and all the other boring industrial components and feedstocks that people seem to forget exist. Just because raw materials exist in lunar regolith doesn't mean much if you can't actually smelt and refine it into useful forms.
This is the big one - Musk knows that if he convinces enough people, they will invest the billions / trillions necessary, making him stupendously rich.
But anyone investing in that is... not a good investor, to be politically correct, because what's the expected return on investment? Who are the customers? What is the monetization? Or bar that, how does it benefit humanity?
It's throwing money down the drain. If you're an investor and are considering this, consider investing in earth instead. Real projects with real benefits. There's enough money to fix hunger, poverty, housing, education, and everything. Enough money to buy and / or fund politicians to make the necessary changes.
Perhaps. But I can also see someone wanting to use their money to fund space exploration because it is more exciting.
As an aside, I strongly suspect that to solve the problems you think are more worthy, it isn't money that is the problem, but rather social, structural, cultural, and other issues mostly.
Trying to do billionaire space shit while there is extreme poverty is a dangerous game imo; but I guess flaunting their wealth hasn't had any consequences so far.
building them on earth and then shipping them up?
We’re not exactly at a loss for land over here.
In situ manufacturing. You just have to send enough to build the thing that builds the factory.
What do you mean, "people" ? I'm pretty sure Musk is only expecting to send self-assembling Optimus robots [1] to do the whole manufacturing.
[1] "pre-order now, expected delivery any time soon"
(Oh, those times where you try to be sarcastic and realize: "wait, maybe that's the actual plan".)
[0] https://www.foxbusiness.com/business-leaders/spacex-boss-elo...
Think about it. Elon conjures up a vision of the future where we've managed to increase our solar cell manufacturing capacity by two whole orders of magnitude and have the space launch capability for all of it along with tons and tons of other stuff and the best he comes up with is...GPUs in orbit?
This is essentially the superhero gadget technology problem, where comic books and movies gloss over the the civilization changing implications of some technology the hero invents to punch bad guys harder. Don't get me wrong, the idea of orbiting data centers is kind of cool if we can pull it off. But being able to pull if off implies an ability to do a lot more interesting things. The problem is that this is both wildly overambitious and somehow incredibly myopic at the same time.
Or let me guess, its going to be profitable to mine crypto in space (thereby solving the problem of transporting the "work" back to earth)
But it's not trivial indeed, especially if you want good power density in your space data center.
...That's only relevant if you start from the position that your datacenters have to be space.
You could already make smaller datacenters on earth, and still have better cooling, if you were concerned about that. We don't do that because on earth it's more efficient to have one large datacenter than many small ones.
> A_radiator / A_PV = ~3;
Seems like you're in agreement. There's a couple more issues here--
1. Solar panels are typically big compared to the rest of the satellite bus. How much radiator area do you need per 700W GPU at some reasonable solar panel efficiency?
2. Getting the satellite overall to an average 27C temperature doesn't necessarily keep the GPU cool; the satellite is not isothermal.
My back of the envelope estimate says you need about 2.5 square meters of radiator (perhaps more) to cool a 700W GPU and the solar panel powering the GPU. You can fit about 100 of these GPUs in a typical liquid-cooled rack, so you need about 250 square meters of radiator to match one rack. And, unfortunately, you can't easily use an inflatable structure, etc, because you need to conduct or convect heat into that radiator.
This assumes that you lose no additional heat in moving heat or in power conversion.
And they’re going to mass a -lot-. Not that anyone would use a pyramid— you would want panels with the side facing the sun radiating too. There are plenty of surfaces that radiate more than they absorb at reasonable temperatures in sunlight.
The most efficient design and the most theoretically convincing one are not in general the same. I intentionally veer towards a configuration that shows it's possible without requiring radiating surface with an area of a square Astronomical Unit. Minimizing the physics and mathematics prerequisites results in a suboptimal but comprehensible design. This forum is not filled with physicists and engineers in the physical sciences, most commenters are programmers. To convince them I should only add the absolute minimum and configure my design to eliminate annoying integrals (for example the heat radiated by earth on the satellite is sidestepped by simply sacrificing 2 of the triangular sides of the pyramid to be mere reflectors of emissivity ~0, this way we can ignore the presence of a nearby lukewarm earth). Another example is the choice of a pyramid: it is convex and none of the surfaces are exactly parallel to the sun rays (which would result in ambiguity or doubt, or make the configuration sensitive to the exact orientation of the satellite), a more important consequence of selecting a convex shape is that we don't have to worry about heat radiated from one part of the satellite surface, being reabsorbed by another surface of the satellite (in view of the first surface), a convex shape insures no surface patch can see another surface patch of the satellite. And yes I pretend no heat is radiated by the solar panel itself, which is entirely achievable. So I intentionally sacrifice a lot of opportunities for more optimal design to show programmers (who are not trained in mathematical analysis, and not trained with physics textbook theorem-proof-theorem-proof-definition-theorem-proof-...) that physically it is not in the real of the impossible and doesn't result in absurdly high radiator/solar panel area ratios.
To convince a skeptic you 1) make pessimistic suboptimal estimates with a lot of room for improvement and 2) make sure those estimates require as little math and physics as possible, just the bare minimum to qualitatively and quantitatively understand the thermodynamics of a simple example.
You are asking the right questions :)
Given the considerations just discussed I feel OK forwarding you to the example mini cluster in the following section:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46867402
It describes a 230 kW system that can pretrain a 405B parameter model in ~17 days and is composed of 16x DGX B200 nodes, each node carrying 8x B200 GPUs. The naive but simple to understand pyramid satellite would require a square base (solar PV) side length of 30 m. This means the tip of the pyramid is ~90m away from the center of the solar panel square. This gives a general idea of a machine capable of training a 405B parameter model in 17 days.
We can naively scale down from 230 kW to 700 W and conclude the square base PV side length can then be 1.66 m; and the tip being 5 m "higher".
For 100 such 700 W GPU's we just multiply by 10: 16.6 m side length and the tip of the pyramid being 50 m out of the plane of the square solar panel base.
Your differences from my number: A) you're working based on spacecraft average temperature and not realizing you're going to have a substantial thermal drop; B) you're assuming just one side of the surface radiates. They're on the same order of magnitude. Both of us are assuming that cooling systems, power systems, and other support systems make no heat.
You can pick a color that absorbs very little visible light but readily emits in infrared-- so being in the sun doesn't matter so much, and since planetshine is pulling you towards something less than room temperature, it's not too bad either.
None of these numbers make me think "oh, that's easy". You're proposing a structure that's a big fraction of the size of the ISS for one rack of GPUs.
I don't really think cooling in space is easy. The things I have to do to get rid of an intermittent load of 40W on a small satellite are very very annoying. The idea of getting rid of a constant load of tens of kilowatts, or more, makes me sweat.
Yes, I could make more optimistic calculations: use the steradians occupied by earth, find and use the thermal IR emissivities of solar panels place many thin layers of glass before the solar panel allowing energy generating photons through and forming a series of thermal IR black body radiators as a heat shield in thermal IR, the base also radiates heat outwards and at a higher temperature, use nonsquare base, target a somewhat higher but still acceptable temperature, etc... but all of those complicate the explanation, risking to lose readers in the details, readers that confuse the low net radiative heat transfer between similar temperature objects and room walls in the same room as if similar situation applies for radiative heat transfer when the counterbody is 4 K. Readers that half understand vacuum flasks / dewars: no or fewer gas particles in a vacuum means no or less energy those particles can collectively transport, that is correct but ignores the measures taken to prevent radiative heat loss. For example if the vacuum flask wasn't mirror coated but black-body coated then 100 deg C tea isolated from room temperature in a vacuum flask is roughly 400 K versus 300 K, but Stefan Boltzmann carries it to the fourth power (4/3) ^ 4 = 3.16 ! That vacuum flask would work very poorly if the heat radiated from the tea side to the room-temperature side was 3 times higher than the heat radiated by the room temperature side to the tea-side. The mirroring is critical in a vacuum flask. A lot of people think its just the vacuum effect and blindly generalize it to space. Just read the myriad of comments in these discussions. People seriously underestimate the capabilities of radiative cooling because the few situations they have encountered it, it was intentionally minimized or the heat flows were balanced by equilibrium, not representative for a system optimized to exploit radiative heat transfer.
Some small corrections:
>Both of us are assuming that cooling systems, power systems, and other support systems make no heat.
I do not make this assumption! all heat generated in the cooling, power and other support systems stem from electrical energy used to power them, and that energy came from the solar panels. The sum of the heat generated in the solar panel and the electrical energy liberated in the solar panel must equal the unreflected incident optical power. So we can ignore how efficient the solar panel is for the rest temperature calculation, any electrical energy will be transformed to heat and needs to be dissipated but by conservation of energy this sum total of heat and electrical energies turned into heat must simply equal the unreflected energy incident on the solar panel... The solar panel efficiencies do of course matter a lot for the final dimensions and mass of the satellite, but the rest temperature is dictated by the ratio of the height of the pyramid to the square base side length.
>You can pick a color that absorbs very little visible light but readily emits in infrared-- so being in the sun doesn't matter so much, and since planetshine is pulling you towards something less than room temperature, it's not too bad either.
emissivity (between 0 and 1) simultaneously dials how well it absorbs photons at that wavelength as well as how efficiently it sheds energy at that wavelength. A higher emissivity allows the solar panel to cool faster spontaneously, but at the cost of absorbing thermal photons from the sun more easily! Perhaps you are recollecting the optimization for the thermal IR window of our atmosphere, the reason that works is because it works comparatively to solar panels that don't exploit maximum emissivity in this small window. The atmospheric IR window location in the spectrum is irrelevant in space however.
> A) you're working based on spacecraft average temperature and not realizing you're going to have a substantial thermal drop;
of course I realize there will be a thermal gradient from base to apex of the pyramidal satellite, it is in fact good news: near the solar panel base the triangular sides have wider area and hotter temperature, so it sheds heat faster than assuming a homogenous temperature (since the shedding is proportional to the fourth power of temperature). When I ignore it it's not because I'm handwaving it away, it's because I don't wish to bore computer science audience with integral calculations, even if they bring better news. Before bringing the better news you need to bring the good news that its possible with similar order of magnitude areas for the radiator compared to the solar panels, without their insight that its feasible first, its impossible to make them understand the more complicated realistic and better news picture, especially if they want to not believe it... Without such proof many people would assume the surface of the radiator would need to be 10's to 100's of times the surface area of the solar panels...
> B) you're assuming just one side of the surface radiates.
No, I even explicitly state I only utilize 2 of the 4 side triangles of the pyramid (to sidestep criticisms that earth is also radiating heat onto the satellite). So I make a more pessimistic calculation and handicap my didactic example just to show you get non-extreme surface ratios even when handicapping the design. If you look at history of physics, you will often find that insights were obtained much earlier by prior individuals, but the community only accepted the new insights when the experimental design was simplified to such an extent that every criticism is implicitly encoded in the design by making it irrelevant in the setup, this is not explicitly visible in many of the designs.
Nah -- when we're talking about how much it takes to power 70kW of GPUs, we need to include some kind of power utilization efficiency number. If 70kW is really 100kW, then we need to make this ridiculously big design 40% larger.
> >You can pick a color that absorbs very little *visible light* but readily emits in *infrared*-
> how well it absorbs photons at that wavelength as well as how efficiently it sheds energy at that wavelength.
Yes. Planetshine is infrared, 290K-ish; sunshine is 5500K-ish and planetary albedo is close enough to this, with a very small portion of its light being infrared. You are being long winded and not even reading what you reply to.
So, for example, white silicate paint or aluminized FEP has a equilibrium temperature in full sun, with negligible heat conducted to or away from it, somewhere in the span of -70 to -40C depending upon your assumptions. It will happily net radiate away heat from above-room temperature components while facing the sun.
It will also happily net radiate away heat when facing the planet because the planet is under room temperature and the planet doesn't subtend a whole hemisphere even in LEO.
I don't really like argument from authority, but... I will point out that I am the PI for multiple satellite projects and have owned thermal design, and that the stuff I've flown in space has ended up at very close to predicted temperatures. I don't feel like this is an easy thermal problem.
I mean, it's easy in the sense of "it takes a radiator area about the same as the floor area of my house". It's not easy in the sense of "holy shit I need to launch a radiator that's bigger than my house and somehow conduct all that heat to it while keeping the source cool."
> of course I realize there will be a thermal gradient from base to apex of the pyramidal satellite
No, there will be a thermal gradient from the hot thing -- the GPU -- to the radiator surface. S-B analysis is OK for an exterior temperature, but it doesn't mean the stuff you want to keep cool will be that average temperature. This is why we end up with heat pipes, active cooling loops, etc, in spacecraft.
If this wasn't a concern, you could fly a big inflated-and-then-rigidized structure and getting lots of area wouldn't be scary. But since you need to think about circulating fluids and actively conducting heat this is much less pleasant.
I honestly don't know the answer. I know there's some efficiency loss running over long wires too but I don't know what's more realistic.
The practical difficulties aren't really long distance transmission though. They're political and engineering. Spain had a massive blackout recently because a PV farm in the south west developed a timing glitch and they couldn't control the grid frequency - that nearly took out all of Europe and the power wasn't even being transmitted long distance! The level of trust you need to build a giant integrated continent-wide power grid is off the charts and it's not clear it's sustainable over the long run. E.g. the EU threatened to cut Britain's electricity supplies during Brexit as a negotiating tactic and that wasn't even war.
The real question is, why do you expect Space to have fewer political and engineering issues.
The politics on the ground is much harder. Countries own the land, you need lots of permits, electricity generation is in contest with other uses.
A solar+battery setup is already cheaper than a new gas plant. Beaming power from space is absolutely asinine, quite frankly. The losses are absurd, the sun already does it 24/7, and we know how to make wires and batteries to shuffle the sun's power around however we need to. Why on earth would we involve satellites?
I wouldn't be too surprised by beamed power being used on Mars, because that planet has global dust storms during which nowhere on the surface is getting much light, but it doesn't make as much sense here: because of the atmospheric window, you either use 0.4µm-to-10µm-wavelengths or 10cm-to-10m-wavelengths* with not much in between, µm means lasers and the mere possibility you may have included lasers powerful enough to be useful means everyone else will demand something similar to the IEA nuclear inspection program or will put similar lasers on the ground and shoot them upward to destroy those satellites, while cm-wavelengths means each ground station is a *contiguous* roughly 10km diameter oval.
Given the expensive part of large-scale PV has shifted from the PV itself to the support structures they're on, the ground station ends up about the same cost as a same-sized PV installation, and because that's just the ground station this remains true even if all the space-side components are zero cost. Normal ground-based PV also has the advantage that it doesn't need to be contiguous.
It is also possible to use a purely-ground-based method to transfer power from the other side of the world; a cable thick enough that the resistance is only 1 Ω the long way around is already within the industrial capacity of China, but the same geopolitical issues that would make people hostile to foreign beamed power satellites also makes such a cable a non-starter for non-technical reasons.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_electromagnet...
Its an entirely reasonable position in solar panel discussions to say that a 20% solar panel will heat as if 80% of the optical energy incident on the panel was turned into heat. Conservation of energy dictates that the input energy must equal the sum of the output work (useful energy) and output heat.
Not sure what you are driving at here, and just calling a statement ridiculous does not explain your position.
That 25% is peak efficiency. It does not take into account:
(1) the temperature of the panel (higher temp->lower efficiency), hence the need for passive cooling of the panels in space due to a lack of working fluid (air).
(2) the angle of the incidence: both angles have to be 'perfect' for that 25% to happen, which in practice puts all kinds of constraints on orientation, especially when coupled with requirements placed on the rest of the satellite.
(3) the effects of aging (which can be considerable, especially in space), for instance, due to solar wind particles, thermal cycling and so on
(4) the effect of defects in the panels causing local failure that can cascade across strings of cells and even strings of panels
(5) the effects of the backing and the glass
(6) in space: the damage over time due to mechanical effects of micro meteorite impact on cells and cover; these can affect the panels both mechanically and electrically
To minimize all of these effects (which affect both operational life span of panels as well as momentary yield) and effectively to pretend they do not exist is proof that you are clueless, and yet you make these (loud) proclamations. Gell-Mann had something to say about this, so now your other contributions suffer from de-rating.
2) pointing the panels straight at the sun for a sun-synchronous orbit is not exactly unobtainium technology
3) through 6) agreed, these issues need to be taken into account but I don't see how that meaningfully invalidates my claim that a solar panel operated at 25% efficiency turns ballpark ~75% of incident photons into heat. Thats basic thermodynamics.
In your opinion, how credible is this story?
EDIT: found it on the Internet Archive:
https://web.archive.org/web/20251208110913/http://english.sc...
I will come back and give you my opinions.
So simplistically put there are 3 periods:
1) the grassy period before overgrazing, lot of wind
2) the overgrazed period, loss of moisture retained by plants and loss of root systems, lot of wind results in soil run-away erosion without sufficient root systems
3) the solar PV period: at higher heights still lots of wind, but the installation of the panels unexpectedly allowed the grass to regrow, because wind erosion is halted.
The PV panels actually increase the local heating, but that doesn't need to directly equate to temperature: the wind just carried away the heat so it's someone else's problem :). Also the return of soil moisture thanks to the plants means a return of a sensible heat buffer, so the high temperature in the overgrazed period before solar panel introduction may not actually be an average temperature increase, but an increase in peak temperature during the summer. Imagine problematic summer temperatures, everybody would be talking about the increased temperature, when they are really just experiencing the loss of a heat buffer.
At least thats my impression from the story.
Depends on the deserts in question and knock-on effects: Saharan Dust Feeds Amazon’s Plants.
* https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/goddard/nasa-sat...
Helping vegetation in one place to grow may hinder it somewhere else. How important this is still appears to be an open question:
* https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00071-w
I'm not sure if humans are wise enough yet to try 'geo-hacking' (we're already messing things up: see carbon dumping).
Datacenters in space are a TERRIBLE idea.
Figure out how to get rid of the waste heat and get back to me.
But I think there's solutions to the waste heat issue
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/goddard/engineer...
Like on the order of tens or hundreds of watts but -100C.
Dissipating heat for an AI datacenter is a different game. A single AI inference or training rack is going to be putting out somewhere around 100kW of waste heat. Temps don't have to be cryogenic but it's the difference between chiselling a marble or jade statue and excavating a quarry.
It's not so much a matter of whether it's an unsolvable problem but more like, how expensive is it to solve this problem, what are its limitations, and does the project still makes economic sense once you factor all that in?
That is together less than a single AI inference rack.
And to achieve that the EACTS needs 6 radiator ORUs each spanning 23 meters by 11 meters and with a mass of 1100 kg. So that's 1500 square meters and 6 and a half metric tons before you factor in any of the actual refrigerant, pumps, support beams, valve assemblies, rotary joints, or cold side heat exchangers all of which will probably together double the mass you need to put in orbit.
There is no situation where that makes sense.
-----------
Manufacturing in space makes sense (all kinds of techniques are theoretically easier in zero G and hard vacuum).
Mining asteroids, etc makes sense.
Datacenters in space for people on earth? That's just stupid.
I get that vacuum is a really good insulator, which is why we use it to insulate our drinks bottles. So disposing of the heat is a problem.
Can't we use it, though? Like, I dunno, to take a really stupid example: boil water and run a turbine with the waste heat? Convert some of it back to electricity?
The problem is essentially that everything you do releases waste heat, so you either reject it, or everything continues to heat up until something breaks. Developing useful work from that heat only helps if it helps reject it, but it's more efficient to reject it immediately.
A better, more direct way to think about this might be to look at the Seebeck effect. If you have a giant radiator, you could put a Peltier module between it and you GPU cooling loop and generate a little electricity, but that would necessarily also create some waste heat, so you're better off cooling the GPU directly.
I think I get it. If we could convert 100% of the waste heat into useful power, then all good. And that would get interesting because it would effectively become "free" compute - you'd put enough power into the system to start it, and then it could continue running on its own waste heat. A perpetual motion machine but for computing.
But we can't do that, because physics. Everything we could do to generate useful energy from waste heat also generates some waste heat that cannot be captured by that same process. So there will always be some waste heat that can't be converted to useful energy, which needs to be ejected or it accumulates and everything melts.
However there are workarounds. People are talking like the only radiator design is the one on the ISS. There are other ways to build radiators. It's all about surface area. One way is to heat up a liquid and then spray it openly into space on a level trajectory towards a collecting dish. Because the liquid is now lots of tiny droplets the surface area is huge, so they can radiate a lot of heat. You don't need a large amount of material as long as you can scoop up the droplets the other end of the "pipe" and avoid wasting too much. Maybe small amounts of loss are OK if you have an automated space robot that goes around docking with them and topping them up again.
But if completes the vision of ancestors who thought god living in the sky
So "Lord give me a sign from heavens" may obtain a whole new meaning
How do the racks (or nodes) talk to eachother? Radios? Lasers?
What about the Kessler Syndrome?
Not a rocket scientist but 100% agree this sounds like a dead end.
I'd be curious where exactly they plan to put these datacenters... In low Earth orbit they would eventually reenter, which makes them a pollution source and you'd have no solar power half the time.
Parking them at the Earth-Sun L1 point would be better for solar power, but it would be more expensive to get stuff there.
Polar orbit.
you mean the network that has less capacity than a fibre pair per coverage area?
Main physics problem is actually that the math works better at higher GPU temps for efficiency reasons and that might have reliability trade off.
It's scifi nonsense for no purpose other than to sound cool.
Getting better at creating and erecting solar panels & AI datacenters on earth is all well and good, but it doesn't advance SpaceX or humanity very much. At lot of the bottlenecks there are around moving physical mass and paperwork.
Whereas combining SpaceX & xAI together means the margins for AI are used to force the economies of scale which drives the manufacturing efficiencies needed to drive down launch etc.
Which opens up new markets like Mars etc.
It is also pushing their competitive advantage. It leaves a massive moat which makes it very hard for competitors. If xAI ends up with a lower cost of capital (big if - like Amazon this might take 20 years horizon to realize) but it would give them a massive moat to be vertically integrated. OpenAI and others would be priced out.
If xAI wants to double AI capacity then it's a purely an automation of manufacturing problem which plays to Elons strengths (Tesla & automation). For anyone on earth doubling capacity means working with electricity restrictions, licensing, bureaucracy, etc. For example all turbines needed for electricity plants are sold years in advance. You can't get a new thermal plant built & online within 5 years even if you had infinite money as turbines are highly complex and just not available.
Oh wait, that didn’t actually happen, because he got distracted or something? He doesn’t really have battery capacity worth writing home about, the Chinese are surpassing Tesla in EV manufacturing, and Waymo is far ahead in self-driving.
The amazing space computation cost reduction process sounds rather more challenging than the Model 2, and I’m not sure why anyone should bet on Elon pulling it off.
Tesla invested into the first Lotus roadster - and put that cash into the S then the X. Used that cash to build the worlds largest factories and make the 3 & Y which sold at enormous volumes - so large in fact that the S & X are now tiny single percentages of sales which is why Tesla is stopping manufacturing them now.
Tesla is one of the very few vehicle manufactures which makes a profit manufacturing vehicles. Tesla throws off cash which allows the flywheel to keep spinning.
Tesla is now operating fully autonomous rides. They've constantly proved their naysayers wrong at every turn in time. What the Chinese are doing in battery tech is irrelevant to US vehicles as they will never be allowed to sell in the US which is Teslas largest market.
The model 2 has the possibility of being profitable at insanely low purchase price which has the potential to completely disrupt the economics of US sales in such a way that legacy auto could well be bankrupt in 5-10 years. Who will be making Waymo's vehicles then?
There's been a lot of reporting saying otherwise. Still requiring follow cars. FSD is still trying to kill the driver at random.
Tesla isn't even in the top 15 auto manufacturers by volume? The largest manufacturer Toyota produces 9x the cars Tesla does. Tesla is also on a multiyear sales drop with no sign of sales improvement.
The top 15 car makers produced 70 million cars, to Tesla's 1.7m. They have no enormous volume, at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automotive_manufacture...
If Tesla's stock traded in line with its competitors, its a $30-40B company. The hype around future growth (now completely off the charts) is the only reason the stock price is out of line with reality. There is no reason to expect Tesla's sales figures to improve going forward, in fact, they will continue to decrease.
> Tesla throws off cash which allows the flywheel to keep spinning
Tesla had a profit of $3.8b in 2025 (this is a 46% drop from 2024 and a second year over year drop). It's revenue was $94b (also less than 2024), which places it 12th among auto manufacturers. It's profit is 6th, which is a decent margin compared to legacy makers, but as mentioned above, the profit is plummeting as Tesla struggles to sell cars. It's revenue among all global companies is not even in the top 100.
It does not "throw off cash", the business is in a tailspin.
>They've constantly proved their naysayers wrong at every turn in time
Musk has been promising full self driving mode is within six months to a year away. He first made those claims in the mid 2010s? Do Tesla's have full self driving mode in 2026?
There is a decade long trail of failed claims from Musk and Tesla.
In 2019, Musk predicted 1 million Tesla robotaxis on the road by 2020. How many Tesla robotaxis are on the road in 2026? Fifty? One hundred? It's a rounding error compared to the claim that they'd have a million in 2020...
Musk said in 2019 that he believed Tesla vehicles were not traditional depreciating assets and instead could appreciate because they contained future-value technologies, especially Full Self-Driving (FSD): “I think the most profound thing is that if you buy a Tesla today, I believe you are buying an appreciating asset — not a depreciating asset.”
In fact, Tesla's are among the worst depreciating vehicles on the market today, their depreciation compares to the low end car market of Nissan, Hyundai and other low quality manfacturers.
Elon projected 250-500k Cybertruck sales per year. In reality, they sold 38k in 2024, and just 16k in 2025.
>They've constantly proved their naysayers wrong at every turn in time
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-...
It looks that way...
> They've constantly proved their naysayers wrong at every turn in time.
They have not done anything of the sort.
Not sure how you can say that. Nothing lasts forever, especially in the face of Chinese market dumping, but for a while there Tesla really was the undisputed king of EV manufacturing, that flywheel is how he got there, he did release all the patents because he said from day one he didn't anticipate or aim for 100% market share for Tesla and assumed there'd always be lots of EV manufacturers in future. All that sounds like - mission accomplished?
As for Waymo being ahead, maybe today. But Waymo's tech stack is largely pre-DL, they rely heavily on unscalable techniques like LIDAR and continuous mapping. Tesla is betting big on the "scale up neural networks" model we know works well and their FSD can drive everywhere. They're perhaps behind Waymo in some ways, but they're also in different markets - Waymo won't sell anyone a self driving car and Tesla will. I wouldn't count them out. Their trajectory is the right one.
> I’m not sure why anyone should bet on Elon pulling it off.
PayPal, SpaceX existing at all, then doing reusable rockets, Tesla, FSD, large scale battery manufacturing, Starlink, X ("he can't fire 80% of employees it'll crash immediately"), robotics, training a SOTA LLM so fast even Jensen Huang was shocked ... the man consistently pulls off impossible seeming things in the face of huge skepticism. How many examples does it take before people start taking the guy seriously? Infinity examples?
Paypal is in no way a Musk creation, no one makes that claim and in fact they got rid of him quite quickly.
X has plummeted in value, and is worth a fraction of what he paid for it? How is this "pulling it off" by shrinking the user base, revenue, etc? While we don't have publicly audited figures, they announced a net loss for the first three quarters of 2025, while it posted profits prior to his purchase.
FSD isn't even real? Why would you cite a feature that doesn't actually exist as an example of "Elon pulling it off"? He promised FSD would be available over a decade ago, and it's still not real.
> How many examples does it take before people start taking the guy seriously?
I'd personally settle for real examples, and not the false ones cited above.
> Not sure how you can say that.
Because Elon canceled the Model 2.
> unscalable techniques like LIDAR
What, exactly, is unscalable about LiDAR? BYD appears to be planning to include LiDAR (one unit, presumably forward facing) in even their cheapest cars effective quite soon, and they seem to have a few tens of thousands of LiDAR units already on the road.
And Waymo’s solution is expensive but seems to scale fine.
Meanwhile, there is certainly nothing inherently that prevents scaling a pure-vision approach that relies on massive in-car computation, but Tesla wants to use their AI5 chips and they seem to be struggling to produce and scale them. (They also apparently want to launch them into space, but it’s not really clear that they exist.)
We can't build an independent colony we can't live there any time soon. Arguably it may never make sense to live there.
2. Farming didn't evolve from a vision of "let's stay in one place, so let's find a way to do it"; it evolved from the gradual application of accumulated practical knowledge under real constraints until eventually it was possible to stay in one place. If Paleoelon had somehow convinced early humanity to abandon hunter-gathering and settle into a sedentary life because he had a vision for new markets around farming it would have led to the earliest famine.
Switching to a farming lifestyle was certainly not done by choice, but to avoid death by starvation, as we now know that this has caused various health problems, especially in the beginning, presumably until experience has taught them to achieve a more balanced diet, by combining at least 3 kinds of plant seeds, 2 with complementary amino acid profile and 1 kind of oily seeds for essential fatty acids (the most ancient farming societies have combined barley or einkorn or emmer wheat with lentils or peas or a few other legumes less used today and with flax seeds).
[0] Well, technically in favour of the grain! Pun not initially intended: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_the_Grain:_A_Deep_Hist...
Define systematically?
What do you project out of the Martian market?
Paraphrasing him, "You can be the first pizza restaurant owners on Mars" and "The price of a ticket isn't far off the price of a house, normal people can get a loan for it". What bank in their right mind would lend even just $100k to a normal person for a ticket to a place, let alone one with worse economic prospects than La Güera in Western Sahara?*
Don't get me wrong, if there was any seriousness behind this I was, and might still be, excited by the prospect of a new world… but even if I had not soured on Musk politically, I would not trust his plans when they come with this level of attention to detail (not even in rhetoric).
* I don't trust LLMs where I can't verify them, but I did ask it for a vibe check about the cost of research needed for making a pizza from ISRU on mars, and the first step was water purification for which it estimated a few hundred million, and a combined cost with all the other steps 4-10 billion (before launches)
I guess the trick lies in the operating temperature and the geometry of the satellites.
>Heat radiation works better the higher the temperature?
The power output is proportional to T^4 according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
40% isn't much in the grand scheme of things, but maybe they can reach higher reduction with more research/materials. Mass and power are pretty cheap for spaceX, so shipping more solar panels and a heap pump might not be a deal breaker.
Would e.g. a reduction of 90% in radiator area change the overall picture on the overall feasibility? I think not, it would still be ludicrous, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
The radiators are for dissipating the waste heat coming from the data center equipment. I'd agree they better not be pointed at the sun ;) In fact, the DC should probably hide behind the solar array to not pick up extra heat from the sun.
The radiators, also behind the solar array, will also be hot because of the DC waste heat being conducted there ;)
I probably completely misunderstood your point.
I think this is how the masses feel at this point. Progress bad. Capitalism inherently bad. Anything non-natural, bad.
China is an interesting mix though, hard to draw conclusions from there.
For housing maybe. It’s useful to have governments nudge developers to build affordable housing, which is less profitable, but if you have enough supply it can work. It does not work in most of Europe, where land is scarce and expensive and developers still want money. More than zoning laws, housing issues in Europe is in large part caused by the lack of government-build (or subsidised) affordable housing on the low end.
For healthcare, hell no! A single payer brings massive economies of scale and a lot of bargaining power, which limits price gouging. Hospitals are local natural monopolies, it makes no economic sense to have enough of them around to have meaningful competition. Demand is very inelastic and people just pay what they must to get treated (when they can pay). Insurance companies have interests that are directly opposed to those of their customers. Most people do not cost much for most of their lives, but have crippling expenses at some unpredictable points when they get sick or have an accident. National social security schemes smooth out the risks over the whole population, which makes everything more manageable. To me, healthcare is the opposite of a situation where free market makes sense.
really?
One of the things space has going for it is abundant cheap energy in the form of solar power. What can you do with megawatts of power in space though? What would you do with it? People have thought about beaming it back to Earth, but you'd take a big efficiency hit.
AI training needs lots of power, and it's not latency sensitive. That makes it a good candidate for space-based compute.
I'm willing to believe it's the best low-hanging fruit at the moment. You don't need any major technological advances to build a proof-of-concept. Whether it's possible for this to work well enough that it's actually cheaper than an equivalent terrestrial datacenter now or in the near future is something I can't answer.
LOL, this seems so far off from the reality of what manufacturing looks like in reality. - sending raw materials up there - service technicians are necessary ALL THE TIME, in fully automated production lines - sending stuff back down
Maybe I lack vision, but data centers in space is a 1000x times better idea and that is already a terrible idea.
Automated asteroid mining, and asteroid harvesting, are potential areas where we have strong tech, a reasonable pure automation story, and huge financial upsides. Trillion dollar asteroids... If we’re sourcing metals out there, and producing for orbital operations or interplanetary shenanigans, the need for computing and automation up there emerges.
And I imagine for the billionaire investor class now is the window to make those kinds of plays. A whole set of galactic robber barons is gonna be crowned, and orbital automation is critical to deciding who that is.
(please don't ask what we do when those break down)
That's what asteroid mining is for.
>>service technicians are necessary ALL THE TIME
Optimus is already very well tele-operated. Even though over time it can likely be trained to do specific tasks far better than even humans.
I think you might have no sense of what it takes to go from a raw mined material to something that can be used in a factory. I am not saying it cannot be done. I am just saying it cannot be done in a way that is cheaper than on earth.
It’s not necessarily cheaper energetically to get stuff from an asteroid than from Earth. You’d have to accelerate stuff from a wildly different orbit, and then steer it and slow it down. Metric tonnes of stuff. It’s not physically impossible, but it is wildly expensive (in pure energy terms, not even talking about money) and completely impractical with current technology. We just don’t have engines capable of doing this outside the atmosphere.
Delta V from just about anywhere in the solar system is lower than launching from the surface of Earth. You could launch stuff from Mars and bring it back to Earth orbit with less energy than launching it from Earth. The rocket equation is really punishing.
It can't even serve popcorn in a diner.
The justification (today) is that you can do very exotic things in zero-G that aren't possible on Earth. Growing ultra-pure crystals and fibre optics and similar.
It's the same issue that I have with data centers in space. I don't think there is any big technical hurdle to send a GPU rack into space and run it there. The problem is that I have a hard time to believe it is cheaper to run a datacenter in space. When you have to compete solely on cost, it will super hard.
In a frictionless economy governed by spherical cows it'd be insane. But back here on Earth, AI is heavily bottlenecked by the refusal or inability of the supply chain to scale up. They think AI firms are in a bubble and will collapse, so don't want to be bag holders. A very sane concern indeed. But it does mean that inferencing (the bit that makes money) is constantly saturated even with the industry straining every sinew to build out capacity.
One bottleneck is TSMC. Not much that can be done about that. The other is the grid. Grid equipment manufacturers and CCGT makers like Siemens aren't spinning up extra manufacturing capacity, again because they fear being bag holders when Altman runs out of cash. Then you have massive interconnection backlogs, environmentalists attacking you and other practical problems.
Is it easier to get access to stable electricity supplies in space? It's not inconceivable. At the very least, in space Elon controls the full stack with nearly no regulations getting in the way after launch - it's a pure engineering problem of the sort SpaceX are good at. If he needs more power he can just build it, he doesn't have to try and convince some local government utility to scale up or give him air permits to run generators. In space, nobody can hear you(r GPUs) scream.
Solar powered datacenters on Earth don't make sense to me. The GPUs are so expensive you want to run them 24/7 and power cycling them stresses the components a lot so increases failure rate. Once it boots up you need to keep the datacenter powered, you can't shut it down at night. Maybe for CPU datacenters solar power can make sense sometimes, but not for AI at the moment.
Nuclear is super hard and expensive to build. It probably really is easier to put servers in space than build nuclear.
Wouldn't he be able to float solar panels and GPUs out into international waters and run them on cargo ships powered by bunker fuel much (much much) cheaper than launching them into space?
https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/pressbriefings/pages/imo-...
You do - cooling those datacenters in space is an unsolved problem.
> ... we'd need a system 12.5 times bigger, i.e., roughly 531 square metres, or about 2.6 times the size of the relevant solar array. This is now going to be a very large satellite, dwarfing the ISS in area, all for the equivalent of three standard server racks on Earth.
https://taranis.ie/datacenters-in-space-are-a-terrible-horri...
The gist of it is that about 99% of cooling on earth works by cold air molecules (or water) bumping into hot ones, and transferring heat. There's no air in space, so you need a radiator 99x larger than you would down here. That adds up real fast.
The stock moves based on the same promise that's already unchecked without this new "in space" suffix:
We'll build datacenters using money we don't have yet, fill them with GPUs we haven't secured or even sourced, power them with infrastructure that can't be built in the promised time, and profit on their inference time over an ever-increasing (on paper) lifespan.
On the contrary, data centers continue to pop up deploying thousands of GPUs specifically because the numbers work out.
The H100 launched at $30k GPU and rented for $2.50/hr. It's been 3 years since launch, the rent price is still around $2.50.
During these 3 years, it has brought in $65k in revenue.
The scale there is a little bit different. If you're training an LLM with 10,000 tightly-coupled GPUs where one failure could kill the entire job, then your mean time to failure drops by that factor of 10,000. What is a trivial risk in a single-GPU home setup would become a daily occurrence at that scale.
I think building and operating data center infrastructure is a high risk, low margin business.
We will see how the maths works out given there is 19 GW shortage of power. 7 year lead time for Siemens power turbines, 3-5 years for transformers.
Raw commodities are shooting up, not enough education to cover nuclear and SMEs and the RoI is already underwater.
Reports in North Virginia and Texas are stating existing data centres are being capped 30% to prevent residential brownouts.
That's good for now, but considering the federal push to prevent states from creating AI regulations, and the overall technological oligopoly we have going on, I wonder if, in the near future, their energy requirements might get prioritized. Again, cynical. Possibly making up scenarios. I'm just concerned when more and more centers pop up in communities with less protections.
The satellite deorbits and you launch the next one.
I'm guessing the next argument in the chain will be that we can mine materials from asteroids and such?
Average life of starlink satellite is around 4-5 years
A better orbit might be Sun Synchronous (SSO) which is around 705 km, still not "deep space" but reachable for maintenance or short life deorbit if that's the plan. https://science.nasa.gov/earth/earth-observatory/catalog-of-...
And of course there are the LaGrange points which have no reason to deorbit, just keep using the old ones and adding newer.
Those interesting things won't pump up the perceived value of Musk companies to stratospheric levels - or dare I say - to the moon. He needs the public to believe that to earn the trillion-dollar package from the Tesla-Twitter-SpaceX conglomerate, even if the latter turns out to be the only profitable arm of the conglomerate.
The tale of computers is even more absurd. The first programmable, electric, and general-purpose digital computer was ENIAC. [1] It was built to... calculate artillery firing tables. I expect in the future that the idea of putting a bunch of solar into space to run GPUs for LLMs will probably seem, at the minimum - quaint, but that doesn't mean the story ends there.
I would be more shocked that we eliminated war than if we achieved this version of Elon's future.
It makes sense to think that we will continue to make scientific progress through war and self defense.
Reason being, nothing is more motivating than wanting to survive
Many, many network protocols were developed and used.
Anyone with 2+ computers immediately thought about connecting them.
Late 1700 actually, and war was indeed a key motivation for the deployment of the Télégraphe Chappe.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/162040592X
Télégraphe Chappe was a semaphore system using flags. It was not an electrical telegraph, nor was it binary.
AFAIK the Télégraphe Chappe was the first general purpose telegraph able to send arbitrary messages, and was used by both the administration (for civilian as well as military purpose) and the private sector for business.
So in a way, it was closer to the current internet than an electrical telegraph (it was farther in other ways though).
Morse's electrical single wire telegraph was an instant success and quickly transformed the world. It wasn't an evolutionary advance over the Chappe, it was revolutionary.
There were also electric lights before Edison's lightbulb. But Edison invented a lightbulb that was simple, cheap, reliable, and it worked. Hence his bulb gets the nod. He nailed it.
You could argue that it doesn't really count though because it was only turing complete in theory: "A Colossus computer was thus not a fully Turing complete machine. However, University of San Francisco professor Benjamin Wells has shown that if all ten Colossus machines made were rearranged in a specific cluster, then the entire set of computers could have simulated a universal Turing machine, and thus be Turing complete."
Then you have to also count the Z3 which predates the Colossus by 2 years.
oh, we'll sure find a way to weaponize that energy for example - just imagine all those panels simultaneously turning their reflective back in a way to form gigantic mirror to focus reflected solar energy on your enemy, be that enemy in space or on the Earth/Moon/Mars ground. Basically space-scale version of 'death ray scyscrapper' https://www.businessinsider.com/death-ray-skyscraper-is-wrea....
Back in the day the Star Wars program was intending to use nuclear explosions to power the lasers, i guess once all that solar for AI gets deployed in space we wouldn't need the explosions anymore.
Interesting that such space deployment can deny access to space to anybody else, and that means that any competitive superpower has to rush to deploy similar scale system of their own. Space race v2.
However I'm curious how many solar panels you would need to power a typical data center. Are we talking something like a large satellite, or rather a huge satellite with ISS-size solar arrays bolted on? Getting rid of the copious amounts of heat that data centers generate might also be a challenge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_thermal_control)...
It’s just as real as the 25k Model 3.
For inferencing it can work well. One satellite could contain a handful of CPUs and do batch inferencing of even very large models, perhaps in the beginning at low speeds. Currently most AI workloads are interactive but I can't see that staying true for long, as things improve and they can be trusted to work independently for longer it makes more sense to just queue stuff up and not worry about exactly how high your TTFT is.
For training I don't see it today. In future maybe. But then, most AI workloads in future should be inferencing not training anyway.
at 70 Celsius - normal for GPU - 1.5m2 radiates something like 1KWt (which requires 4m2 of panels to collect), so doesn't look to a be an issue. (some look to ISS which is a bad example - the ISS needs 20 Celsius, and black body radiation is T^4)
The power radiated is T^4, but 70c is only about 17.1% warmer than 20c because you need to compare in kelvin.
17% in T^4 is almost 2x - plugging 293 (in Kelvin of course) in the calculator i get 417 W/m2 vs. 784W/m2 that i got earlier for the 343 (Kelvin for the 70 Celsius).
The ISS targets rejecting 70KW and has something like 140m2 of radiators. These radiators are attached to the ISS and use a lot of plumbing to carry the cooling liquid.
Where is GPUs and everything can be attached directly to the radiators and solar panels. So 70KW - 70 GPUs - can be placed right onto the 10m by 10m radiator panel. In front of those GPUs sitting on that radiator - a 15m by 20m solar panels assembly. Whole thing is less than 1 ton. Between $10K and $100K on Starship.
It stops making sense the second you ask how you’d dissipate the heat any GPU would create. Sure, you could have vapour chambers. To where? Would this need square kilometers of radiators on top of square kilometers of solar panels? All this just to have Grok in space?
The answer, as you surmised, is indeed radiators.
It's more likely that he genuinely believes that he's building the future of human civilization, and he wants himself in charge of that so that he can shape it how he sees fit.
You're right that our socioeconomic system unfortunately doesn't have any guardrails for that kind of behavior. Arguably that's a bug (or yet another symptom of the architecture being fundamentally flawed).
Scaling photovoltaic production doesn't seem likely to have many broader implications on its own. At best, it makes it easier to change the grid to renewable power, if you ignore the intermittency problem that still exists even at huge scales. PV fabs aren't really reusable for other purposes though, and PV tech is pretty mature already, so it's not clear what scaling that up will do.
Scaling rocketry has several fascinating implications but Elon already covered many of them in his blog post.
Scaling AI - just read the HN front page every day ;)
What are we missing here? Some combinatoric thing?
Yes there's the problem of intermittency, varying sun availability and so forth - which is why solar will never provide 100% of our power and we'll also need grid-scale storage facilities and domestic batteries and all sorts of stuff - but just imagine being able to make that many panels in the first place! Literally solar on every roof, that's transformative.
But sure, let's send it all to space to power questionable "AI" datacentres so we can make more fake nudes.
Driving down the cost makes massive overprovision a means of reducing the intermittency because you will be able to cover demand at proportionally far lower output, which also means you'll be able to cover demands in far larger areas, even before looking at storage.
But lower solar costs would also make storage more cost effective, since power cost will be a lower proportion of the amortised cost of the total system. Same with increasing transmission investments to allow smoothing load. Ever cost drop for solar will make it able to cover a larger proportion of total power demand, and we're nowhere near maximising viable total capacity even at current costs.
A whole lot of industrial costs are also affected by energy prices. Drive down this down, and you should expect price drops in other areas as well as industrial uses where energy expensive processes are not cost-effective today.
The geopolitical consequences of a dramatic acceleration of the drop in dependency on oil and gas would also take decades to play out.
At the same time, if you can drive down the cost of energy by making solar so much cheaper, you also make earth-bound data centres more cost-competive, and the cost-advantage of space-bound data centres would be accordingly lower.
I think it's an interesting idea to explore (but there's the whole issue of cooling being far harder in space), but I also think the effects would be far broader. By all means, if Musk wants to poor resources into making solar cheap enough for this kind of project to be viable, he should go ahead - maybe it'll consume enough of time to give him less time to plan a teenage edgelor - because I think the societal effects of driving down energy costs would generally be positive, AI or not, it just screams of being a justification for an xAI purchase done mostly for his personal financial engineering.
Musk is suggesting manufacture at a scale sufficient to keep the Earth's entire land area tiled in working PV.
If the maths I've just looked at is correct (first glance said yes but I wouldn't swear to it), that on the ground would warm the earth by 22 C just by being darker than soil; that in the correct orbit would cool it by 33 C by blocking sunlight.
Considering how foundational energy is to our modern economy, energy several orders of magnitude cheaper seems quite likely to have massive implications.
Yes it might be intermittent, but I'm quite confident that somebody will figure out how to effectively convert intermittent energy costing millicents into useful products and services.
If nothing else, incredibly cheap intermittent energy can be cheaply converted to non-intermittent energy inefficiently, or to produce the enablers for that.
Computers and internet being storage, processing and communication systems are clearly useful for civilian purposes
[citation needed]
Because according to Bob Taylor, who initially got the funding for what became ARPANET:
> Taylor had been the young director of the office within the Defense Department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency overseeing computer research, and he was the one who had started theARPANET . The project had embodied the most peaceful intentions—to link computers at scientific laboratories across the country so that researchers might share computer resources. Taylor knew theARPANET and its progeny, the Internet, had nothing to do with supporting or surviving war—never did.Yet he felt fairly alone in carrying that knowledge.
> Lately, the mainstream press had picked up the grim myth of a nuclear survival scenario and had presented it as an established truth. When* Time magazine committed the error, Taylor wrote a letter to the editor, but the magazine didn’t print it. The effort to set the record straight was like chasing the wind; Taylor was beginning to feel like a crank.
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/281818.Where_Wizards_Sta... § Prologue
> Taylor told the ARPA director he needed to discuss funding for a networking experiment he had in mind. Herzfeld had talked about networking with Taylor a bit already, so the idea wasn’t new to him. He had also visited Taylor’s office, where he witnessed the annoying exercise of logging on to three different computers. And a few years earlier he had even fallen under the spell of Licklider himself when he attended Lick’s lectures on interactive computing.
> Taylor gave his boss a quick briefing: IPTO contractors, most of whom were at research universities, were beginning to request more and more computer resources. Every principal investigator, it seemed, wanted his own computer. Not only was there an obvious duplication of effort across the research community, but it was getting damned expensive. Computers weren’t small and they weren’t cheap. Why not try tying them all together? By building a system of electronic links between machines, researchers doing similar work in different parts of the country could share resources and results more easily. […]
* Wizards § Chapter 1
The first four IMPs were UCLA, SRI, UCSB, and Utah. Then BBN, MIT, RAND, System Development Corp., and Harvard. Next Lincoln Laboratory and Stanford, and by the end of 1970 Carnegie-Mellon University and Case Western Reserve University.
It was only "later in the 1970s" that command and control was considered more (Lukasik):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET#Debate_about_design_go...
But the first two people who get the project going, Taylor and Herzfeld, were about the efficient use of expensive computer resources for research. Look at the firs >dozen sites and they were about linking researchers: the first DoD site wasn't connected until 3-4 years after things go going, and there was nothing classified about it. MILNET didn't occur until 1984:
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dome_(missile_defense_syst...
Disclaimer: Not an Elon hater, but far from a sycophant, similar to how I felt about Steve Jobs for 40+ years.
IDK, what about the side-benefits of applying the "incredible engineering and technical capacity" to something useful instead? Rather than finding rationalisations for space spambots.
(yes I fully agree with you!)
Im sorry, but this is literally every single figurehead in society today.
This only works so long as the atmosphere being displaced weighs more than the balloon plus the payload. As soon as the air gets thin enough that the weight of the balloon+payload is equal to the weight of the air that would fill the volume of the balloon, then it stops rising. (Or, more likely the balloon rips open because it expanded farther than it could stretch).
Usually, this is really high in the atmosphere, but it's definitely not space.
This is all ignoring that orbit requires going sideways really, really fast (so fast, actually, that it requires falling, but going sideways so fast that the earth curves away and you miss).
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReedRichardsIsUs...
Why couldn't xAI just, you know, contract with SpaceX to launch its future Datacenters In Space?
Wouldn't a company focused on a single mission, Datacenters In Space, be better at seeing that goal to fruition, instead of a Space Launch Company with a submission of Datacenters In Space, which might decide to drop the project in three years to focus on their core mission of being a Space Launch Company?
Even granting the goal as desirable and possible, why is a merger the best way to pull it off?
Hard to argue with the basic idea here.
It's much more difficult to cool things in space than on earth.
These people are legit insane.
You've got to hand it to him, he is a bullshitter par excellence.
Maybe just maybe the guy does actually get things done, and if you didn't hate him you'd see that?
(yes, there are some things he hasn't gotten done. That doesn't take away from what he has gotten done)
It reminds me of growing up in the evangelical church and all the pastors who’d still keep their followers even after they show up in new cars or fly first class, taking the tithes from old ladies on their pension.
To most normal people this long history of overblown claims and complete failures would disqualify him from serious consideration. To most normal people, a massive illegal siphoning of US government data would be beyond the pale and worthy of jail time.
But in today's age, there's enough smoke and mirrors that such a charlatan can just float on a sea of adulations right on past any consequences.
That's really understating things. He has promised so many things at various times that the "hits" are at best 10% of what he says. You can't just cherry pick his successes and say "well maybe this will work too" with a track record like that.
In a way, it's perfect. If what you're promising is sufficiently vacuous and you're a true believer, you can get away with. If you're promising something concrete and deliverable, fraud is so much easier to prove.
What good is compute if you can't interface with it? This is where we are now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Optical_Communicati...
SpaceX may be leading in short-range (few hundred km) space-to-space data transfer but there is a long way to go for terabit/s deep-space links.
Because these platforms are experimental and rapidly evolving, they aren't 'space-ready.' Space-grade hardware must be 'rad-hardened' and proven over years of testing.
By the time an accelerator is reliable enough for orbit, it’s several generations obsolete, making it nearly impossible to compete or turn a profit against ground-based clusters.
Beyond that, we don't actually know the failure rate of the Tesla fleet. I’ve never had a personal computer fail from use in my life, but that’s just anecdotal and holds no weight against the law of large numbers. When you operate at the scale of a massive cluster, "one-in-a-million" failures become a daily statistical certainty.
Claiming that because you don't personally see cars failing on the side of the road means they require zero intervention actually proves my original point: people who haven't managed data center reliability underestimate the sheer volume of "rare" failures that occur at scale.
For what it's worth, this project plans to use Tesla AI5/AI6 hardware for the first launches.
The idea itself may be sound, though that's unrelated to the question of whether Elon Musk can be relied on to be honest with investors about what their real failure projections and cost estimates are and whether it actually makes financial sense to do this now or in the near future.
I can't get in detail about real numbers but it's not doable with current hardware by a large margin.
But seriously, why are all the stans in these comments as unknowledgeable as Elon himself? Is that just what is required to stan for this type of garbage?
For many on HN, Elon buying Twitter was a wake up call because he suddenly started talking about software and servers and data centers and reliability and a ton of people with experience with those things were like "oh... this guy's an idiot".
Data centers in space are exactly like this. Your comment (correctly) alludes to this.
Companies like Google, Meta, Amazon and Microsoft all have so many servers that parts are failing constantly. They fail so often on large scales that it's expected things like a hard drive will fail while a single job might be running.
So all of these companies build systems to detect failures, disable running on that node until it's fixed, alerting someone to what the problem is and then bringing the node back online once the problem it's addressed. Everything will fail. Hard drives, RAM, CPUs, GPUs, SSDs, power supplies, fans, NICs, cables, etc.
So all data centers will have a number of technicians who are constantly fixing problems. IIRC Google's ratio tended to be about 10,000 servers per technician. Good technicians could handle higher ratios. When a node goes offline it's not clear why. Techs would take known good parts and basically replacce all of them and then figure out what the problem is later, dispose of any bad parts and put tested good parts into the pool of known good parts for a later incident.
Data centers in space lose all of this ability. So if you have a large number of orbital servers, they're going to be failing constantly with no ability to fix them. You can really only deorbit them and replace them and that gets real expensive.
Electronics and chips on satellites also aren't consumer grade. They're not even enterprise grade. They're orders of magnitude more reliable than that because they have to deal with error correction terrestial components don't due to cosmic rays and the solar wind. That's why they're a fraction of the power of something you can buy from Amazon but they cost 1000x as much. Because they need to last years and not fail, something no home computer or data center server has to deal with.
Put it this way, a hardened satellite or probe CPU is like paying $1 million for a Raspberry Pi.
And anybody who has dealt with data centers knows this.
I bet much less than half of the hundreds of HN commenters here bother to read it. Many are clearly unfamiliar with its content.
The thing is, everyone knows Elon is not a real CEO of any of these companies. There isn’t enough time to even be the CEO of one company and a parent. This guy has 10 companies and 10 children. He’s just holding the position and preventing others from being in that position, so he can enact changes like this. And his boards are all stacked with family members, close friends, and sycophants who won’t oppose his agenda.
The basic math is that launching a million tons per year of satellites generating 100 kW of compute power per ton would add 100 gigawatts of AI compute capacity annually, *with no ongoing operational or maintenance needs*.
Compute power has increased more than 1000x while the cost came down.
I recall paying $3000 for my first IBM PC.
> they need to last years and not fail
Not if they are cheap enough to build and launch. Quantity has a quality all its own.
I think there's a very interesting use case on edge computing (edge of space, if you wanna make the joke) that in fact some satellites are already doing, were they preprocess data before sending back to Earth. But datacenter-power-level computing is not even near.
I have no idea and numbers to back it up, but I feel it would be even easier to set up a Moon datacenter than an orbital datacenter (when talking about that size of datacenter)
Keep in mind that the current state of space electronics is centered around one-off very expensive launches, where the electronics failure would be a fiscal disaster. (See JWST)
Being able to rapidly launch cheap electronics may very well change the whole outlook on this.
Also AI GPUs are the exact opposite of cheap electronics
I'm not a data center technician myself, but I have deep respect for those folks and the complexity they manage. It's quite surprising the market still buys Musk's claims day after day.
More disturbing than surprising.
Still, dropping a pod into the sea makes more sense than launching it into space. At least cooling, power, connectivity and eventual maintenance is simpler.
The whole thing makes no sense and is seems like it's just Musk doing financial manipulation again.
https://news.microsoft.com/source/features/sustainability/pr...
It's a fig leaf for getting two IPOs in one. There's no sense in analyzing it any further.
He's basically trading two cypto coins with himself and sending out a press release.
Space has solar energy going for itself. With underwater you don't need to lug a 1420 ton rocket with a datacenter payload to space.
Exactly the opposite of space, where all cooling must happen through radiation, which is expensive/inefficient
Makes far more sense to build on the beach than underwater, if all you want is unlimited sea water to pump around.
They highlight the exact reliability constraint I was thinking of: that replacing failed TPUs is trivial on Earth but impossible in space. Their solution is redundant provisioning, which moves the problem from "operationally impossible" to "extremely expensive."
You would effectively need custom, super-redundant motherboards designed to bypass dead chips rather than replace them. The paper also tackles the interconnect problem using specialized optics to sustain high bitrates, which is fascinating but seems incredibly difficult to pull off given that the constellation topology changes constantly. It might be possible, but the resulting hardware would look nothing like a regular datacenter.
Also this would require lots of satelites to rival a regular DC which is also very hard to justify. Let's see what the promised 2027 tests will reveal.
Doubling every three years; at that rate it would take about 30 years for 1TW to become 1000TW. Whether on not the trend continues largely depends on demand, but as of right now humanity seems to have an insatiable demand for power.
Making only 1TW of pv cells per year is a skill issue.
Caveat: my understanding of this largely comes from the book The High Frontier, which is really old and probably inaccurate. I can't think of a reason why this particular point would be wrong though.
Actually provide an argument instead of just asserting this.
On earth, deployment of a built solar panel is screwing it into a dirt cheap frame on the ground.
To deploy a solar panel in space, you must attach it to a satellite that no one involved has even pretended to claim is designed, so you need a factory for those on the same order of magnitude as your panels, you need enough boost capacity, so a factory for rockets, and a much larger fuel industry, and then you need all the immense engineering required to do any of that at all, and then you need to spin up the industries to supply this brand new industry, and then you need to manage all those satellites in space, and then you still don't get any actual power because it's all in space so you haven't scaled SHIT
It's all absolute horseshit. No, none of this is planned. He's just going to cash in on the IPO.
Moving matter out continusously at industrial scale with no plan to bring 100% of it back in the ecosystem other than burning it seems quite unsustainable and irresponsable.
I don't know where this delusion of "Servers in space" came from, I think of it as the new NFTs
But I bet those pushing for it are very interested in feeding the grift
10 years ago when Tesla actually revolutionized the retail EV industry everyone took his word for it. Then after a few failed prognostications the nerds started to doubt his credibility, a few more years of this and the tech press started to see through it, and now he's reduced to only the MAGA-faithful falling for his Phony Stark act. The ground is coming up fast.
https://taranis.ie/datacenters-in-space-are-a-terrible-horri...
I don't have any specialized knowledge of the physics but I saw an article suggesting the real reason for the push to build them in space is to hedge against political pushback preventing construction on Earth.
I can't find the original article but here is one about datacenter pushback:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-08-20/ai-and...
But even if political pushback on Earth is the real reason, it still seems datacenters in space are extremely technically challenging/impossible to build.
Edit: okay Tiangong - but that is not a data center.
That someone could put a data center in space for the price of 100 years of eliminating world hunger doesn’t mean shit.
> [Kenyan Economist] Shikwati: … for God’s sake, please just stop.
> SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.
> Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/kenyan-economics-expert-devel...
When someone lives in opulence while the rest of the world burns, the rest of the world doesn’t sit idly.
For fuck's sake, TSLA has a P/E of a whopping *392*. There is zero justification for how overvalued that stock is. In a sane world, I should be able to short it and 10x my money, but people are buying into Musk's hype on FSD, Robotaxi, and whatever the hell robot they're making. Even if you expected them to be successes, they'd need to 20x the company's entire revenue to justify the current market cap.
I don't see those obstacles appearing though.
We have had the tech to do it since the 90's, we just needed to invest into it.
Same thing with Elon Musks hyperloop, aka the atmospheric train (or vactrain) which has been an idea since 1799! And how far has Elon Musks boring company come to building even a test loop?
Yeah, in theory you could build a data center in space. But unless you have a background in the limitations of space engineering/design brings, you don't truly understand what you are saying. A single AI data center server rack takes up the same energy load of 0.3 to 1 international space station. So by saying Elon musk can reasonable achieve this, is wild to anyone who has done any engineering work with space based tech. Every solar panel generates heat, the racks generate heat, the data communication system generates, heat... Every kW of power generated and every kW of power consumes needs a radiator. And it's not like water cooling, you are trying to radiate heat off into a vacuum. That is a technical challenge and size, the amount of tons to orbit needed to do this... Let alone outside of low earth... Its a moonshot project for sure. And like I said above, Elon musk hasnt really followed through with any of his moonshots.
The ISS is powered by eight Solar Array Wings. Each wing weighs about 1,050kg. The station also has two radiator wings with three radiator orbital replacement units weighing about 1,100kg each. That's about 15,000 kg total so if the ISS can power three racks, that's 5,000kg of payload per rack not including the rack or any other support structure, shielding, heat distribution like heat pipes, and so on.
Assuming a Falcon Heavy with 60,000 kg payload, that's 12 racks launched for about $100 million. That's basically tripling or quadrupling (at least) the cost of each rack, assuming that's the only extra cost and there's zero maintenance.
At 60 metric tons, you're expending all cores and only getting to LEO. These probably shouldn't be in LEO because they don't need to be and you probably don't want to be expending cores for these launches if you care about cost.
The real problem typically isn't weight, it's volume. Can you fit all of that in that fairing? It's onli 13m long by 5m diameter...
I was being charitable on the back of the napkin math.
Casually six times more than it has ever lifted.
"We specialize in making the impossible merely late"
Being ambitious is good to an extent but you need to be able to deliver to keep a company healthy. Right now, if you’re a sharp engineer you are looking at Tesla’s competition if you want to work on a project which doesn’t get cancelled (like it’s cars) and the stock price being hyped to the moon means that options aren’t going to be as competitive.
Starlink is growing rapidly.
Starship has been making steady progress.
Neuralink is helping ~12 real people with spinal cord injuries/ALs.
Optimus seems to be making progress.
Tesla is beginning to roll out robotaxis without safety drivers.
"Minor" cooling changes, for a radically different operating environment that does not even have a temperature, is a perfect insulator for conduction and convection, and will actively heat things up via incoming radiation? "Minor" ? Citation very much lacking.
I know what physics tells us.
Then you picked the wrong thread to insert yourself, it's literally about that.
Which is funny, there are multiple other replies to you, explaining at length that while your ideas are physically possible, they are completely impractical. And yet you think they still could be "minor".
Silicon is way more forgiving than biology. This isn’t an argument for this proposal. But there is no technical connection between humans in space and data centers other than launch-cost synergies.
Still there will be a lot of engineering problems to solve.
2-3 years seems very short, but 10 years seems long to me.
Figuring out how to radiate a lot of waste heat into a vacuum is fighting physics. Ordinarily we use a void on earth as a very effective _insulator_ to keep our hot drinks hot.
https://healthpolicy-watch.news/the-human-cost-one-year-afte...
It is our money and we're not obligated to give it away if we think it's needed for something else. I'd note though, that in terms of the budget, USAID was like change in the couch cushions and nothing else in the world was even close in terms of lives saved per dollar. Why the man tasked with saving the government trillions of dollars went there at all was nonsensical to begin with.
Nevertheless, it is fully within our rights to pull back aid if we (collectively) decide it's best thing to do. But the only legal way to do that is through the democratic process. Elected can legislators take up the issue, have their debates, and vote.
If congress had canceled these programs through the democratic process, there almost certainly would've been a gradual draw down. Notice and time would be given for other organizations to step in and provide continuity where they could.
And since our aid programs had been so reliable and trusted, in many cases they became a logistics backbone for all sorts of other aid programs and charities. Shutting it all down so abruptly caused widespread disruption far beyond own aid programs. Food rotting in warehouses as people starved. Medications sitting in warehouses while people who needed them urgently died. The absolute waste of life and resources caused by the sudden disruption of the aid is a true atrocity.
Neither Elon or Trump had legal authority to unilaterally destroy those programs outside of the democratic process the way they did, so they are most directly morally responsible for the resulting death.
To add insult-to-injury, Elon was all over twitter justifying all of it with utterly deranged, insane conspiracy theories. He was either lying cynically or is so far gone mentally that he believed them. I'm not sure which is worse.
The idea itself was proven by NASA with the DC-X but the project was canceled due to funding. Now instead of having NASA run it we SpaceX pay more than we'd ever have paid NASA for the same thing.
DC-X test flight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE7XJ5HYQW4
It's awesome that Falcon 9 exists and it is great technology but this guy really isn't the one anyone should want in charge of it.
This doesn’t pass the smell test given that the cost of launch with spacex is lower than it ever was under ULA.
NASA has never been about cheap launches, just novel technology. Look at the costs of Saturn and SLS to see what happens when they do launch.
There’s also fairly clear distinction with how insane Elons plan has become since the first plans he laid for Tesla and SpaceX and the plans he has now. He has clearly become a megalomaniac.
Funnily enough, some of the things people said about Tesla is coming true, because Elon simply got bored of making cars. It’s now plausible that Tesla may die as a car company which I would not have imagined a few years ago. They’re arguably not even winning the self driving and robotics race.
Currently SpaceX have managed to land the booster only, not the rocket itself, if you are thinking about Starship. And reusability of said rocket is also missing (collecting blown up pieces from the bottom of the ocean doesn't count!).
Radiators should work pretty well, and large solar panels can do double duty as radiators.
Also, curiously, newer GPUs are developed to require significantly less cooling than previous generations. Perhaps not so coincidentally?
The great thing about your argument is that it can be used in any circumstance!
Cooling car batteries, nope can't possibly work! Thermodynamics!
Refrigerator, are you crazy? You're fighting thermodynamics!
Heat pump! Haah thermodynamics got you.
Your examples prove our case. You just must not understand how they work
Right now only upsides an expensive satellite acting as a server node would be physical security and avoiding various local environmental laws and effects
You are missing some pretty important upsides.
Lower latency is a major one. And not having to buy land and water to power/cool it. Both are fairly limited as far as resources go, and gets exponentially expensive with competition.
The major downside is, of course, cost. In my opinion, this has never really stopped humans from building and scaling up things until the economies of scale work out.
> connect to other satellites and earth
If only there was a large number of satellites in low earth orbit and a company with expertise building these ;)
These satellites will be in a sun-synchronous orbit, so only close to any given location on Earth for a fraction of the day.
It's interesting that you bring that up as a benfit. If waterless cooling (i.e. closed cooling system) works in space, wouldn't it work even better on Earth?
That makes radiating a much more practical approach to cooling it.
Yes, running hotter will cause more energy to be radiated.
but
These parts are not at all designed to radiate heat - just look at the surface area of the package with respect to the amount of power they consume.
Hmm, surely the radiator can run at arbitrary temperatures w.r.t. the objects being cooled? I'm assuming heat pump etc is already part of the design.
The guy is saying satellite communication is restricted to 1Gbps ffs. SpaceX is way past that.
Umm, if this is the point, I don't know whether to take rest of author's arguments seriously. Solar only works certain time of the day and certain period of year on land.
Also there is so limited calculations for the numbers in the article, while the article throws of numbers left and right.
The same goes for LEO!
It's curious that we live in a world in which I think the majority of people somehow think this ISN'T complicated.
Like, have we long since reached the point where technology is suitably advanced to average people that it seems like magic, where people can almost literally propose companies that just "conjure magic" and the average person thinks that's reasonable?
"I can buy a server"
"We can put things in space"
"What do you mean I can't get a server in space?!"I don't get why we aren't building mixed use buildings, maybe the first floor can be retail and restaurants, the next two floors can be data centers, and then above that apartments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VJT2JeDCyw
If these things were so safe the rich should build them next to their homes.
I'd love to live in a dense city. My office within waking distance. A Cafe in my apartment building, etc.
Then move to one?
When I lived on a chilling grid, my summer AC bill was around $80, while friends whose buildings weren't connected paid $200+.
Where I live, Norway, we've seen that:
1) The data centers don't generate the numbers of jobs they promise. Sure, during building phase, they do generate a lot of business, but during operations and maintenance phase, not so much. Typically these companies will promise hundreds of long-term jobs, while in reality that number is only a fraction.
2) They are extremely power hungry, to the point where households can expect to see their utility bill go up a non-trivial amount. That's for a single data center. In the colder climate areas where data centers are being promoted, power infrastructure might not be able to handle the centers (something seen in northern Norway, for example) at a larger scale, due to decades of stagnation.
3) The environmental effects have come more under scrutiny. And, unfortunately for the companies owning data centers, pretty much all cold-climate western countries have stringent environmental laws.
I mean a DC needs a lot of infrastructure and space. I think the real estate economics in places where people want to live, shop, and eat preclude the kinds of land usage common in DC design. Keep in mind that most DCs are actually like 4 or 5 datahalls tethered together with massive fiber optic networks.
Also people prefer to build parking in those levels that you're proposing to put DCs into.
https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/research/go...
I'm probably an outlier though.
The Starship stack? Not so much. It's plagued, and will continue to be plagued, by endless problems. BO will beat them with NG.
that's an arbitrary standard set by you.
His investors are quite happy with his success rate. He is constantly building new stuff. And as a consumer who has had great experience with every product I've bought, so am I
His investors are not investing because of his success rate in delivering on his promises. His investors are investing exclusively because they believe that stock they buy now will be worth more tomorrow. They all know that's most likely not because Elon delivers anything concrete (because he only does that in what, 20% of cases?), but because Elon rides the hype train harder tomorrow. But they don't care if it's hype or substance, as long as numbers go up.
Elon's investors are happy with his success rate only in terms of continuously generating hype. Which, I have to admit, he's been able to keep up longer now than I ever thought possible.
And fact is Musk is building a lot of stuff of real substance. The hype to substance ratio isn't quite as important as some choose to beleive
Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos) and a lot of ex-crypto-bros (fraudsters) would agree.
"Exceptional hyping skills" is (today) possibly a more derogatory term than you're expecting.
> And fact is Musk is building a lot of stuff of real substance.
I think the point others are making is this is a more accurate description of Musk ~10 years ago. In the past 5 years its been what, the cybertruck?
I wouldn't put cybertruck in the win column personally
Most of Tesla's revenue derives from Model Y and FSD subs. I agree that Cybertruck was a marketing ploy. Don't think it was ever intended to be materially revenue generating.
Didn't Tesla just have a terrible 2025, with European sales plunging due to the stigma of owning a swasticar?
But even if share price is the metric for success, 33.6% over 5 years is like 6% compounded annually, which is okay I guess? [0]
[0] https://www.investopedia.com/magnificent-seven-stocks-840226...
so if the cybertruck is not a win, what in the last 5 years is?
Also these days stock market doesn't have much relation to real state of economy - it's in many ways a casino.
The SEC.
>he certainly goes to court more than your average person
Yes because he sues a lot of entities for silly things such as some advertisers declining to buy ads that display next to pro-hitler posts, or news outlets for posting unaltered screenshots of a social media site he acquired.
Musk's ratio is such that his utterances are completely free from actionable information. If he says something, it may or may not happen and even if it does happen the time frame (and cost) is unlikely to be correct.
I don't get why anyone would invest their money on this basis.
Optimists are often rich
Optimists are either rich, or destitute. And though you probably hear more about the richer parts, that doesn't mean they're more common.
Lets go through this one by one
[1]Robotaxi. Someone just drove coast to coast USA fully on autopilot. I drive my tesla every day, and i literally NEVER disengage autopilot. It gets me to work and back home without fail, to the grocery store, to literally anywhere i need. Whats not full self driving about that? I got in two crashes before i got my Tesla cause i was a dumb teen, but i'm sure my Tesla is a much better driver than my younger sister. Politically it's not FSD, but in reality, it has been for a while.
[2] Optimus has gone through three revisions and has hand technology that is 5+ years ahead of the competition. Even if they launched it as a consumer product now, i'm sure a million people would buy it just as a cool toy/ gadget. AKA a successfull product.
[3] Lunar Lander Starship, a fully reusable, 2 stage rocket that has gone through 25 revisions and is 95% flight proven and has even deployed dummy starlinks. 10+ years ahead of everyone except maybe stoke.
[4]Space Datacenter Have you ever used starlink? They have all the pieces they need... Elon build a giant datacenter in 6 monmths when it takes 3-4 years usually. He has more compute than anybody and Grok is the most intelligent AI by all the metrics outside googles. Combine that with Starship, which can launch 10X the capacity for 10% of the cost, and what reason do you have to doubt him here?
Granted... it always takes him longer than he says, but he always eventually comes through.
Where's the source for this?
Interesting - wonder when it will be ready for use by non-experts
Also, hyperloop wasn't something he really stuck with.
He makes big prenouncements, but once he gets in the engineering details... they cease to make sense. Tesla in tunnels makes more sense because they can be end to end. Instead of a hypoerloop, you can drive a cybertruck fast AF down a tunnel. (Again, tunnel boring is the bottleneck here.)
New roadster is on like revision 20+. They had 4 roadsters in 2018, each different from the last. Last i've heard on this, the roadster is going "to fly".I think what he means by this is they are going to add krypton, or some sort of thruster to the car. They don't want to launch the roadster to compete with the cyber truck.
Instant battery swaps were for rigidity purposes. If you cast the battery directly into the car, the battery becomes part of the frame, resulting in a much smoother ride. They did have a couple prototypes of Battery swaps, but they decided not to pursue it and instead focus on improving the megachargers.
Tunnels to replace all traffic was discussed above a bit, but he did do the vegas loop and is doing it for waaaaayyyyyyy less than any other underground system. Something like $42m for the whole vegas loop. I think the boring company has like 5-6 ongoing projects around the US. Did you expect him to do it over night? They custom built a boring machine, like 6 times over and are doing projects all over the US.
your car appreciating in value... I mean, they actually kinda did... If you had an early enough reservation on the model 3, you could make a big flip. Thats why they put a clause in for the cybertruck where you couldn't flip. Also, renting it out on E-turo was very profitable for the longest time. All jokes aside, cause i know that's not what you're talking about... Yeah, that's a bold face lie from elons part. Because latest models only are going to run on AI6 chip.
Semi Convoys are an awesome idea and could totally work. I mean... like i said, AI self driving is pretty good. Especially on freeways. Streets, not 100% solved, but i literally never have to disengage on the freeway. They just built an entire dedicated manufacturing facility that started commisioning this month for the Semi. You will see this alot more often. Obviously they'll still have human drivers, but i'm sure they can write some software to make this possible and provide some "draft effect" for the semis.
The author uses the power capacity of the ISS's solar panels as a point of comparison, but SpaceX has already successfully deployed many times that capacity in Starlink satellites[1] without even needing to use Starship, and obviously the heat dissipation problem for those satellites has already been solved so there's little point in hand-wringing about that.
The author also worries about ground communication bandwidth, claiming it is "difficult to get much more than about 1Gbps reliably", which seems completely ignorant of the fact that Starlink already has a capacity much greater than that.
The only unsolved technical challenge I see in that article is radiation tolerance. It's unclear how big of a problem that will actually be in practice. But SpaceX probably has more experience with that than anyone other than perhaps NASA so if they think it can be done I don't see much reason to doubt them.
Ultimately I think this is doable from a technical perspective, it's just a question of whether it will be economical. Traditional wisdom would say no even just due to launch costs, but if SpaceX can get Starship working reliably that could alter the equation a lot. We'll see. This could turn out to be a boondoggle, or it could be the next Starlink. The prospect of 24/7 solar power with no need for battery storage or ground infrastructure does seem tempting.
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/zzwpue/with_starlin...
Your link here isn't really a fair comparison, and also you're still short a factor of 10x. Starlink has deployed 50x the ISS's solar cap across its entire fleet (admittedly 3 years ago); the author's calcs are 500x the ISS for one datacenter.
> and obviously the heat dissipation problem for those satellites has already been solved so there's little point in hand-wringing about that.
This reasoning doesn't make any sense to me, the heat dissipation issues seem very much unresolved. A single Starlink satellite is using power in the order of watts, a datacenter is hitting like O(1/10) of gigawatts. The heat dissipation problem is literally orders of magnitude more difficult for each DC than for their current fleet. This is like saying that your gaming PC will never overheat because NetGear already solved heat dissipation in their routers.
> The author also worries about ground communication bandwidth, claiming it is "difficult to get much more than about 1Gbps reliably", which seems completely ignorant of the fact that Starlink already has a capacity much greater than that.
Don't their current satellites have like 100Gbps capacity max? Do you have any idea how many 100Gbps routers go into connecting a single datacenter to the WAN? Or to each other (since intrahall model training is table stakes these days). They have at most like O(1)Pbps across their entire fleet (based on O(10K) satellites deployed and assuming they have no failover protection). They would need to entirely abandon their consumer base and use their entire fleet to support up/down + interconnections for just 2 or 3 datacenters. They would basically need to redeploy a sizeable chunk of their entire fleet every time they launched a DC.
So 3 years ago they managed to get to 10% of the power budget of one data center by accident, using satellites not explicitly designed for that purpose, using a partially reusable launch platform with 1/10th the payload capacity of Starship. My point is they've already demonstrated they can do this at the scale that's needed.
> A single Starlink satellite is using power in the order of watts
Then why does each satellite have a 6 kW solar array? Re-read that post I linked; the analysis is pretty thorough.
> Don't their current satellites have like 100Gbps capacity max?
Gen 3 is reportedly up to 1 Tbps ground link capacity, for one satellite.[1] There will be thousands.
> Do you have any idea how many 100Gbps routers go into connecting a single datacenter to the WAN? Or to each other (since intrahall model training is table stakes these days).
Intra-satellite connections use the laser links and would not consume any ground link capacity.
You're also ignoring that this is explicitly being pitched as a solution for compute-heavy workloads (AI training and inference) not bandwidth-heavy workloads.
How was it by accident? You make it sound like it was easy rather than a total revolution of the space industry? To achieve 1/10th of what they would need for a single DC (and most industry leaders have 5 or 6)? Demonstrating they could generate power at DC scale would be actually standing up a gigawatt of orbital power generation, IMO. And again, this is across thousands of units. They either have to build this capacity all in for a single DC, or somehow consolidate the power from thousands of satellites.
> Then why does each satellite have a 6 kW solar array? Re-read that post I linked; the analysis is pretty thorough.
You're right, my bad. So they're only short like 6 orders of magnitude instead of 9? Still seems massively disingenuous to conclude that they've solved the heat transfer issue.
> Gen 3 is reportedly up to 1 Tbps ground link capacity, for one satellite.[1] There will be thousands.
Okay I'll concede this one, they could probably get the data up and down. What's the latency like?
I say by accident because high power capacity wasn't a design goal of Starlink, merely a side effect of deploying a communications network.
> My bad. So they're only short like 6 orders of magnitude instead of 9?
No, they're 1 order of magnitude off. (22 MW total capacity of the constellation vs your bar of 100 MW for a single DC.) Again, 3 years ago, using an inferior launch platform, without that even being a design goal.
> What's the latency like?
Starlink latency is quite good, about 30ms round trip for real-world customers on the ground connecting through the constellation to another site on the ground. Sun synchronous orbit would add another ms or two for speed of light delay.
AFAIK nobody outside SpaceX has metrics on intra-satilite latency using the laser links but I have no reason to think it would be materially worse than a direct fiber connection provided the satellites aren't spread out too far. (Starlink sats are very spread out, but you obviously wouldn't do that for a data center.)
Why on earth would you compare their entire fleet to one project? Power generation trivially parallelizes only if you can transmit power between generation sites. Unless they've figure out how to beam power between satellites the appropriate comparison is 6Kw to 100Mw. And again, the generation is the easy side; the heat dissipation absolutely does not parallelize so that also needs to go by 3-5 orders of mag.
And also: radiation. Terrestrial GPUs are going to be substantially more power and heat efficient than space-based ones (as outlined in TFA). All this for what benefits? An additional 1.4x boost in solar power availability? There's simply no way the unit economics of this work out. Satellite communications have fundamental advantages over terrestrial networks if you can get the launch economics right. Orbital DCs have only the solar availability thing; everything else is cheaper and easier on land.
I already gave my thoughts on radiation and economics in my original comment. I agree those could be significant challenges, but ones SpaceX has a plausible path to solving. Starship in particular will be key on the economic side; I find it very unlikely they'll be able to make the math work with just Falcon 9. Even with Starship it might not work out.
And it's not just a 1.4x boost in solar power availability. You also eliminate the need for batteries to maintain power during the night or cloudy days (or cloudy weeks), and the need for ground infrastructure (land, permitting, buildings, fire suppression systems, parking lots, physical security, utility hook-up, etc).
I wonder if Elon wants to tangle all his businesses into SpaceX so they are all kept afloat by SpaceX's importance.
But more likely that merger would consist of SpaceX acquiring Tesla and taking it private
Plenty of defense contractors with classified projects are already publicly listed, so this is not uncharted territory.
Lockhead Martin for example: https://investors.lockheedmartin.com/news-releases/news-rele...
Gives this level of detail:
> Aeronautics classified program losses $(950)
> MFC classified program losses -
It seems very safe from a national security perspective.
Everything has to go right or it will be irrelevant before it works.
Starship is not all of SpaceX. Saying, maybe because one hates Musk, that SpaceX is going to become irrelevant is wishful thinking.
In 2025 SpaceX launched more rockets into space than the entire world ever sent in a year up to 2022, something crazy like that.
Then out of, what, 14 000 active satellites in space more than half have been launched by SpaceX.
SpaceX is, so far, the biggest space success story of the history of the human race (and GP is right in saying that SpaceX is now a national security matter for the US).
Everything has to go right with that, or cybercab will be irrelevant before it works. Same deal. Same bullshitter.
> cybercab will net them $50k per car per year.
Assuming no mass boycotts, nor targeted vandalism. We've already seen both in the last 12 months.
What's keeping Chinese brands out of the USA, isn't keeping them out of Europe or much of anywhere else.
One matching what you say; the other saying they're up significantly, e.g. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/byd-overtakes-tesla-world-lar...
I do not know what to make of this.
However, it is unimportant, as the main concern for your argument should be all Chinese brands combined rather than any specific brand. Unfortunately, given I'm seeing two narratives that seem to be mutually exclusive for BYD, I don't think I can trust web searches to tell me about all brands combined either.
However, even that is unimportant, as my point was more focused on the price and value for money, how Chinese models compete on AI for less cost; even to do badly in this regard (which they might or might not be given the mutually incompatible news stories I've seen) is less a narrative about Chinese market failure and more of a demonstration that hardly anyone really cares about the AI in the first place.
To bring the discussion back on topic: $50k/year or ~$250k over the course of the vehicle's lifetime, instead of $5k for a singular sale event, is why the path for the company is crystal clear. Cybercab is the same kind of step for Tesla as the Model 3 was back in 2017.
Who will be paying Tesla $50k/year, and why?
Considering what Uber drivers take home after costs, I think this is unrealistic.
> Chinese ADAS are much better than European ones but still far behind FSD.
Not so, on both "much" and "far". Some tests put FSD ahead of various Chinese options, other tests put them behind. Tesla's FSD is still considered a level-2 system due to the failure modes it has, whereas (Europe's) Mercedes-Benz Drive Pilot and (Japan's) Honda Sensing Elite are level 3. Allegedly others exist, but I'm mentally categorising those as vapourware until they ship, this is demonstrably a domain in which it's easy to fool oneself into thinking the destination is closer than it is.
Ask your local llm for the earnings of a $.20/.30 per mile autonomous vehicle
*googles* Mid Jan this year? Yes, I was focusing on my German language course for the entire month. Only online here to relax.
> It wasnt close to fsd.
Except it was. Failure modes make Tesla's FSD a level-2 system, not even level 3: https://abc7news.com/post/mercedes-beat-tesla-become-1st-off...
Almost all businesses are more cautious than Musk, that doesn't tell you the systems are actually lower performance. The certification shows where they're at after all the smoke and mirrors, and where Tesla's at just isn't very impressive these days.
This difference isn't just a Euro/US split, most US companies are also more cautious, so same goes for Waymo who have been maintaining their slow-and-cautious approach despite what Musk keeps promising with Tesla, and operate actual robo-taxies in more cities than Tesla does.
> Ask your local llm for the earnings of a $.20/.30 per mile autonomous vehicle
I mean, I can do that in my head because 100,000 miles/year is a lot of driving even at motorway speed, and 1e5 times any cost per mile is trivial mental arithmetic, and even at 30¢/mile it still doesn't get you $50k/year/car.
30,000 miles/year is more likely, given constraints about when people most need vehicles and the relative fraction of time spent on motorways vs. urban areas, at which point 30¢/mile gets you more like $9k/year.
Also, crucially, 30¢/mile is what Waymo are already claiming as its operating cost. The reason this matters is that the moment anyone has competition on this (e.g. should Tesla actually do what they've been promising is 6-18 months away for the last decade), they don't corner the market and don't get to charge that much just because it's cheaper than a human Uber driver, they're facing off against other robo-taxi people with the same advantages who are, today, already operating in more places than Tesla are and without as much political stigma. Basically, when you get two competitors like this, it looks like the market for software and prices tend to costs; everyone in transport then only makes a profit when the demand exceeds supply, like this Monday in Berlin when my partner had to spend half as much on one single taxi ride as a monthly Deutschlandticket because of a strike action, but this kind of thing does not a business plan make.
This dichotomy has always been in place for a huge range of specifics, both for imports and technology that makes workers less relevant. The "we want cheap stuff" argument is the one that has done best historically, though the track record of handling this badly also led to the invention of actual literal communism.
This is completely false. Audi and Chevrolet both have self driving as good as Tesla.
FSD works EVERYWHERE, almost any time.
How widespread the manufacturer allows their software's use, is not the same thing as how good it is.
Sure, FSD works everywhere. But SuperCruise has zero crashes caused with 700 million miles driven. There are youtube channels dedicated to all the Tesla FSD crashes.
You’ve been misled.
Not just that, the cost of each rocket launch is drastically cheaper than all of its competitors costs.
Tesla is clearly benefiting from protectionism and its sales would collapse if BYD were allowed to openly sell in the US. Most people just want affordable, maintainable and reliable cars.
Bill Ackman has proposed taking SpaceX public by merging it with his Pershing Square SPARC Holdings, distributing 0.5 Special Purpose Acquisition Rights (SPARs) to Tesla shareholders for each share held. Each SPAR would be exercisable for two shares of SpaceX, aimed at enabling a 100% common stock capitalization without traditional underwriting fees or dilutive warrants.
With SpaceX IPO set to be one of the biggest of all time, this could have a pretty gnarly financial engineering impact on both companies -- especially if the short interest (direct or through derivatives) remains large.
Going public would add a lot of hassle for little to no gain (and probably a negative of having to reveal their finances).
Was ignored on HN but here's an article explaining:
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/12/after-years-of-resisti...
AI datacenters are bottlenecked by power, bandwidth, cooling, and maintenance. Ok sure maybe the Sun provides ample power, but if you are in LEO, you still have to deal with Earth's shadow, which means batteries, which means weight. Bandwidth you have via starlink, fine. But cooling in space is not trivial. And maintenance is out, unless they are also planning some kooky docking astromech satellite repair robot ecosystem.
Maybe the Olney's lesions are starting to take their toll.
Weirdest freaking timeline.
Cooling, on the other hand? No way in hell.
Space is actually really cold when the sun is blocked
So, solar panels on side, GPUs on the other, maybe with a big ass radiator ...
The "dark" side of the JWST has temperature of about 40 K (-233 C)
Because the amount of energy radiated varies with the temperature to the fourth power (P=εσT^4).
Assuming very good emissivity (ε=0.95) and ~75C (~350K) operating temperature I get 808 W/m2.
That story makes no technical sense. There's no benefit to doing this. Nobody should believe it any more than boots on Mars by 2030.
Here's Sundar talking about doing it by 2027: https://www.businessinsider.com/google-project-suncatcher-su...
Tesla Shanghai opened in 2019
BYD made their first hybrid in 2008 and they were a battery company since the 90s
As long as the consequences of his actions continue to increase the paper value for investors, regulations don't really have teeth because there aren't damages. So the snowball gets bigger and the process repeats.
He absolutely could do it, just like he did when Tesla bought SolarCity. It just isn’t as easy when one of the companies is public than when both are private.
Tesla theoretically now owns a chunk of xAI... whose valuation will no doubt increase due to the internalized SpaceX acquisition. Append to this a future IPO, as discussed in the artice, presumably an eventual premium of 20-50% (reasonable, 14% purely for the ibankers when this will happen)... yields to an interesting bailout situation.
To me, the real question is why. The $2B from Tesla can't possibly move the needle for any party involved in this transaction. If this were to be work 50x as opposed to a potential 50% upside (hell, make it 2x for argument's sake) it still doesn't compute. So what's the actual reason.
Personally I have a hard time believing this. But even if you had similarly priced Chinese options, I would guess the main reason for buying a Tesla is not just because you want an EV. While a Tesla will be a reliable baseline EV, surely the reason you (or at least I) would buy one is for the supervised self-driving feature.
So would most of EU car makers in Europe. China is not playing by the same rules and everyone with car manufacturing domestically is slamming them with tariffs.
And what does that have to do with China playing by different rules than the west?
one opinion is that tariffs on China was response of breaking rules by China (heavy subsidies on domestic EV and similar).
While in US, potus can impose tariffs at whim, until scotus decides otherwise, my understanding is that EU tariffs are results of such rulings.
Then of course there is cost of living and salary; both of which are lower in China compared to where most legacy auto manufacturers are.
So China can pay their employees less and pollute the environment more in order to create an affordable, very high quality vehicle.
I can understand a small amount of tariffs to help "even the playing field" but not the 100% tariff or whatever was proposed against BYD
As for FSD, nope. Unless you redefine the word reliable.
Edit: I owned a 2018 Model S as well. Literally the worst fucking car I have ever owned or driven.
Since you are in europe you have no idea how good fsd is.
As I'm in Europe I just get trains.
And everything in the BMW you should be dealing with when driving is on or around the steering wheel.
The article you linked agrees with me. Greatest resolution in the macula which is a span of approximately 6 degrees from the centre.
Sigh...
Really? It's one thing to hate Elon Musk, but you're talking about a lot of brilliant engineers who worked on these cars, everything from the components to the software. It's uneeded low blow just because you don't like Elon Musk.
Why does cruise control sometimes change to the speed limit and sometimes not?
Why does auto lane change sometimes need me to start the manoeuvre and sometimes not? If I guess wrong and start the lane change myself, all autopilot just disengages suddenly.
I have to proove that I'm holding the wheel by wiggling it from time to time, but if I accidentally wiggle too hard it disengages. Why not have a sensor or use the cameras to detect if I'm holding the wheel?
My son didn't shut the back door properly. I started driving and the car started binging. It didn't tell me why it was binging until I put it in park and looked at the pretty 3d representation of the car, then noticed that the door was open.
Maybe if I drove more regularly I would get used to all this stuff. The car was borrowed and I gave it back.
For the rest of your complaints you can mostly thank the overzealous EU/unece regulation which limits steering torque and requires intervention. FSD has none of those concerns, it just drives and does not require torque on the wheel.
However, the current US administration appears to be actively violating the 1st and 5th in a bunch of ways, the 14th that one time, and making threats to wilfully violate the 2nd for people they don't like and the 22nd to get a third term. It is reasonable, not hyperbolic, to be concerned about Musk's support of this.
If these laws are still on the books when the next D administration takes over, they should use them against Elon, Thiel, etc - strip them of US citizenship, deport them, and nationalize their companies (followed with repealing those laws)
Or the current R admin, next time Musk has a spat with Trump.
Would definitely be a popcorn moment; doubly so if Canada has changed its rules on citizenship by then and has also stripped Musk of that, leaving him only with South African.
Second, history will look back and realize that without taking into account the volume of your voice, you don't really have free speech in a way that matters. If you the person next to you can use a megaphone that is so loud that no one hears you, you effectively have no speech. A great many democracies implicitly realize this and thus have election spending limits tied to the number of supporters. The US, through it's lobby system, and through party affiliated control of third party networks, does not.
Quite ingenious, you have to give Musk that. This is why he is making so much money.
The biggest selling point /was/ that Musk was being managed there, he wasn't tinkering with SpaceX like Twitter or Tesla, and his foolhardy direction was kept out of the company.
BUT, like Tesla, Musk cannot help himself and is making SpaceX look like a very bad investment - tying his other interests with SpaceX, allegedly using SpaceX money as a "war chest" in his battles.
There is also a danger that investors will see xAI as politically dangerous, which will really hurt SpaceX IPO
I'll bet SpaceX financials aren't as great as some people think. Remember, Elon was the guy who tried to take Tesla private, and talked a lot of smack about how silly it is to be a public company. All of a sudden he wants SpaceX to go public?
The biggest selling point to who? Definitely not wall street
They're also probably rushing out the IPO to beat the bubble pop. I think everyone earlier expected to keep the bubble going a few more years, that's why they made all those circular deals. But then Trump spooked Europe into possibly scaling back US investments and decoupling from US tech. So now you have an unsure Nvidia walking back their OpenAI deal, etc.
How much does it cost to develop and maintain the reusability? Is it worth the trade-offs in lower tons to orbit due to more weight? Is it worth it adjusting the payload into smaller units, including developing things like refueling in LEO?
Idk, I'm not on the inside doing those calculations...
If you want to trust estimates and "best-guesses", neat.
I've heard this a lot, but I've worked for BigCos and it seems like all they do is spend money, often superfluously. I've seen BigCos spend large quantities money on support contracts every year that haven't been used in more than a decade, or sending people on business trips across the country so they can dial into a meeting, or buying loads of equipment that sits dormant in warehouses for years and then is eventually sold off for pennies on the dollar.
I'm not convinced that they're better than the government with money allocation, I think they're just better at telling people they are.
The private sector has different interests
NASA is still here. Unfortunately, NATA fell victim to enshitification by government contracting. NASA even if it wants to simply cannot today design and launch a rocket. :(
Their revenue from Starlink is slated to be bigger than the entire NASA budget this year.
I root for a competitive rocket market, but SpaceX is at the moment critical.
Boeing is too important to fail as well but it’s been terrible as a shareholder
Your opinion on Boeing being terrible as a shareholder vis-a-vis Tesla would be completely reversed if dividends and capital gains of the 2 companies were to be offered in the form of miles to be flown on Boeing planes and miles on Teslas Uber/Taxi/Autonomous taxis instead of dollars
The absolute overperformance on the stock market that Tesla has enjoyed vis-a-vis Boeing is not rooted in a concrete and tangible quality of life improvement for citizens. Not American citizens, nor global citizens for that matter.
It is my opinion that for all public companies in which it is possible to do so government should mandate payment in kind to all shareholders and board members to prevent the excessive promotional , cult and all around BS aspect of marketing to take over and allow people to profit just by riding off those, and Musk is the GOAT at that.
Boeing is an anemic company that doesn’t innovate and it should have been allowed to bankrupt and break off into businesses that worked and actually competed for customers.
The public is very afraid of innovation in anything aviation related, same goes for nuclear reactors.
If you are in those businesses you have your hands tied behind your back.
Still you'd buy the stock if the only way to get miles aboard Boeing planes were to own the stock and get paid dividends and capital gains in the form of miles.
This underscore how essential and vital Boeing is to the world whereas if you disappeared Tesla nothing would really happen
Airbus exists
And besides...how does Airbus innovate?
Amazon Leo will have 14k satellites in space in a few months? Wow! Amazing!
So was GM. Didn’t stop it from going bankrupt.
Too big to fail is a very recent modern myth. Go back 100+ years and lots of banks failed leading into the Great Depression.
Every system has a break point.
Where is the benefit? These awesome tech demos? It just screams charlatan to me on an epic scale. I see no reason a government shouldn't step in to assume control if its "too big to fail".
This is not good for SpaceX. It's a less valuable company with X and xAI. But it helps Elon make it look like he runs two successful businesses.
Many companies could simply cease to exist tomorrow, including Spacex and Starlink, and the world would go on. Frankly for the better in a lot of cases.
It's too big to fail for Musk, because it is one source of his money, in large paid by the US tax payer.
You are correct about the issues of navigating the DoD but that isn't a reason to accept these assholes the process needs to be open to normal companies and promote standards without any grifter connections.
You can play around with words as much as you can, but Musk even with a very high rate of failure seems to be making a lot of things work.
SpaceX buying xAi means that xAI shareholders are cashing in on its current high valuation. It makes it look like Musk is not very confident that xAI can navigate through the AI cycle, so he might as well sell it to rake in the profits.
But he still needs control over it because of the Tesla plan and in case something else happens in the AI field that he doesn't want to miss. So he's buying it with SpaceX, because he can, freeing some of SpaceX cash to pay himself and his xAI investors.
That he managed to bullshit SpaceX investors into buying xAI is pretty crazy. But I guess that's his main talent.
The only reason for xAI to join SpaceX is to offload Elon's Twitter debt in the upcoming IPO.
Twitter (X) owed $1.3B in debt every year in interest since Musk's takeover. This was before re-financing in a higher interest rate environment. The company was losing $200MM+ per year on ~$5B in revenue before the takeover, and there are reports that revenues have decreased by round 50%.
Best case scenario if we accept those numbers is that X makes $3B per year and about half of that goes immediately out the door in debt payments before paying a cent for the entire business to function.
However, if SpaceX acquires X, that ~$1.5B in interest is a fraction of the $8B In profits SpaceX is allegedly generating annually. Further, they can restructure the debt if it's SpaceX's debt, and not owned by X. Investors will be more likely to accept SpaceX shares as collateral than X.
X made a profit last year because they cut costs lower than the drop in ad revenue (which is also slowly recovering). The big question is if they will still be profitable in 2026 year without the US election driving big traffic numbers and ads.
You also have to be careful about who said it and what they meant by "profit," because there is gross profit, EBIT, EBITDA, and others.
> Despite a revenue drop from $5 billion in 2021 to roughly $2.7 billion in 2024, the EBITDA margin surged from 13.6% to 46.3% due to drastic cost-cutting measures and restructuring
The staggering amount of money Elon Musk raised for doing AI stuff is quite a bit more than what he ever expended on the Twitter value implosion. I think we can agree that there isn't much left of that. Also, whatever debt was issued for that was issued in dollars. We've had a few years of inflation and dollar devaluation recently. I don't think whatever Twitter debt there was is much of big headache for X at this point.
X.ai is controversial mainly because of Musk. But if you can look beyond that, it does actually have a bit of non trivial IP. Grok is not bad as a LLM. It's not necessarily best in class but it's close enough to be useful. Apple needs to license their AI from Google and OpenAI. MS outsources to OpenAI. Amazon doesn't really have their own models at all. So, as trillion dollar companies go, having your own in house developed model training pipeline that actually works isn't all that common yet.
Musk for all his failings has a talent for looking beyond the current day to day navel gazing that characterizes VC short term thinking and much of the activity in silicon valley. He clearly looks at space as a bit of underused real estate.
Star Link is one of those mad plans that actually seems to make sense now that he has proven that launching thousands of satellites into space isn't that big of a deal and can actually be profitable if you get a few million people to spend billions per month on reliable data connections.
AI data centers in space are similarly ludicrous unless you have a newly developed 100+ ton to orbit reusable launch capability at your disposal. Also, the nature of doing stuff in space is that it is a very people hostile environment. So having some in house AI capability isn't the worst idea for a space company with ambition, which like it or not SpaceX clearly has. I wouldn't call X.ai a bar gain. But what's the alternative if you are semi serious about controlling an armada of space craft across the solar system?
Total investment in xAI are around $30B-40B (including the latest E round). Twitter purchase price at $44B was more than that. Out of that 44B, ~$25B was debt financing.
> Star Link is one of those mad plans that actually seems to make sense now [...] AI data centers in space are similarly ludicrous unless you have a newly developed 100+ ton to orbit reusable launch capability at your disposal
I don't think these two are comparable. Starlink obviously makes sense if you can put thousands of satellites in LEO cheaply, which (only) SpaceX could. The challenge there was to actually build and put them there.
For data centers, even if you can launch for free, the physics and economics don't make sense. Solar is free but the amount of solar arrays (and cooling radiators) required means it's just easier and cheaper to build out the same thing on Earth, and that's without thinking about maintenance of either the data center or the required support equipment.
In theory it can be done. In practice, I humbly propose that putting the same engineering brains on solving the hard questions of keeping people alive in space (so they can, eg, get to Mars and back) would align more closely with the SpaceX mission.
> But what's the alternative if you are semi serious about controlling an armada of space craft across the solar system?
"X Combinator" for space tech (life support, stations, habitats, etc - everything that SpaceX itself isn't focusing on). Refueling depots at strategic locations that are good launching points for deep space (Mars+) missions.
Not a friggin' LLM.
The point of Star link was orders of magnitude reduction in cost of launching thousands of satellites. Musk is talking indirectly about another order magnitude of further reduction of that via star ship; sorry if that wasn't clear.
> the physics and economics don't make sense
This is a popular assertion that despite all the experts chiming in is not that black and white. Clearly investors and Elon Musk beg to differ. Similar arguments were used against Star Link when that was still science fiction. And now it isn't. It actually seems like a good idea that at this point is being copied by others. And SpaceX is getting a lot of the launching business, for now.
I think it's mainly the economics that are the challenge here; not the physics. Implicit in the assertion is that launching the amount of mass needed would be prohibitively expensive. There are lots of engineering challenges as well.
> it's just easier and cheaper to build out the same thing on Earth
Maybe; but it seems challenging to scale there. Permitting and scaling energy generation are a problem right now. But I agree, it's more logical to fix that. But one does not exclude the other. We might end up with a lot of in orbit computation regardless. It's not an either or proposition.
Of course it's the economics, not the physics, that are the challenge. We have thousands of existence proofs that you can launch a computer into orbit and have it work. The question is not, can you do it. The question is, why would you do it instead of putting that same computing capacity in a building somewhere?
It's not an either/or proposition in general but it is at the small scale. If I'm going to spend a million dollars on computing equipment, I can spend it on a terrestrial installation, or a space installation, or put some if it towards each, but anything I put towards one takes away from the other. If the economics of a terrestrial installation are much better than a space installation, why would I allocate any of my money to space?
Most of the conversation here seems to boil down to:
"Putting a data center in space is very hard and makes no sense."
"Putting a data center in space is actually pretty easy."
But by "hard" we mean "difficult to the point of being extremely economically uncompetitive with putting computers in a building," and by "easy" they mean "technologically feasible and the basic concept of computers in space has been done many times already."
I would argue that they have earned their own controversy independent of Musk with all the shenanigans they pulled building out their data centers, namely their illegal use of gas turbines to power the whole thing.
I'm actually not that upset about AI data center energy usage. I see this as a short term and costly scaling measure with a minor impact (considering overall wasteful energy practices) that is an obvious target for large and rather obvious cost reductions the second this market gets profitable. The only reason that isn't happening from day 1 is all the red tape currently being put in place to actively slow down the demise of fossil fuel based generation.
Cost reductions here mean switching to a cleaner form of energy for the reason that that can be a lot cheaper than burning expensive gas in an expensive generator. Any large scale user of energy is going to be optimizing their energy opex if it saves them lot of money. If they survive long enough to matter, of course. If you are using energy by the tens/hundreds of gwh per year that is not going to be small amounts.
the problem is that this market becomes commoditized, there are tons of not bad open weight LLMs available, and it is not clear if Grok IP is that not trivial. They even totally can run others LLMs under the hood, it is well known that they used Claude output at the beginning.
* https://taranis.ie/datacenters-in-space-are-a-terrible-horrible-no-good-idea/
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiangong_space_station
* "Technically challenging", a nice way to say "impossible"
* "I’m not that smart, but if I were, I would be thinking this is an extended way to move the losses from the Twitter purchase on to the public markets."
* "ISS radiators run on water and ammonia. Think about how much a kg costs to lift to space and you'll see the economics of space data centers fall apart real fast. Plus, if the radiator springs a leak the satellite is scrap."
* "5,000 Starship launches to match the solar/heat budget of the 10GW "Stargate" OpenAI datacenter. The Falcon 9 family has achieved over 600 launches." [nerdsniper]
* "No, we just "assume" (i.e. know) that radiation in a vacuum is a really bad way of dissipating heat, to the point that we use vacuum as a very effective insulator on earth."
* "World's Best At Surfing A Temporary Hyperinflation Wave is not a life goal to really be proud of tbh"You might need space for radiators, but there is plenty space in space.
Radiators in space are extremely inefficient because there's no conduction.
Also you have huge heat inputs from the sun. So you need substantial cooling before you get around to actually cooling the GPUs.
EDIT: people continue downvoting and replying with irrelevant retorts, so I'll add in some calculations
Let's assume
1. cheap 18% efficient solar panels (though much better can be achieved with multijunction and quantum-cutting phosphors)
2. simplistic 1360 W/m^2 sunlight orthogonal to the sun
3. an abstract input Area Ain of solar panels (pretend its a square area: Ain = L ^ 2)
4. The amount of heat generated on the solar panels (100%-18%) * Ain * 1360 W / m ^ 2, the electrical energy being 18% * Ain * 1360 W / m ^ 2. The electrical energy will ultimately be converted to computational results and heat by the satellite compute. So the radiative cooling (only option in space) must dissipate 100% of the incoming solar energy: the 1360 W / m^2 * Ain.
5. Lets make a pyramid with the square solar panel as a base, with the apex pointing away from the sun, we make sure the surface has high emissivity (roughly 1) in thermal infrared. Observe that such a pyramid has all sides in the shade of the sun. But it is low earth orbit so lets assume warm earth is occupying one hemisphere and we have to put thermal IR reflectors on the 2 pyramid sides facing earth, so the other 2 pyramid sides face actual cold space.
6. The area for a square based symmetric pyramid: we have
6.a. The area of the base Ain = L * L.
6.b. The area of the 4 sides 2 * L * sqrt( L ^ 2 / 4 + h ^ 2 )
6.c. The area of just 2 sides having output Area Aout = L * sqrt( L ^ 2 / 4 + h ^ 2 )
7. The 2 radiative sides not seeing the sun and not seeing the earth together have the area in 6.c and must dissipate L ^ 2 * 1360 W / m ^ 2 .
8. Hello Stefan-Boltzmann Law: for emissivity 1 we have the radiant exitance M = sigma * T ^ 4 (units W / m ^ 2 )
9. The total power exited through the 2 thermal radiating sides of the pyramid is then Aout * M
10. Select a desired temperature and solve for h / L (to stay dimensionless and get the ratio of the pyramid height to its base side length), lets run the satellite at 300 K = ~26 deg C just as an example.
11. If you solve this for h / L we get: h / L = sqrt( ( 1360 W / m ^ 2 / (sigma * T ^ 4 ) ) ^ 2 - 1/4 )
12. Numerically for 300K target temperature we get: h/L = sqrt((1360 / (5.67 * 10^-8 * 300 ^ 4)) ^ 2 - 1/4) = 2.91870351609271066729
13. So the pyramid height of "horribly poor cooling capability in space" would be a shocking 3 times the side length of the square solar panel array.
As a child I was obsessed with computer technology, and this will resonate with many of you: computer science is the poor man's science, as soon as a computer becomes available in the household, some children autodidactically educate themselves in programming etc. This is HN, a lot of programmers who followed the poor man's science path out of necessity. I had the opportunity to choose something else, I chose physics. No amount of programming and acquiring titles of software "engineer" will be a good substitute for physicists and engineers that actually had courses on the physical sciences, and the mathematics to follow the important historical deductions... It's very hard to explain this to the people who followed the path I had almost taken. And they downvote me because they didn't have the opportunity, courage or stamina to take the path I took, and so they blindly copy paste each others doomscrolled arguments.
Look I'm not an elon fanboy... but when I read people arguing that cooling considerations excludes this future, while I know you can set the temperature arbitrarily low but not below background temperature of the universe 4 K, then I simply explain that obviously the area can be made arbitrarily large, so the temperature can be chosen by the system designer. But hey the HN crowd prefers the layers of libraries and abstractions and made themselves an emulation of an emulation of an emulation of a pre-agreed reality as documented in datasheets and manuals, and is ultimately so removed from reality based communities like physics and physics engineering, that the "democracy" programmers opinions dominate...
So go ahead and give me some more downvotes ;)
If you like mnemonics for important constants: here's one for the Stefan Boltzman constant: 5.67 * 10^-8 W / m^2 / K ^ 4
thats 4 consecutive digits 5,6,7,8 ; comma or point after the first significant digit and the exponent 8 has a minus sign.
Space is not empty. Satellites have to be boosted all the time because of drag. Massive panels would only worsen that. Once you boosters are empty the satellite is toast.
On Low Earth Orbits (LEOs), sure, but the traces of atmosphere that cause the drag disappear quite fast with increasing altitude. At 1000 km, you will stay up for decades.
for a reasonable temperature (check my comment for updated calculations) the height of a square based pyramidal satellite would be about 3 times the side length of its base, quite reasonable indeed. Thats with the square base of the pyramid as solar panel facing the sun, and the top of the pyramid facing away, so all sides are in the shade of the base. I even halved my theoretical cooling power to keep calculations simple: to avoid a long confusing calculation of the heat emitted by earth, I handicapped my design so 2 of the pyramidal side surfaces are reflective (facing earth) and the remaining 2 side triangles of the pyramid are the only used thermal radiative cooling surfaces. Less pessimistic approaches are possible, but would make the calculation less didactic for the HN crowd.
Here's a big one: you can't put radiators in shadow because the coolant would freeze. ISS has system dedicated to making sure the radiators get just enough sunlight at any given time.
this system would not be given such an orbit. Its trivial to decrease the cooling capacity of the radiators: just have an emissivity ~0 shade (say an aluminum foil) curtain obscure part of the radiator so that it locally sees itself instead of cold empty space. This would only happen during 2 short periods in the year.
The design issues of the ISS are totally different from this system.
Building this is definitely not trivial and not easy to make arbitrarily large.
for a 4 m x 4 m solar panel, the height of the pyramid would have to be 12 m to attain ~ 300 K on the radiator panels. Thats also the cold side for your compute.
for a 4 km x 4 km solar panel the height of the pyramid would be 12 km.
These people are all smoking crack.
I am highly skeptical about data centers in space, but radiators don't need to be unshaded. In fact, they benefit from the shade. This is also being done on the ISS.
The JWST operates at 2kw max. That's not enough for a single H200.
AI datacenters in space are a non-starter. Anyone arguing otherwise doesn't understand basic thermodynamics.
The whole concept is still insane though, fwiw.
This is precisely why my didactic example above uses a convex shape, a pyramid. This guarantees each surface absorbs or radiates energy without having to take into account self-obscuring by satellite shape.
A very high end desktop pulls more electricity than the whole JWST... Which is about the same as a hair dryer.
Now you need about 50x more for a rack and hundreds/thousands racks for a meaningful cluster. Shaded or not it's a shit load of radiators
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/microsoft-azure-deliv...
[0] https://developer.nvidia.com/deep-learning-performance-train...
Click the "Large Language Model" tab next to the default "MLPerf Training" tab.
That takes 16.8 days on 128 B200 GPU's:
> Llama3 405B 16.8 days on 128x B200
A DGX B200 contains 8xB200 GPU's. So it takes 16.8 days on 16 DGX B200's.
A single DGX (8x)B200 node draws about 14.3 kW under full load.
> System Power Usage ~14.3 kW max
source [1] https://www.nvidia.com/en-gb/data-center/dgx-b200
16 x 14.3 kW = ~230 kW
at ~20% solar panel efficiency, we need 1.15 MW of optical power incident on the solar panels.
The required solar panel area becomes 1.15 * 10^6 W / 1.360 * 10^3 W / m ^ 2 = 846 m ^ 2.
thats about 30 m x 30 m.
From the center of the square solar panel array to the tip of the pyramid it would be 3x30m = 90 m.
An unprecedented feat? yes. But no physics is being violated here. The parts could be launched serially and then assembled in space. Thats a device that can pretrain from scratch LLaMa 3.1 in 16.8 days. It would have way to much memory for LLaMa 3.1: 16 x 8 x 192 GB = ~ 25 TB of GPU RAM. So this thing could pretrain much larger models, but would also train them slower than a LLaMa 3.1.
Once up there it enjoys free energy for as long as it survives, no competing on the electrical grid with normal industry, or domestic energy users, no slow cooking of the rivers and air around you, ...
Nobody said sending a single rack and cooling it is technically impossible. We're saying sending datacenters worth of rack is insanely complex and most likely not financially viable nor currently possible.
Microsoft just built a datacenter with 4600 racks of GB300, that's 4600 * 1.5t, that alone weights more than everything we sent into orbit in 2025, and that's without power nor cooling. And we're still far from a single terawatt.
a different question is the expected payback time, unless someone can demonstrate a reasonable calculation that shows a sufficiently short payback period, if no one here can we still can't exclude big tech seeing something we don't have access to (the launch costs charged to third parties may be different than the launch costs charged for themselves for example).
suppose the payback time is in fact sufficiently short or commercial life sufficiently long to make sense, then the scale didn't really matter, it just means sending up the system described above repeatedly.
Either it does or it doesn't make financial sense, and if it does the scale isn't the issue (well until we run into material shortages building Elon's Dyson sphere, hah).
The larger you make the area, the more solar energy you are collecting. More shade = more heat to radiate. You are not actually making the problem easier.
for a target temperature of 300K that would mean the pyramid height would be a bit less than 3 times higher than the square base side length h=3L.
I even handicapped my example by only counting heat radiation from 2 of the 4 panels, assuming the 2 others are simply reflective (to make the calculation of a nearby warm Earth irrelevant).
On Earth, you can vent the heat into the atmosphere no problem, but in space, there's no atmosphere to vent to, so dissipating heat becomes a very, very difficult problem to solve. You can use radiators to an extent, but again, because no atmosphere, they're orders of magnitude less effective in space. So any kind of cooling array would have to be huge, and you'd also have to find some way to shade them, because you still have to deal with heat and other kinds of radiation coming from the Sun.
It's easier to just keep them on Earth.
people heavily underestimate radiative cooling, probably because precisely our atmosphere hinders its effective utilization!
lesson: its not because radiative cooling is hard to exploit on earth at sea level, that its similarily ineffective in space!
Here's a big one: you can't put radiators in shadow because the coolant would freeze. ISS has system dedicated to making sure the radiators get just enough sunlight at any given time.
The ISS power/heat budget is like 240,000 BTU/hr. That’s equivalent to half of an Nvidia GB200 NVL72 rack. So two international space stations per rack. Or about 160,000 international space stations to cool the 10GW “Stargate” datacenter that OpenAI’s building in Abilene. There are 10,000 starlink satellites.
Starship could probably carry 250-300 of the new V2 Mini satellites which are supposed to have a power/heat budget of like 8kW. That's how I got 5,000 Starship launches to match OpenAI’s datacenter.
Weight seems less of an issue than size. 83,000 NVL72’s would weigh 270 million lbs or 20% of the lift capacity of 5000 starship launches. Leaving 80% for the rest of the satellite mass, which seems perhaps reasonable.
Elon's napkin math is definitely off though, by over an order of magnitude. "a million tons per year of satellites generating 100 kW of compute power per ton" The NVL72's use 74kW per ton. But that's just the compute, without including the rest of the fucking satellite (solar panels and radiators). So that estimate is complete garbage.
One note: If you could afford to send up one of your own personal satellites, it would be extremely difficult for the FBI to raid.
That's equivalent to a couple datacenter GPUs.
> You might need space for radiators, but there is plenty space in space.
Finding space in space is the least difficult problem. Getting it up there is not easy.
This is one of those things that's not obvious till you think about it.
There are commercial systems that can use open loop cooling (i.e. spray water) to improve efficiency of the panel by keeping the panel at a optimal temp of ~25C and the more expensive closed loop systems with active cooling recovers additional energy from the heat by circulating water like a solar heater in the panel back.
https://www.spectrolab.com/company.html
Twenty-five years after the ISS began operations in low Earth orbit, a new generation of advanced solar cells from Spectrolab, twice as efficient as their predecessors, are supplementing the existing arrays to allow the ISS to continue to operate to 2030 and beyond. Eight new arrays, known as iROSAs (ISS Roll-Out Solar Arrays) are being installed on the ISS in orbit.
The new arrays use multi-junction compound semiconductor solar cells from Spectrolab. These cells cost something like 500 times as much per watt as modern silicon solar cells, and they only produce about 50% more power per unit area. On top of that, the materials that Spectrolab cells are made of are inherently rare. Anyone talking about scaling solar to terawatts has to rely on silicon or maybe perovskite materials (but those are still experimental).
> By directly harnessing near-constant solar power
Implies they would not spend half of their time in the dark.
Low satellites are still cooler in the Earth's shadow than they would be in unshadowed orbits, but higher orbits are cooler than either. Not where you'd want to put millions of datacenters though.
Imagine the capillary/friction losses, the force required, and the energy use(!) required to pump ammonia through a football-field sized radiator panel.
This is so obvious, but it's so stupid and at this scale that people find it hard to believe.
radiators can be made as long as desirable within the shade of the solar panels, hence the designer can pracitically set arbitrarily low temperatures above the background temperature of the universe.
Yes, you can overcome this with enough radiator area. Which costs money, and adds weight and space, which costs more money.
Nobody is saying the idea of data centers in space is impossible. It's obviously very possible. But it doesn't make even the slightest bit of economic sense. Everything gets way, way harder and there's no upside.
I don't think dissipating heat would be an issue at all. The cost of launch I think is the main bottleneck, but cooling would just be a small overhead on the cost of energy. Not a fundamental problem.
Without eventually moving compute to space we are going to have compute infringe on the space, energy, heat dissipation rights of meatbags. Why welcome that?!?
Sure, it occurs, but what does the Stefan–Boltzmann law tell us about GPU clusters in space?
I provided the calculation for the pyramidal shape: if the base of a pyramid were a square solar panel with side length L, then for a target temperature of 300K (a typical back of envelope substitute for "room temperature") the height of the pyramid would have to be about 3 times the side length of the square base. Quite reasonable.
> Sure, it occurs, but what does the Stefan–Boltzmann law tell us about GPU clusters in space?
The Stefan-Boltzmann law tells us that whatever prevents us from putting GPU clusters in space, it's not the difficulty in shedding heat by thermal radiation that is supposedly stopping us.
If the base were a solar panel aimed perpendicular to sun, then the tip is facing away and all side triangles faces of the pyramid are in the shade.
I voluntarily give up heat dissipation area on 2 of the 4 triangular sides (just to make calculations easier, if we make them thermally reflective -emissivity 0-, we can't shed heat, but also don't absorb heat coming from lukewarm Earth).
The remaining 2 triangular sides will be large enough that the temperature of the triangular panels is kept below 300 K.
The panels also serve as the cold heat baths, i.e. the thermal sinks for the compute on board.
Not sure what you mean with wings, I intentionally chose a convex shape like a pyramid so that no part of the surface of the pyramid can see another part of the surface, so no self-obstruction for shedding heat etc...
If this doesn't answer your question, feel free to ask a new question so I understand what your actual question is.
The electrical power available for compute will be approximately 20% (efficiency of solar panels) times the area of the square base L ^ 2 times 1360 W / m ^ 2 .
The electrical power thus scales quadratically with the chosen side length, and thus linearly with the area of the square base.
You can prove that the lower efficiency can be managed, and they will still say the only thing they know: "Thermal radiation is not efficient".
as an example my points almost instantly fell down 15 points, but over the last 11 hours it has recuperated back to just a 1 point drop.
it's not because they don't like to write an apology (which I don't ask for) that they aren't secretly happy they learnt something new in physics, and in the end thats what matters to me :)
Yeah doesn't sound particularly feasible, sorry. Glad you know all the math though!
For a 230 kW cluster: 16 x DGX (8x)B200; we arrived at a 30m x 30m solar PV area, and a 90 meter distance from the center of the solar array to the tip of the pyramid.
1 GW = 4348 x 230 kW
sqrt(4348)= ~66
so launch 4348 of the systems described in the calculation I linked, or if you insist on housing them next to each other:
the base length becomes 30 m x 66 = 1980 m = ~ 2 km. the distance from center of square solar array to the tip of the pyramid became 6 km...
any of these systems would need to be shipped and collected in orbit and then assembled together.
a very megalomaniac endeavor indeed.
To run just one cluster (which would be generally a useless endeavor given it is just a few dozen GPUs) would be equivalent to the best we've ever done, and you wonder why you're being downvoted? Your calculations, which are correct from a scientific (but not engineering) standpoint, don't support the argument that it is possible, but rather show how hard it is. I can put the same cluster in my living room and dissipate the heat just fine, but you require a billion dollar system to do it in space.
Either that or your talking out of your ass.
FYI a single modern rack consumes twice the energy of the entire ISS, in a much much much much smaller package and you'll need thousands of them. You'd need 500-1000 sqm of radiator per rack and that alone would weight several tonnes...
You'll also have to actively cool down your gigantic solar panel array
No need to apply at NASA, to the contrary, if you don't believe in Stefan Boltzmann law, feel free to apply for a Nobel prize with your favorite crank theory in physics.
Also this assumes a flat surface on both sides. Another commenter in this thread brought up a pyramid shape which could work.
Finally, these gpus are design for earth data centers where power is limited and heat sinks are abundant. In the case of space data centers you can imagine we get better radiators or silicon that runs hotter. Crypto miners often run asics very hot.
I just don't understand why every time this topic is brought up, everyone on HN wants to die on the hill that cooling is not possible. It is?? the primary issue if you do the math is clearly the cost of launch.
My example is optimized not for minimal radiator surface area, but for minimal mathematical and physical knowledge required to understand feasibility.
Your numbers are different because you chose 82 C (355 K) instead of my 26 C (300 K).
Near normal operating temperatures hardware lifetime roughly doubles for every 10 deg C/K decrease in temperature (this does not hold indefinitely of course).
You still need to move the heat from the GPU to the radiator so my example of 26 deg C at the radiator just leaves a lot of room against criticism ;)
The main benefit is that solar panels go from a complicated mess of batteries + permitting to a very stable, highly efficient energy source.
they could go near a Lagrange point
there are so many options
heavier boats are also slower to accelerate or decelerate compared to smaller boats, does this mean we should ban container ships? having special orbits for megastructure lanes would seem a reasonable approach.
In space or vacuum radiation is the best way to dissipate heat, since it's the only way.
I believe the reason the common person assumes thermal radiation is a very poor way of shedding heat is because of 2 factoids commonly known:
1. People think they know how a vacuum flask / dewar works.
2. People understand that in earthly conditions (inside a building, or under our atmosphere) thermal radiation is insignificant compared to conduction and convection.
But they don't take into account that:
1) Vacuum flasks / dewars use a vacuum for thermal insulation. Yes and they mirror the glass (emissivity nearer to ~0) precisely because thermal radiation would occur otherwise. They try their best to eliminate thermal radiation, a system optimized to eliminate thermal radiation is not a great example of how to effectively use thermal radiation to conduct heat. The thermal radiation panels would be optimized for emissivity 1, the opposite of whats inside the vacuum flask.
2) In a building or under an atmosphere a room temperature object is in fact shedding heat very quickly by thermal radiation, but so are the walls and other room temperature objects around you, they are reheating you with their thermal radiation. The net effect is small, in these earthly conditions, but in a satellite the temperature of the environment faced by the radiating surfaces is 4K, not a temperature similar to the object you are trying to keep cool.
People take the small net effect of thermal radiation in rooms etc, and the slow heat conduction through a vacuum flasks walls as representative for thermal radiation panels facing cold empty space, which is the mistake.
Just look at a car. Maybe half a square meter of “radiator” is enough to dissipate hundreds of kW of heat, because it can dump it into a convenient mass of fluid. That’s way more heat than the ISS’s radiators handle, and three orders of magnitude less area.
Or do a simple experiment at home. Light a match. Hold your finger near it. Then put your finger in the flame. How much faster did the heat transfer when you made contact? Enough to go from feeling mildly warm to causing injury.
its not exactly good advertisement for conductive or convective heat transfer if its really employing thermal radiation under the hood!
but do you want big tech to shit where you eat? or do you want them to go to the bathroom upstairs?
At some point I'm thinking the large resistance to the idea I am seeing in a forum populated with programmers is the salivation-inducing idea that all that datacenter hardware will eventually get sold for less and less, but if we launch them to space there won't be any cheap devalued datacenter hardware to put in their man-caves.
However, what do you reckon the energy balance is for launching the 1 GW datacenter components into space and assembling it?
The economics and energy balance is where I too am very skeptical, at least near term.
Quick back of envelope calculations gave me a payback time of about 10 years, so which is only a single order of magnitude off which can easily accumulate by lack of access to detailed plans.
I can not exclude they see something (or can charge themselves lower launch costs, etc.) that makes it entirely feasible, but also can't confirm its infeasible economically. For example I have no insight of what fraction of terrestrial datacenter establishment cost goes into various "frictions" like paying goverments and lawyers to gloss over all the details, paying permission taxes etc. I can see how space can become attractive in other ways.
Then again if you look at the energetic cost to do a training run, it seems MW facilities would suffice. So why do we read all the noise about restarting nuclear power plants or trying to secure new power plants strictly for AI? It certainly could make sense if governments are willing to throw top dollar at searching algorithmic / mathematical breakthroughs in cryptography. Even if the compute is overpriced, you could have a lot of LLM's reasoning in space to find the breakthroughs before strategic competitors do. Its a math and logic race unfolding before our eyes, and its getting next to no coverage.
The resistance to the idea is because it doesn’t make any sense. It makes everything more difficult and more expensive and there’s no benefit.
It's you who didn't answer my question :)
Would you prefer big tech to shit where we eat, or go to the bathroom upstairs?
The reason I'm talking about computers on the ground using the atmosphere for cooling is because that's how things are done right now and that's the obvious alternative to space-based computing.
Why does it matter what I prefer? I'd love to see all industry in space and Earth turned into a garden. I'm not talking about what I want. I'm talking about the economics. I'm asking why so many people are talking about putting data centers in space when doing so would be so much more difficult than putting data centers on Earth. If your argument is that it's more difficult but it's worth the extra effort so we don't "shit where we eat," great, but that's the first time I've ever seen that argument put forth. None of the actual players are making that case.
"Radiators can shadow each other," this is precisely why I chose a convex shape, that was not an accident, I chose a pyramid just because its obvious that the 4 triangular sides can be kept in the shade with respect to the sun, and their area can be made arbitrarily large by increasing the height of the pyramid for a constant base. A convex shape guarantees that no part of the surface can appear in the hemispherical view of any other part of the surface.
The only size limit is technological / economical.
In practice h = 3xL where L was the square base side length, suffices to keep the temperature below 300K.
If heat conduction can't be managed with thermosiphons / heat pipes / cooling loops on the satellite, why would it be possible on earth? Think of a small scale satellite with pyramidal sats roughly h = 3L, but L could be much smaller, do you actually see any issue with heat conduction? scaling up just means placing more of the small pyramidal sats.
In reality, probably radiator designs would rely on fluid cooling to move heat all the way along the radiator, rather than thermal conduction. This prevents the above problem. The issue there is that we now need to design this system with its pipes and pumps in such a way that it can run reliably for years with zero maintenance. Doable? Yes. Easy or cheap? No. The reason cooling on Earth is easier is that we can transfer heat to air / water instead of having to radiate it away ourselves. Doing this basically allows us to use the entire surface of the planet as our radiator. But this is not an option in space, where we need to supply the radiator ourselves.
In terms of scaling by instead making many very small sats, I agree that this will scale well from a cooling perspective as long as you keep them far enough apart from each other. This is not as great from the perspective of many things we actually want to use a compute cluster for, which require high-bandwidth communication between GPUs.
In any case, another very big problem is the fact that space has a lot of ionizing radiation in it, which means we also have to add a lot of radiation shielding too.
Keep in mind that the on-the-ground alternative that all this extra fooling around has to compete with is just using more solar panels and making some batteries.
Radiation hardening:
While there is some state information on GPU, for ML applications the occasional bit flip isn't that critical, so Most of the GPU area can be used as efficiently as before and only the critical state information on GPU die or host CPU needs radiation hardening.
Scaling: the didactic unoptimized 30m x 30m x 90m pyramid would train a 405B model 17 days, it would have 23 TB RAM (so it can continue training larger and larger state of the art models at comparatively slower rates). Not sure what's ridiculous about it? At some point people piss on didactic examples because they want somebody to hold their hand and calculate everything for them?
but you'd rarely ever need it though: it just needs to rotate at a low angular velocity of 1 rotation per year to keep facing the sun.
I’m not that smart, but if I were, I would be thinking this is an extended way to move the losses from the Twitter purchase on to the public markets.
[1] https://www.axios.com/2023/12/31/elon-musks-x-fidelity-valua...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/musks-xai-buys-social-...
[3] https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2026/02/02/elon-musk-spacex-xai-ipo...
Obviously advertisers have not been fans. And it is a dying business. But rather than it dying, Elon has found a clever (and probably illegal) way to make it so that SpaceX, which has national security importance, is going to prop up Twitter/X. Now our taxpayer dollars are paying for this outrageous social network to exist.
It was easy to support SpaceX, despite the racist/sexist/authoritarian views of its owner, because he kept that nonsense out of the conversation.
X is not the same. Elon is actively spewing his ultraconservative views on that site.
Now that these are the same company, there's no separation. SpaceX is part of Musk's political mission now. No matter how cool the tech, I cannot morally support this company, and I hope, for the sake of society, it fails.
This announcement, right after the reveal that Elon Musk reached out to Jeffrey Epstein and tried to book a trip to Little St. James so that he could party with "girls", really doesn't bode well.
It's a shame you can't vote these people out, because I loved places like Twitter, and businesses like SpaceX and Tesla, but Elon Musk is a fascist who uses his power and influence to attack some of the most important pillars of our society.
I wonder if Musk would be willing to let a journalist do a deep dive on all internal communications in the same way he did when he took over twitter.
Twitter also has more (not total, but more) free speech than any other social networking site. For example, you are allowed to discuss empirical research on race, crime and IQ. That would get you rate limited or banned quickly on other websites, including HN.
This is false, as I pointed out in the neighbor comment.
> Obviously advertisers have not been fans. And it is a dying business. But rather than it dying, Elon has found a clever (and probably illegal) way to make it so that SpaceX, which has national security importance, is going to prop up Twitter/X. Now our taxpayer dollars are paying for this outrageous social network to exist.
There is a difference between a dying business and and influential one though. Twitter is dying, but it is still influential.
Obligatory disclaimer: I'm not conservative, I dont particularly care for Elon or X or this merger. I just despise intellectual dishonesty and selective outrage.
The only intellectual dishonesty is “blaming it on the libs” argument. Ignoring the partisan arguments, the platform was quite literally being used by users to undress women and produce CSAM. [1] Just one of the many examples where you can argue the platform is toxic.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/grok-says-safeguard...
1) new technology improves vacuum heat radiation efficiency
2) new technology reduces waste heat generation from compute
All the takes I've seen have been focused on #1, but I'm starting to wonder about #2... Specifically spintronics and photonic chips.
In all the conversations I've seen play out on hacker news about compute in space, what comes up every time is "it's unviable because cooling is so inefficient".
Which got me thinking, what if cooling needs dropped by orders of magnitude? Then I learned about photonic chips and spintronics.
After that frankly society-destabilizing miracle of inventing competitive photonic processing, your goal of operating data centers in space becomes a tractable economic problem:
Pros:
- You get a continuous 1.37 kW/m^2 instead of an intermittent 1.0 kW/m^2
- Any reasonable spatial volume is essentially zero-cost
Cons:
- Small latency disadvantage
- You have to launch all of your hardware into polar orbit
- On-site servicing becomes another economic problem
So it's totally reasonable to expect the conversation to revolve around cooling, because we know SpaceX can probably direct around $1T into converting methane into delta-V to make the economics work, but the cooling issue is the difference between maybe getting one DC up for that kind of money, or 100 DCs.
If we suddenly lose 2 orders of magnitude of heat produced by our chips, that means we can fit 2 orders of magnitude more compute in the same volume. That is going to be destabilizing in some way, at the very least because you will get the same amount of compute in 1% the data center square footage of today; alternatively, you will get 100-900x the compute in today's data center footprint. That's like going from dial-up to fiber.
Other than some libertarian fantasy of escaping the will of the non-billionaire people, the question remains: what is the advantage of putting information systems in space? The only rational answer: to host things that are both globally illegal and profitable.
China has a land area greater than the USA. (Continental or otherwise.)
Isn't this fixed by blackbody radiation equations?
2. That would also presumably work on earth, unless it somehow relied on low-gravity, and would also be cheaper to benefit from on earth.
The problem for 1 is how do you dissipate heat without being in contact with a lower temperature mass.
Creating a vacuum on earth would solve nothing as the heath would still have to escape the vacuum.
This is an extremely stupid idea, but because of our shared delusion of capitalism and the idea that wealth accumulation at the top should be effectively limitless, this guy gets to screw around and divert actual human labor towards insane and useless projects like this rather than solving real world problems.
I am saddened too by the fact that the system is designed so that people like him can waste a large amount of economic and human capital.
Hyperloop > Neuralink > Self-Driving Cars > Robotaxi fleets > Personal Robots > Orbital Datacenters > [Insert next]
This current announcement seems silly, though.
There is another way to view this. FSD plays fast and loose because they are constantly iterating. The culture at Musk co is that if you dont' keep pushing updates you are in trouble so do we really want to trust that each of his numerous updates are truly tested? This guy is a pathological liar after all. How many lawsuits are they dealing with now?
Supercruise only runs on pre mapped routes. If my life is on the line, I'd rather take the pre mapped routes and supercruise design is better at preventing people playing games to defeat the system (ex.shoving an orange in the steering wheel) so I know that others using the system on the road are following the system guidelines.
Supercruise may not do everything FSD does but it cuts out a large portion of the "fatigue" portion of driving and as a result can be highly trusted value add.
Once again pointing out Tesla has around 300 robotaxis running in 2 cities (Austin/SF).
I don't really buy that there's 250 in SF
The EV revolution has always been something almost dystopic : Trillions of dollars spent in order to not have the slightest amount of quality of life improvement, if anything a worse quality of life because you buy an EV that you cannot use 24/7/365 whereas you can an ICE car for much less .
As soon as something kinda elegant and hopeful as far as collective quality of life improvement is concerned (AI/ChatGPT) came around.....the whole green/EV revolution rightfully went out the window
If Musk was this genius you guys make him to be at 50 and with all the capital he burned he should have at least one company that if you disappeared the world would look drastically different, like if you disappeared Microsoft or Apple or Exxon or Aramco or Amazon or IBM....the world would come to a screeching halt.
Disappear one of Musk companies and everything would be the same as he's always involved in these sort of aspirational companies which have this great vision always 5 years into the future that never materialize into anything tangible or that improves the quality of life like the company I mentioned earlier
Can we evaluate based on the stated goals, or why does the criteria keep shifting?
Looks to me they delivered on 2 of the 3
But they failed to achieve the market share of Microsoft and not to mention the lackuster significance of EVs compared to Personal Computers and GUI
You can attack Tesla and Musk from 1000s different angles due to their shananigans except the one true badge of honor for a company and CEO:
Sherman Act / Anti Trust for 90+ % market share in a sector which ought to be competitive
You think the goal was to be the first through the glass take all the cuts that go with it and then pave the way for BYD ?
Tesla is no Apple, no Microsoft no Standard Oil. Valuations might make superficial people think that it , but it ain't
Again, tech company, startup, visionary...all these definitions are being used but in reality we are talking about a company founded back in 2001
Also I specifically stated that people who look at valuations are those who fall for narratives as opposed to looking look the impact that a company or a product has on their lives.
I remember life before Microsoft's Windows 95, I remember life before the iPhone, before Google, I remember life before Facebook, I remember life before Amazon became ubuquitous, before Uber....
It was a completely different world, much more friction , lots of quality of life wasted by that friction.
Life before and after Tesla? It's the same....hence they failed to leave a mark on society like the aforementioned companies and fell back on financial engineering , cult leadership, cult following and politics as well as hostile takeover of the US governemnt.
You speak about valuation but if we want to use dollars as a unit of measure then what impact did Tesla have as a company on the quality of life of citizens considering the amount of capital it allocated or rather incinirated ever since 2001? Very few companies enjoyed the right to spend so much, where's the quality of life dividend for citizens?
Where's the Windows 95, where's the CHatGPT which changes things and makes people question how they managed to live productive lives before it came about? Nowhere to be seen
When you burn through hundreds of billions of dollars in capital in a very public manner you don't get to pick the goal, the goal gets to pick you and it's the following, and it's for everybody not just Musk or Tesla:
"Absolute domination in a new sector of the economy which changes the life of citizens so much so that they cannot fathom going back to life before such new tech/product' introduction and subsequent intervention of Government for Sherman act purposes / Anti Trust"
None of that will ever come to fruition as it was the wrong crusade to begin with considering that the population never really deeply wanted it and so it is being rightfully abandoned.
Considering the cultish nature of Tesla I'll make the following comparision:
If Companies logos are the new cross/star of david/ insert religious symbol then Tesla failed in their crusade. The remains of the wrong crusade enterprise is being picked up by others who might or might not get some satisfaction and returns out if it.
https://www.jalopnik.com/did-musk-propose-hyperloop-to-stop-...
> “Or did he just have an idea and blurt it out," I asked Vance. > "I'm 99.9-percent sure it's the latter," Vance tells me.
Also that to scapegoat Musk for killing the California train when California was perfectly able to kill it itself:
> Vance then brought up a valid point: "In all this time we've been talking about high-speed rail, there's still almost none that's built....
I like the idea that “he didn’t say that” and “he did say that but a different guy feels like he probably meant something else” are so obviously equivalent that skepticism of that notion constitutes a ‘conspiracy theory’.
That aside I like that the guy whose opinion should be treated as indisputable fact said that he thinks that there hasn’t been any high speed rail built globally in the past decade, which is not even remotely true. Obviously if he meant to say in the US he would have said so, since his next sentence was praise of Musk’s world-wide achievements.
I suppose it’s possible that Vance either doesn’t know anything about high speed rail or was in such a rush to extoll the virtues of the CEO of Tesla that he just sort of blurted something out to make Musk look good?
The full quote is “vaguely accurate but a disingenuous take”. And “Disingenuous” means “misleading/dishonest/untruthful/insincere/unfair”.
> Obviously if he meant to say in the US he would have said so
Come on, from the context it is clear that Vance means the US and specifically California. He also says “we” in the sentence “In all this time we've been talking about high-speed rail” and does not mean Chinese/Japanese/French having this discussion.
You’ve sort of just added “I feel like Vance meant something other than what he said” on top of Vance saying he felt like Musk meant something other than what he said. There isn’t a number of layers of “I feel…/he feels…” that you can pile onto a statement that will equal “he did not say the thing that he is quoted as having said”
Your contention is that by “accurate” he meant “inaccurate” and that he sees Elon Musk as being a global phenomenon and high speed rail as a… thing that’s local to the US? That is notable for its… absence?
Seems like “yeah that’s what he said but in my opinion you’re being mean to my friend” is more likely than a professional writer not knowing how to say “that’s not true”
It is patently clear what Musk meant, the guy isn’t famous for nuance. That aside I don’t find it difficult to picture the man that publicly claims that he personally elected the president thinking that he could sabotage a rail project. Now, I can’t know for sure that he believes that his Hyperloop pitch was responsible for the failure of the CA high speed rail project but if I had to make a bet about that…
Light rail, generally refers to urban rail, "trams".
Never? For the sheer amount of moonshot bets he's doing, his track record would make any VC jealous. Zip2, PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX, Grok/xAI.
I guess props to scamming Compaq into making a large investment that didn't pan out. He did personally make money so I guess win for him.
>In an effort to woo investors, Elon Musk built a large casing around a standard computer to give the impression that Zip2 was powered by a supercomputer.
>PayPal
Huh? He didn't found Paypal, his company was acquired by Paypal. You might as well give him credit for eBay while you're at it. Paypal released their first digital wallet in 1999. They acquired x.com (and Musk) in 2000. Paypal itself was then acquired by eBay in 2002.
>Tesla
Investor, not founder.
>SpaceX
Yup, props here.
>Grok/xAI
Hasn't made a penny, no signs it had any path to profitability, which is why it was shoved into Space-X to cover his personal losses.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2024/11/22/elon-musk-...
not never, but xAI is not clear if successful, and others were bootstrapped 10 years ago, and not clear if they need mask at this point.
The New Deal happened with massive popular support because people did not like the Barons, and wanted to stop them and actually have a life worth living.
It only took like 30 years of suffering.
Broadly, your point is still valid, though. Just a mild inaccuracy between the Gilded Age and the roaring 20s.
Elon Musk has already revolutionized three industries:
1. EVs: Before Tesla, no one thought electric cars could be a mass-market product. And even today, the Model 3 and Model Y are at the top of almost all sales lists.
2. Orbital Launch: No one expected Space X to succeed. What does a software guy know about real engineering? But today, re-usable rockets are the way of the future, and Space X is at least 5 to 10 years ahead of any other company.
3. Satellite Communications: Every single major military power is trying to deploy their own version of Starlink. Before Starlink, 50 satellites was considered a big constellation. Starlink has 8,000 satellites and they are literally launching hundreds every month.
I know it's impossible to prove a counter-factual, but I'm convinced that none of these three would have happened without Elon. No other Western car company has (even now) produced a profitable EV. No other space company has prices as low as Space X. No one even has the capability to build a Starlink competitor (not yet at least). Without Elon pushing these projects, they simply would not have happened or would have happened decades later (after China or someone else beat us to it).
Even his not-yet-successful projects are far beyond most other companies:
Boring Company has actually built tunnels and passengers are actually riding it. No one else is even trying.
Neuralink has actually helped patients.
Tesla FSD actually does work (I use it all the time), and even if Waymo is ahead, Tesla is easily in second place.
I 100% get the hatred for Elon Musk. His political positions are absolutely worth criticizing and I cringe most of the time he tweets. But to deny his business and engineering ability is just motivated reasoning.
Such illusions are ultimately self-defeating. The more opposed one is to Elon Musk (in business or politics) the more important it is to see his capabilities clearly.
Boring Company bought an existing tunnel boring machine (TBM), and used it to dig a car tunnel. Their only “innovation” in terms of any cost savings is to dig smaller tunnels - which we already knew could be done (tunnel cost grows with diameter), and which we don’t do for good reasons (capacity, emergency egress).
The branding and marketing exercise was excellent though.
And I have a Tesla and starlink and I'm quite happy with the level of autonomy the car has, so he has delivered on some level
This is all the reasoning provided. It is quite sad how a company I admired so much has become embroiled in financial doohickery.
I wonder why SpaceX investors aren’t revolting.
I guess this is the price you pay for buying shares with less voting rights.
Because if SpaceX were valued like a normal company, they would lose their money.
SpaceX, as technologically awesome as it is, simply cannot be that big of a company because the market for space launches is relatively small.
SpaceX is targeting an IPO at a valuation 500x earnings. They need to jump on the "AI" / datacenter bandwagon to even hope to sell that kind of valuation.
The whole "datacenters in space" thing is an answer to the question "what could require 1000x the satellite launches that we have now?"
It has nothing to do with what makes sense economically for datacenters!
> My estimate is that within 2 to 3 years, the lowest cost way to generate AI compute will be in space.
This is so obviously false. For one thing, in what fantasy world would the ongoing operational and maintenance needs be 0?
For AI a random bit flip doesn't matter much.
Try doing fault injection on a chip some time. You'll see it's significantly easier to cause a crash / reset / hang than to just flip data bits.
'rad-triggered bit flips don't matter with AI' is a lie spoken by people who have obviously never done any digital design in their life.
I would say they probably something a little beefier than consumer hardware and just deal with lots of failures and bit flips.
But cooling is a bigger issue probably?
Ketamine
Well, if you can't get there, you can't do maintenance, so there is zero maintenance :)
- launch costs are so high that doing exotic bespoke engineering might be worth it if it can shave off a few pounds
- once again because launches are expensive and rare, you cannot afford to make mistakes, so everything has to work perfectly
If you are willing to launch to lower orbits, and your launch vehicle is cheap, you are building in bulk, then you can compromise on engineering and accept a few broken sats
Undergrads afaik even high schoolers have built cubesats out of aluminum extrusions, hobbyist solar panels, and a tape measure as an antenna. These things probably dont do that much, but they are up there and they do work.
People are going to Tory Bruno the space datacenters until one day their Claude agent swarm's gonna run in space and they'll be wondering "how did we get here"?
Musk has a documented history of failing to deliver on promises, timescale or no. So it’s best to engage in some actual critical thinking about the claims he is making.
The average person who has an opinion on musk has roughly the same long term memory consolidation pattern as the average person in general.
No operational needs is obviously ... simplified. You still need to manage downlink capacity, station keeping, collision avoidance, etc. But for a large constellation the per-satellite cost of that would be pretty small.
The thing being called obvious here is that the maintenance you have to do on earth is vastly cheaper than the overspeccing you need to do in space (otherwise we would overspec on earth). That's before even considering the harsh radiation environment and the incredible cost to put even a single pound into low earth orbit.
If the cost per pound, power, regulatory burden, networking, and radiation shielding can be gamed out, as well as the thousand other technically difficult and probably expensive problems that can crop up, they have to sum to less than the effective cost of running that same datacenter here on earth. It's interesting that it doesn't play into Jevon's paradox the way it might otherwise - there's a reduction in power consumption planetside, if compute gets moved to space, but no equivalent expansion since the resource isn't transferable.
I think some sort of space junk recycling would be necessary, especially at the terawatt scale being proposed - at some point vaporizing a bunch of arbitrary high temperature chemistry in the upper atmosphere isn't likely to be conducive to human well-being. Copper and aluminum and gold and so on are also probably worth recovering over allowing to be vaporized. With that much infrastructure in space, you start looking at recycling, manufacturing, collection in order to do cost reductions, so maybe part of the intent is to push into off-planet manufacturing and resource logistics?
The whole thing's fascinating - if it works, that's a lot of compute. If it doesn't work, that's a lot of very expensive compute and shooting stars.
In this case, it's all about Starship ramping up to such a scale that the cost per pound to orbit drops sufficiently for everything else to make sense - from the people who think the numbers can work, that means somewhere between $20 and $80 per pound, currently at $1300-1400 per pound with Falcon 9. Starship at scale would have to enable at least 2 full orders of magnitude decrease in price to make space compute viable.
If Starship realistically gets into the $90/lb or lower range, space compute makes sense; things like shielding and the rest become pragmatic engineering problems that can be solved. If the cost goes above $100 or so, it doesn't matter how the rest of the considerations play out, you're launching at a loss. That still might warrant government, military, and research applications for space based datacenters, especially in developing the practical engineering, but Starship needs to work, and there needs to be a ton of them for the datacenter-in-space idea to work out.
Just because an idea has some factors in its favor (Space-based datacenter: 100% uptime solar, no permitting problems [2]) doesn't mean it isn't ridiculous on its face. We're in an AI bubble, with silly money flowing like crazy and looking for something, anything to invest it. That, and circular investments to keep the bubble going. Unfortunately this gives validation to stupid ideas, it's one of the hallmarks of bubbles. We've seen this before.
The only things that space-based anything have advantages on are long-distance communication and observation, neither of which datacenters benefit from.
The simple fact is that anything that can be done in a space-based datacenter can be done cheaper on Earth.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal for the obtuse
[2] until people start having qualms about the atmospheric impact of all those extra launches and orbital debris
Nothing in there is a lie, but any substance is at best implied. Yes, 1,000,000 tons/year * 100kW/ton is 100GW. Yes, there would be no maintenance and negligible operational cost. Yes, there is some path to launching 1TW/year (whether that path is realistic isn't mentioned, neither what a realistic timeline would be). And then without providing any rationale Elon states his estimate that the cheapest way to do AI compute will be in space in a couple years. Elon is famously bad at estimating, so we can also assume that this is his honest belief. That makes a chain of obviously true statements (or close to true, in the case of operating costs), but none of them actually tell us that this will be cheap or economically attractive. And all of them are complete non-sequiturs.
Let's say given component failure rates, you can expect for 20% of the GPUs to fail in that time. I'd say that's acceptable.
And cooling. There is no cold water or air in space.
A lot. As someone that has been responsible for trainings with up to 10K GPUs, things fail all the time. By all the time I don't mean every few weeks, I mean daily. From disk failings, to GPU overheating, to infiniband optical connectors not being correctly fastened and disconnecting randomly, we have to send people to manually fix/debug things in the datacenter all the time.
If one GPU fails, you essentially lose the entire node (so 8 GPUs), so if your strategy is to just turn off whatever fails forever and not deal with it, it's gonna get very expensive very fast.
And thats in an environment where temperature is very well controlled and where you don't have to put your entire cluster through 4 Gs and insane vibrations during take off.
The basic idea of putting compute in space to avoid inefficient power beaming goes back to NASA in the 60s, but the problem was always the high cost to orbit. Clearly Musk expects Starship will change that.
NVIDIA H200 is 0.7 KW per chip.
To have 100K of GPUs you need 500 ISSs.
ISS cooling is 16KW dissipation. So like 16 H200. Now imagine you want to cool 100k instead of 16.
And all this before we talk about radiation, connectivity (good luck with 100gbps rack-to-rack we have on earth), and what have you.
—
Sometimes I think all this space datacenters talk is just a PR to hush those sad folks that happen to live near the (future) datacenter: “don’t worry, it’s temporary”
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/20/technology/ai-data-center...
> ROSA is 20 percent lighter (with a mass of 325 kg (717 lb))[3] and one-fourth the volume of rigid panel arrays with the same performance.
And that’s not the current cutting edge in solar panels either. A company can take more risks with technology choices and iterate faster (get current state-of-the-art solar to be usable in space).
The bet they’re making is on their own engineering progress, like they did with rockets, not on sticking together pieces used on the ISS today.
Not that you would want 500+ square meters just for cooling of 200KW
And, mind you, it won’t be a simple copper radiator
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/473486main_i...
Will that come to be? I'm skeptical, especially within the next several years. Starship would have to perform perfectly, and a lot of other assumptions hold, to make this make sense. But that's the idea.
Anyone who thinks it makes sense to blast data centers into space has never seen how big and heavy they are, or thought about their immense power consumption, much less the challenge of radiating away that much waste heat into space.
I think passive cooling (running hot) reduced some of the advantages of undersea compute.
Space is pretty ridicolous, but underwater might genuinely be a good fit in certain areas.
Letting them burn up in the atmosphere every time there's an issue does not sound sustainable.
What if you could keep them in space long enough that by the time they burn up in the atmosphere, there are newer and better GPUs anyway?
Still doesn't seem sustainable to me given launch costs and stuff (hence devil's advocate), but I can sort of see the case if I squint?
In the back on my head this all seemed astronomically far-fetched, but 5.5 million to get 8 GPUs in space... wild. That isn't even a single TB of VRAM.
Are you maybe factoring in the cost to powering them in space in that 5 million?
Maybe with Starship the premium is less extreme? $10 million per 350 NVidia systems seems already within margins, and $1M would definitely put it in the range of being a rounding error.
But that's only the Elon style "first principles" calculation. When reality hits it's going to be an engineering nightmare on the scale of nuclear power plants. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd spend a billion just figuring out how to get a datacenter operational in space. And you can build a lot of datacenters on earth for a billion.
If you ask me, this is Elon scamming investors for his own personal goals, which is just the principle of having AI be in space. When AI is in space, there's a chance human derived intelligence will survive an extinction event on earth. That's one of the core motivations of Elon.
I suppose that an orbit-ready server is going to cost more, and weigh less.
The water that serves as the coolant will weigh a lot though, but it can double as a radiation shield, and partly as reaction mass for orbital correction and deorbiting.
https://www.nvidia.com/en-eu/data-center/dgx-h200/?utm_sourc...
Power draw is max 10.2 kW but average draw would be 60-70% of that. let's call it 6kW.
It is possible to obtain orbits that get 24/7 sunlight - but that is not simple. And my understanding is it's more expensive to maintain those orbits than it would be to have stored battery power for shadow periods.
Average blackout period is 30-45 minutes. So you'd need at least 6 kWh of storage to avoid draining the batteries to 0. But battery degradation is a thing. So 6 kWh is probably the absolute floor. That's in the range of 50-70 kg for off-the-shelf batteries.
You'd need at least double the solar panel capacity of the battery capacity, because solar panels degrade over time and will need to charge the batteries in addition to powering the gpu's. 12 kW solar panels would be the absolute floor. A panel system of that size is 600-800 kg.
These are conservative estimates I think. And I haven't factored in the weight of radiators, heat and radiation shielding, thermal loops, or anything else that a cluster in space might need. And the weight is already over 785 kg.
Using the $1,500 per kg, we're approaching $1.2 million.
Again, this is a conservative estimate and without accounting for most of the weight (radiators) because I'm too lazy to finish the napkin math.
The solar panels used in space are really lightweight, about 2 kg / m² [1], it's like ten times lighter weight than terrestrial panels. Still they need load-bearing scaffolding, and electrical conductors to actually collect the hundreds of kilowatts.
Water can't be made as lightweight though.
What if you had a fleet of Optimus robots up there who would actually operate a TSMC in space and they would maintain the data centers in space?
Hold on let me enter a K hole…
What if we just did things?
I wouldn't exactly call this a success, for that matter.
If, like, sea-water entered and corroded the system and it blew up and ate babies, and caused Godzilla, that would be a failure. It just being not quite interesting enough to go after seems... I mean I guess it is, but on a "meh" level.
Do you not understand how satellites work? They don't send repair people into space.
This has been a solved problem for decades before the AI gold rush assumed they have some new otherworldly knowledge to teach the rest of the world.
Not trying to be rude - but it's you who doesn't understand how satellites work.
The U.S. has 31 GPS satellites in orbit right now. The operational cost of running those is $2 million/day.
Not to mention the scale of these satellites would be on the order of 10x-100x the size of the ISS, which we do send people to perform maintenance.
There were five separate flights to service the Hubble telescope. It was designed from the beginning to be repaired and upgraded.
https://www.planetary.org/articles/20170929-spacex-updated-c...
Ooh, happy 10th anniversary, FSD?
The whole thing makes no sense. What's the advantage of putting AI compute in space? What's even one advantage? There are none. Cooling is harder. Power is harder. Radiation is worse. Maintenance is impossible.
The only reason you'd ever put anything in orbit, aside from rare cases where you need zero-gee, is because you need it to be high up for some reason. Maybe you need it to be above the atmosphere (telescopes), or maybe you need a wide view of the earth (communications satellites), but it's all about the position, and you put up with a lot of downsides for it.
I feel like either I'm taking crazy pills, or all these people talking about AI in space are taking crazy pills. And I don't think it's me.
It might be possible to scam the Pentagon with some talk about AI and killer satellites that take down ICBMs.
Honestly that story sounds right up Pete Hegseth's alley.
A million tons will cost $1500x1000x1000000= 1,500,000,000,000. That is one and a half TRILLION dollars per year. That is only the lift costs, it does not take into account the cost of manufacturing the actual space data centers. Who is going to pay this?
We're getting close to having the time for Starship's delays to be the same as the actual time for the Saturn 5 to go from plans to manned launches (Jan 1962-Dec 1968).
One is obviously true, and the other is very likely false.
Did the Cybertruck "never work"? Obviously not, they're on the streets. Was it a <$40k truck with >250mi range? No.
Did FSD "never work"? Obviously not, tons of people drive many, many miles without touching the wheel. Does Tesla feel confident in it enough to not require safety operators to follow it on robotaxi trips? No. Does Tesla trust it enough to operate in the Las Vegas Loop? No. Has Tesla managed to get any state to allow it to operate truly autonomously? No.
Look, I hope Starship does work as advertised. Its cool stuff. But I don't see it as a given that it will. And given by the track record of the guy who promised it, it gives even less confidence. I'm sad there's less competition in this space. We have so many billionaires out there and yet so few out there actually willing push envelopes.
The best case is you meed the unrealistic timeline, the average case outcome is you solve the problem but it is delayed several years. And the worst case is it fails and investors lose some money.
If you try to hire people but your message is: we want to reduce the cost of access to space by 20% in thirty years, you are going to get approximately zero competent engineers, and a whole lot of coasters.
And no investors, so you'll be dependent on the government anyway. Depending on the government is great until people you do not agree with or are generally anti science, are in power. I assume this part should not need an example nowadays?
Its also a good way to shred morale and investor confidence when you're a decade past your timelines or continue to fail on actually delivering on past promises.
It doesn't make sense (neither does Tesla's valuation, for example), but it is what it is.
Both Spacex and Xai have investors lining up.
Let’s say the costs in 5 years do get as low as $15 per kilogram or about 2 orders of magnitude improvement in launch prices. That means a 200-ton payload Starship would cost $3,000 to launch.
Do you honestly believe that? The world’s largest rocket cost a total of $3,000 to launch?
You have missed three zeroes in this calculation ;)
15 per kg for a 200-ton payload is about 3 million$. That seems achievable, given that propellant costs are about 1-1.5 million.
Obviously the solar and cooling for the above would both weigh and cost a ton but... It's feels surprisingly close to being within an order of magnitude of current costs when you ballpark it?
Like i don't think it's actually viable, it's just a little shocking that the idea isn't as far out of line as i expected.
The craziest part of those statements is "100 kW per ton." IDK what math he is doing there or future assumptions, but today we can't even sniff at 10 kW per ton. iROSA [1] on the ISS is about 0.150 kW per ton.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roll_Out_Solar_Array
edit: iROSA = 33 kW per ton, thanks friends
Land and permitting. I’m not saying the math works. Just that there are envelopes for it to.
The US mandates by law that we grow a fuck ton of corn to mix 10% ethanol into gasoline.
If you replaced just those cornfields with solar/wind, they would power the entire USA and a 100% electric vehicle fleet. That includes the fact that they are in the corn belt with less than ideal sun conditions.
We aren’t even talking about any farmland that produces actual food or necessary goods, just ethanol as a farm subsidy program.
The US is already horrendously bad at land use. There’s plenty of land. There’s plenty of ability to build more grid capacity.
This is absolutely not true. I’ve worked on some of this stuff. Permitting costs months, which in dollar terms pays for launch costs ten-fold.
The panels suffer radiation damage they don't suffer on Earth. If this is e.g. the same altitude orbits as Starlink, then the satellites they're attached to burn up after around tenth of their ground-rated lifetimes. If they're a little higher, then they're in the Van Allen belts and have a much higher radiation dose. If they're a lot higher, the energy cost to launch is way more.
If you could build any of this on the moon, that would be great; right now, I've heard of no detailed plans to do more with moon rock than use it as aggregate for something else, which means everyone is about as far from making either a PV or compute factory out of moon rock as the residents of North Sentinel Island are.
OK, perhaps that's a little unfair, we do actually know what the moon is made of and they don't, but it's a really big research project just to figure out how to make anything there right now, let alone making a factory that could make them cost-competitive with launching from Earth despite the huge cost of launching from Earth.
I don't think this is true, Starlink satellites have an orbital lifetime of 5-7 years, and GPUs themselves are much more sensitive than solar panels for rad damage. I'd guess the limiting factor is GPU lifetime, so as long as your energy savings outpace the slightly faster gpu depreciation (maybe from 5 -> 3 years) plus cost of launch, it would be economical.
I've said this elsewhere, but based on my envelope math, the cost of launch is the main bottleneck and I think considerably more difficult to solve than any of the other negatives. Even shielding from radiation is a weight issue. Unfortunately all the comments here on HN are focused on the wrong, irrelevant issues like talking about convection in space.
That's better than I thought, but still means their PV is only lasting order-of 20% of their ground lifespans, so the integrated lifetime energy output per unit mass of PV isn't meaningfully improved by locating them in space, even if they were launched by an efficient electromagnetic system rather than by a rocket.
1. solar is very efficient at generating energy, no moving parts, simple physics etc.
2. in space you don't deal with weather or daylight cycle, you can just point your panels at the sun and generate very stable energy, no batteries required
3. environmental factors are simpler, no earthquakes, security, weather. Main problem here is radiation
In theory its a very elegant way to convert energy to compute.
Satellites are heavily reliant on either batteries or being robust to reboots, because they actually do not get stable power - it's much more dynamic (just more predictable too since no weather).
According to this other source https://www.satellitetoday.com/connectivity/2026/02/02/space...
the filing mentions this
> these satellites would operate between 500 km and 2,000 km altitude and 30 degrees and Sun-Synchronous Orbit inclinations (SSO)
You’ve spent too much life force trying to even understand the liar’s fake logic.
Let’s start right here: there is no such thing as becoming power/grid constrained on earth. If you replaced just the cornfields that the United States uses just to grow corn for ethanol in gasoline just in the corn belt, you could power the entire country with solar+batteries+wind. Easily, and cheaply.
If you don’t even believe that solar+batteries are cheap (they are), fine, choose your choice of power plant. Nuclear works fine.
The truth is, xAI combining with SpaceX is almost certainly corrupt financial engineering. SpaceX as a government contractor and that means Elon’s pal Trump can now siphon money into xAI via the federal government.
I wonder how much faith Musk has that the US will never again have a president and/or Congress willing to torpedo such an incestuous deal.
Company website:
https://rdw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/redwire-roll-out-...
And their Opal configuration beats the metric: 5.3 kW for 42.7 kg.
Don't assume this. Why would you assume this?
So, let's accept that Musk's concern of evil runaway AI is a real problem. In that case, is there anything more concerning than a distributed solar powered orbital platform for AI inference?
Elon Musk appears to be his own nemesis.
Agreed, when I wrote "just unplug it," this counterargument was present in my mind, but nobody likes a wall of text.
However, my original point was that a distributed solar powered orbital inference platform is even worse! Think about how hard it would be to practically take out Starlink... it's really hard.
Now.. >1M nodes of a neural net in the sky? Why would someone who lives as a god, the richest man in the world, the only person capable of doing this thanks to his control of SpaceX... do the literal worst thing possible?
1. China is very concerned about Starlink-like constellations. They want their own, but mostly they want to be able to destroy competitors. That is really hard.
2. Many countries have single ASAT capabilities. Where one projectile can hit one satellite. However, this is basically shoot a bullet, with a bullet, on different trajectories.
3. > Sure, it'd take orbital launch capabilities to lift ... how many bags of metal scrap and explosives?
If I understand orbital mechanics... those clouds of chaff would need to oppose the same orbit, otherwise it is a gentle approach. In the non-aligned orbit, it's another bullet hitting a bullet scenarios as in 2, but with a birdshot shotgun.
My entire point is that constellations in LEO take hundreds of Falcon 9's worth of mass to orbit and delta-v to destroy them, as in-orbit grenades which approach gently. This IS REALLY HARD, as far as mass to orbit, all at once! If you blow up some group of Starlink, that chaff cloud will just keep in orbit on the same axis. It will not keep blowing up other Starlinks.
The gentle grenade approach was possibly tested by the CCP here:
Thanks for the clarification, I guess that explains this (from you):
> Think about how hard it would be to practically take out Starlink.
and this:
> My entire point is that constellations in GEO
which you've now corrected.
Moving on:
> My entire point is that constellations in LEO take hundreds of Falcon 9's worth of mass to orbit and delta-v to destroy them, as in-orbit grenades which approach gently. This IS REALLY HARD
So let's not do that .. how hard is it to render the entire LEO zone a shit show with contra wise clouds of frag that cause cascading failures?
Forget the geopolitics of China et al. .. LEO launch capabilities are spreading about the globe, it's not just major world powers that pose a threat here.
Just to get on the same page here. My arugument is that prior to Elon Musk, the only human capable of launching >1M distributed solar powered inference nodes, if one accepts runaway AGI/ASI as a threat... prior to that we had a few hundred terrestrial AI inference mega-data centers. Most of them had easily disrupted power supplies by one dude with a Sawzall.
Now, we are moving to a paradigm where the power supply is the sun, the orbital plane gives the nodes power 24/7, and the dude with the Sawzall needs to buy >10,000x (not sure of the the multiple here) the Sawzalls, and also give them escape velocity.
Can we not agree that this is a much more difficult problem to "just unplug it," than it was when the potentially troublesome inference was terrestrial?
However, I think it did accomplish my goal. I bet that we could now have a beer/tea, and laugh together.
If you are ever near Wroclaw, Prague, Leipzig/Dresden, or Seattle, please email my username at the the big G. I would happily meet you at the nearest lovely hotel bar. HN mini meetup. I can only imagine the stories that we might exchange.
Look, I'm Australian, I enjoy a bit of banter. I stripped the personal info from my comment above; I was happy to share with you, reluctant to leave it as was.
I was a frequent Toronto visitor, for the TSX, back when we ran a minerals intelligence service before passing that onto Standard&Poor.
You're on the list, however my movements are constrained for now, my father's a feriously active nonagenarian which is keeping me with one foot nailed to the ground here for now.
Also, thank you for the reminder that I need to get my ass back to Seattle to be with remaining parent, while I still can. I have been a jackass about that.
This is starting to get really serious.
One of the biggest but most pointless questions I have about our current moment in history is whether the people in power actually believe the stuff they say or are lying. Ultimately I don't think the answer really matters, their actions are their actions, but there is just so much that is said by people like Musk that strains credulity to the point that it indicates either they're total idiots or they think the rest of us are total idiots and I'm genuinely curious which of those is more true.
It is already more expensive to performance maintenance on SOCs than it is to replace them. Remember, these machines are not for serving a database, there are practically no storage needs (and storage is the component that fails most often.)
Given that, the main challenge is cooling, I assume that will be figured out before yeeting 100 billion $ of computers into space. Plenty of smart people work at these companies.
I meant it specifically for figuring out cooling computers in space.
I am pretty sure this is going to be a solvable problem if this is the bottleneck to achieve data centers in space, given that newer chips are much more tolerant to high temperatures.
https://www.marketplace.org/story/2026/01/07/new-ai-chips-wi...
> The basic math is that launching a 100,000 tons per year of satellites generating 10 kW of compute power per ton would add 1 gigawatt of AI compute capacity annually, with no ongoing operational or maintenance needs. Ultimately, there is a path to launching 0.01 TW/year from Earth. > My estimate is that within 20 to 30 years, the lowest cost way to generate AI compute will be in space.
It’s completely delusional to think you could operate a data centre in a void with nowhere to put the heat.
Naysayers probably get fired fast.
They’d need incredible leaps in efficiency for an orbiting ton collecting and performing 100 KW of compute.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_system_of_the_Inter...
Planned lifespan of Starlink satellites is 5years.
So let's say you expect them to do useful work for you for maybe 2 or 3 years? You have to amortize the launch cost and the build-it-for-space premium in a relatively short time frame. And then what? Reentry? With all the pollution that comes with it?
Also, what orbit do you use? Low-earth orbit is already getting pretty full, with starlink and similar constellations taking up quite some space and increasing collision risk. The higher you go, the more your launch costs go up, and the higher your latency. In higher orbits, atmospheric drag doesn't de-orbit failed satellites quickly, increasing risk of Kessler syndrome.
All in all, I don't buy it.
1. Does xAI seem more valuable than X?
2. Does SpaceX seem more valuable than xAI+X?
Not sure a lot of people would say "no" to either of these questions.
The only other question that I think is worth asking for investors, is how much stock in the acquiring company they get for their stocks in the acquired company. If the valuation of the acquired company in the deal is... optimistic enough, that seems like a no brainer.
You don't have to think they have the best models of course, but they are clearly a very significant, and some might argue, leading player in the AI race.
So no, I wouldn’t say Elon is a major player in the AI space. People use his models because they are cheap and are willing to undress people’s photos.
What is this argument exactly? What are they leading?
That's the full stack? Only other player that vertically setup is facebook, google and microsoft.
We also know the Twitter buyout debt was sold at near par before the merger with xAI which is inconsistent with being near bankruptcy.
My understanding is that it was not oversubscribed and would not have closed without Tesla’s investment.
Your sources might be shady (Elektrek?).
Let’s not forget, xAI is the parent of Twitter/X (the social network). So now, taxpayers are paying to keep Twitter/X alive. After all, it is taxpayer money going to the contracts the government gives SpaceX for launches. Nice way to subsidize what is effectively a one sided campaign machine for the GOP and far right.
I think that is also likely, unless Tesla can stage a major turnaround, it is going to be beaten by Chinese competitors nearly everywhere that they are allowed (which is everywhere but the USA.)
Tesla will have to lose its meme status first, otherwise they would be paying real money to make the acquisition close. The other acquisitions are using VC valuations which Musk has a big hand in. Matt Levine did a whole thing on it when xAI acquired X.
My guess is "that they did the math" and had an engineering study which convinced them that getting AI datacenters into space will make sense.
It's also not hard to imagine why, the process alone once perfected could be reused for asteroid mining for example, then mirogravity manufacturing, either of which alone would be enormous capital intensive projects. Even if AI dataenters in space are break-even it would be a massive win for SpaceX and leave their competition far behind.
There is no benefit to putting data centers in space versus the giant cost that you would incur by doing so.
Can people please try and use their fucking brains for a second?
Have you considered that people smarter than you think it is plausible?
I wish I had your confidence about everything!
Please come back to reality.
Instead you put your confidence in Elon, who has zero expertise in this area?
No, I put confidence my ability to do a web search, pretty rare skill nowadays ;)
You'll see that none of these are Elon/spacex, hopefully?
https://medium.com/@cognidownunder/google-just-announced-the...
https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/starcloud
https://www.informationweek.com/it-infrastructure/lunar-data...
I know many people smarter than me, plenty of them who have spent careers building data centers, and not one of them think this is plausible.
You should consider whether people smarter than the average investor are pulling a fast one.
I don't doubt spacex can fail at this.
I also don't doubt we are fairly close to making this plausible.
> plenty of them who have spent careers building data centers
Famously, plenty of people who have spent careers building rockets would swear that reusable rockets would absolutely never work.
Maybe you should doubt that. There's literally no reason to think this is plausible besides some hype merchants' say-so.
Excluding Spacex:
Nvidia, Google, China, European Commission, Blue Origin
And this being HN, a YC funded company has put a single GPU rack in space and demonstrated training a reasonable sized model on it.
But yeah, it's all hype, sure.
It's trivial to understand why this is all hype if you pay attention to physics, as another commenter suggested earlier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
Assume you're radiating away the heat for a single B200 (~1kW), and the max radiator temp is 100C, you find A = ~3m^2.
So that's 3 square meters per GPU. Now if you take into account that the largest planar structure deployed into space is ~3k m^2 (https://investors.lockheedmartin.com/news-releases/news-rele...), you're looking at 1000 GPUs.
That's a single aisle in a terrestrial data center.
Cost to deploy on earth vs satellite is left as an exercise to the reader.
You do not radiate all the heat away from a GPU, a modern GPU can run pretty hot. Also look up how this is getting better for the next generation of GPUs.
Maybe repeat your calculation with updated assumptions?
But even if you were completely right, your argument is that we can't do this tomorrow, yes I agree. Typical technology development cycles are about 5-10 years.
Fascinating. Tell me more.
Where does the heat energy that isn't radiated away go?
LOL. If you don't radiate the heat the spacecraft just gets indefinitely hotter (until it glows and the heat is forcibly irradiated). It's space, there's no fluid to provide convection.
I never questioned it.
Space is also extremely cold, and if it's as dense as Musk cooling won't be an issue.
The ISS doesn't have problems staying warm, it has problems cooling off.
It does say he's planning an AI sun, I'm guessing that's the temperature you need to run at for radiation to work.
This doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
And if you accept that the duty cycle of the AI+Starlink satellites will be less than 50%, it would be much better to build the data centers in random deserts and wastelands on Earth and use the Starlink network to talk to them.
Everything I've heard from Musk in the past decade has been against my will and has made me dumber. (no I do not care to verify or know whether the above is true)
Edit: ah fuck ya got me "the next book in SpaceX and xAI's mission: scaling to make a sentient sun to understand the Universe" what the cultish bullshit is this. In a just world investors would be fleeing in droves from this cuckoo behavior (I know xAI & SpaceX are private)
Jared Vennett (narration): "In the years that followed, hundreds of bankers and rating agency's executives went to jail. The SEC was completely overhauled, and Congress had no choice but to break up the big banks and regulate the mortgage and derivatives industries."
"Just kidding. Banks took the money the American people gave them, and they used it to pay themselves huge bonuses, and lobby the Congress to kill big reform. And then they blamed immigrants and poor people, and this time even teachers."
Primary and largest investors in X are: Elon Musk, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, Larry Ellison, Jack Dorsey.
I don't know that you need to worry about their financial well-being or that they are getting a raw deal.
But given the current administration, I don't have a lot of faith in the government looking out for anyone else's interests here.
Have they complained?
That seems like misplaced concerned for an investor class that really aren’t suffering.
If our elected officials have done a poor job diversifying risk by not just depending on one single supplied, they are to blame and we should hold them accountable.
But, is that even the case?
Culture exists, after all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Dorsey#Twitter
Still, don't make the mistake I did, which was to read the above comment to mean "he put more money in at the time of the buyout", since he was called an "investor in X".
It is estimated that Starlink is, accounting for 70% - 80% of revenue. Sources: [1] and [2]
NASA is SpaceX's biggest external customer for rocket launch services.
Although NASA is SpaceX’s largest external customer for traditional launch services, the company earns far more revenue from Starlink customers (millions of subscribers). So overall Starlink itself is SpaceX’s biggest revenue generator and de facto largest customer segment.
[1] https://pestel-analysis.com/blogs/target-market/spacex
[2] https://londoneconomics.co.uk/blog/publication/crouching-riv...
NASA contracts alone have exceeded $13 billion since 2015, with $1.1 billion expected for 2025.
The U.S. Space Force awarded $845 million for 2025 and $733 million for 2024.
Commercial satellite operators are estimated to contribute between $2.5 billion and $3 billion in 2025.Please highlight the problems you have with how it pertains to this context, how the biggest customer is harmed.
What do you care if its private owners are willing to absorb the mess that is xAI?
> so are the banks?
Which relevant bank do you have in mind that is not a public company (listed on a stock exchange)?
SpaceX is planning the largest IPO in history aiming for over a trillion dollars in market cap
Step 2: IPO SpaceX
Step 3: Merge Tesla and SpaceX x xAI (which would have been tricky if they were still private).
This is speculative, of course, but yeah seems likely.
And yes, agency risk is always a thing. It’s part of life.
None of this has anything to do with business or innovation. Do you not immediately see that? Most of my friends reaction to this news was that this is so obvious it's almost funny (or actually it is funny, since most were laughing as they read the headline).
I'm curious how you could not understand the relevance of the quote unless you were aggressively trying to not understanding it.
Monet probably wondered how other people couldn't see purple in a haystack.
Leave SpaceX alone you child. Gwynne has it in excellent hands.. find some other way to pay for your juvenile brainfarts.
There isn’t a single inventor and reusable rockets emerged through decades of research.
But: SpaceX was the first to make orbital-class reuse routine and economically viable.
The backing table is on page 8. Falcon 9 is (was, in 2018! It’s only cheaper now.) at $2700/kg to LEO. No one else is below $4k, except… Falcon Heavy.
And I say that as someone that despises Elon and the way he casts his companies as due to his personal technical genius.
Not true. What about STS?
Soyuz-2 capacity to LEO: 8,600KG
Falcon 9 capacity to LEO: 22,800KG when expended, 17,500KG when not.
Soyuz-2 Cost to Launch: $35 Million
New Falcon 9 Cost to Launch: $70 Million
Used Falcon 9 Cost to Launch: $50 Million (cost to SpaceX: ~$25 Million)
Soyuz-2 cost per KG: $4000 (data from 2018)
New Falcon 9 cost per KG: $964 when expended, $1250 when not.
Use Falcon 9 coster per KG to Customer: $893 when expended, $690 when not
So realistically, Falcon 9 is roughly 20-30% the price per KG when new, and dropping to a minimum of 17.25% of the price when used.
Plus you get a larger diameter payload fairing and the ability to launch a payload up to 4X the size.
I'm pretty sure that even used as an expendable rocket, 1/4 the price per KG (if you need the capacity) is a pretty significant improvement. Now I understand why satellite ride-shares are so popular!
Soyuz-2: 12 launches
Falcon 9: 165!
such a hilarious comment / mindset. he made the best selling car in the world 3 years running. neuralink is a great breakthrough. there are a string of accomplishments which individually would be the greatest thing many many people have ever done.
Not only did Elon not found Tesla[0], but many employees have described the "babysitters" or "handlers" who are responsible for making him feel like his ideas have been implemented, so that his caprice and bluster don't interfere with the actual operation of the company.
To give him his due, he's a phenomenal manipulator of public opinion and image, and he certainly has invested a lot of his emerald-generated wealth into numerous successful ventures - but he himself is not a positive contributor to their success.
[0] https://autoworldjournal.com/is-elon-musk-the-founder-of-tes...
I feel that a lot of people simply don't like Elon because of political reasons which are often also based on misinformed opinions. It also can't be denied that he is an intelligent person. You can hear it when he talks in interviews.
Now I think ultimately any ultra wealthy person is going to have some flaws that people can find and latch onto in order to hate someone.
While I certainly won't deny that I do strongly disagree with all of Elon's politics, I'm being as fair and unbiased as I can when I say - we must be listening to different interviews. The man sounds like a caricature of a bumbling college stoner philosophy student most of the time.
Sources: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aee8001 https://www.statista.com/chart/33709/tesla-byd-electric-vehi...
1. Elon is a genius, a real world Tony Stark.
2. How dare you! You're just jealous!
3. Ok, regardless, he's done more to advance EVe and space travel than anyone else alive.
4. Oh God, he's going to cripple US development of EVs and rockets, isn't he?
5. Eh, Mars was never happening in my lifetime anyway.He's all over the Epstein files and his daughter has publicly verified that the timing works out and the emails are probably legitimate.
https://www.threads.com/@vivllainous/post/DUMBh2Vkk8D/im-jus...
Essentially means that SpaceX investors are bailing out Elon Musk.
I, by and large, have a strong dislike of Musk to put it mildly. The one thing I will give him, and I think this is his real gift, is he’s absolutely brilliant when it comes to raising capital. He has proven to excel at raising capital, and deploying it well, for extremely capital intensive businesses. I do however wonder if the chickens are coming home to roost because both X and xAI are extremely unprofitable.
I think it’s almost inevitable we will see Space X and Tesla merge. The conditions of that merger will, I believe, say a lot about whether this move was brilliant or batshit.
However, the way Musk has become less subtle with this tells a story. He got away with these shady financial dealings multiple times so he's now becoming even more brazen and transparent with this behavior. We have gotten to the point in which the spin needed to justify his moves is the physics-defying viability of datacenters in space.
The distortion field will keep growing as long as he keeps getting away with it.
Radiative cooling is the only option, and it basically sucks vs any option you could use on earth.
Second, ai chips have a fixed economic life beyond which you want to replace them with better chips because the cost of running them starts to outpaxe the profit they can generate. This is probably like 2-3 years but the math of doing this in space may be very different. But you can't upgrade space based data centers nearly as easily as a terrestrial data center.
The main benefits to being in space are making solar more reliable and no need to buy real estate or get permits.
Everything else is harder. Cooling is possible but heavy compared to solar, the lifetimes of the computer hardware will probably be lower in space, and will be unserviceable. The launch cost would have to be very low, and the mean time between failure high before I think it would make any economical sense.
It would take a heck of a lot of launches to get a terrestrial datacenter worth of compute, cooling and solar in orbit, and even if you ship redundant parts, it would be hard to get equivalent lifetimes without the ability to have service technicians doing maintenance.
Even if one got the the economics of launching/connecting GPU racks into space into negligable territory and made great use of the abundent solar energy, the heat generated (and in space retained) by this equipment would prevent running it at 100% utilization as it does in terrestrial facilities.
In addition to each rack worth of equipment you'd need to achieve enough heat sink surface area to match the heat dissipation capabilities of water-cooled systems via radiation alone.
I have not been following the machinations of X very closely. I don't have the corporate structure of Elon's empire in my head, nor do I have the Meta or Alphabet/Google hierarchies in there. I couldn't have told you about the history of xAI beyond that it exists.
So that's plain ignorance of something you consider common knowledge, but I don't, rather than "aggressively trying to not understand it." And that phrase is particularly grating btw.
Just say "rocket man bad" and save some keystrokes.
Hey Jeff, on what day is the wildest party on your island?
I agree we'll have to keep digging (or reading other comments, at least) to find a better explanation.
But regardless, I think quotes like these should have some commentary around them as it helps create a discussion around whatever point they might be trying to make rather than having to make assumptions.
Datacenters in space, on the other hand, are a terrible idea because of the laws of physics, which will not get "solved" anytime soon. But don't take it from me, listen to this guy with a PhD in space electronics who worked at NASA and Google:
https://taranis.ie/datacenters-in-space-are-a-terrible-horri...
You're also passing these judgements without knowing their full plan. Maybe we only know one part of the plan and maybe other details have not been announced. They may have a much bigger plan for this than just the specific information we have.
What I am saying is that clearly SpaceX/xAI feel that this is a viable option based on many experts research/facts that are more knowledgeable than a single bloggers opinion. If I am thinking rationally why would I choose to believe a single random person over a group of experts banking A LOT of money that they have a solution that works?
As for dismissing the article: the author has a PhD in space electronics, worked at NASA, and spent a decade at Google including on AI capacity deployment. He walks through power, thermal, radiation, and communications constraints with actual numbers. You do not get to hand-wave that away with "he is anti-Elon" and then defer to "the team spending the most money." That is not rational analysis, that is fandom.
And the idea that SpaceX's experts looked at this and concluded the combination makes strategic sense - seriously? This is the same playbook Musk has run repeatedly: SolarCity into Tesla, X into xAI, now xAI into SpaceX. Every time there is a struggling asset that needs a lifeline, it gets folded into a healthier entity with Musk negotiating on both sides. xAI is burning $1B/month. There is already a fiduciary duty lawsuit over Tesla's $2B investment in xAI. The "space data centers" rationale is a pretext for giving xAI investors an exit through SpaceX's upcoming IPO. This is not a strategic vision, it is financial engineering solving an obvious problem for Elon.
Meanwhile, Grok has been generating sexualized images of children, the California AG has opened a formal investigation, the UK Internet Watch Foundation found CSAM attributed to Grok on the dark web, Musk personally pushed to loosen Grok's safety restrictions after which three safety team members quit, and xAI's response to press inquiries was the auto-reply "Legacy Media Lies." This is the company whose judgment you are trusting over a domain expert's detailed technical analysis.
FWIW, SpaceX launched a Tesla roadster into space without first having to merge with Tesla.
Kuiper is not under Blue Origin, and there are no whispers of Amazon and BO merging. You're the one being disingenuous in suggesting that companies have to be merged to buy services from - or cooperate with - each other.
Heat has nowhere to go in space. Read about how much engineering went into cooling the ISS and now multiply that by billions.
Physics, it turns out, is slightly more complicated than this and it turns out vacuum is an incredibly good insulator and more (much more) than offsets the temperature differential in terms of how easy it is to cool something.
Orbit is a very inconvenient environment. It's difficult to reach so maintenance is a nightmare, it's moving all the time, there's nowhere to sink waste heat into, you have a constrained power budget, you have a constrained weight budget. The only things you want to put in orbit are things that absolutely can't go anywhere else.
I think it does, for what it’s worth if we are to extend intelligence (as we know it) and potentially consciousness out there into the galaxy.
Because of distances and time, it is unlikely that humans will populate the galaxy with biological offspring (barring some technical breakthroughs that we have no line of sight on).
AI, on the other hand, could theoretically populate the galaxy and beyond, carrying the human intelligence and consciousness story into the future.
I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss Musk.
* no cost for land: land in sunny places where crops don't grow (for instance) is good for solar power and very cheap compared to building out a datacenter
* no charge for maintenance: sorry, I really don't get this one. Why don't the computers in space need any maintenance?
Because it would be too expensive to maintain them. Replacing them would be cheaper (I presume).
Not that I think it's anything but him allowing some investors to cash out when spacex goes public. Hell didn't he just shift 2billion from tesla to xai?
At the end of the day he will never see whatever bullshit he's peddling in the media about this sale his drug habit is going to kill him before then.
It seems like a lot of people are very biased on this topic and want to see this fail because of who the company is. This author of this piece you linked appears to be both anti-AI and anti-Elon for example.
We also are unaware if there is some bigger strategy at play here and a bigger vision then what is currently being shared. I like to see companies try to innovate and take risks. I would like to try and be optimistic about things.
Like "robo"taxi, right? A lot of smart people have been working on this at same company for decade+
> I am going to put more faith into that than somebodies opinion online.
There are opinions and then there are things you can review that are factual and based on laws.
I'm a bit confused what you're trying to imply here. They have launched RoboTaxi's and recently have been removing the human safety monitors in them. Are you trying to imply this didn't take a lot of work from a lot of intelligent people?
It's baffling that the market has stayed so irrational because of Musk. It will collapse because of him.
Obviously there's a pattern of financial engineering, and it's inefficient, but the winners do offset the losers so there won't be a total collapse.
When it all goes bankrupt, they can pay off the bonds for x¢ in the dollar and own SpaceX.
Perhaps if the gov could organize a little better, they'd make sure SpaceX owed lots of taxes and put themselves in front of the queue for ownership and screw other creditors (especially foreign).
Edit: looks like the US military doesn't spend that much on SpaceX: https://londoneconomics.co.uk/blog/publication/crouching-riv...
Or they could just go with the competition. If it came down to propping up something, I don’t see much difference between propping up ULA, Blue Origin or SpaceX. In the current environment who gets propped up probably depends on who scratches Donalds back.
For example, I think the car market had become pretty stagnant with traditional car makers, and most electric cars they attempted to make sucked. Tesla making good desirable electric cars really pushed EV's into becoming more popular and having a better charging network. I think it would have taken much longer for EV's to start growing in popularity if someone wasn't willing to take a risk.
Are they going to be too early to the market for this kind of tech? Maybe. Is it going to end up being a waste of money? Yeah it totally could be. But at the end of the day I do like to see some risks being taken like this and it sucks seeing constant negativity whenever companies try something new.
the article headline immediately screams "financial gymnastics" to me so the rest followed from the quote.
Starlink is also a company under SpaceX. Would you argue that is also financial gymnastics? Is it much different from what Starlink does? Instead of launching satellites to be a world wide ISP, they are launching them to be an AI provider.
I just don't see how this compares to the quote, otherwise it would apply to so many companies, including other ones already under SpaceX.
To me this just doesn't seem related and seems like a pretty big stretch likely biased by people who dislike AI and Elon.
He sold FSD for 12 years, now is going to sell a Dyson Sphere for the next 30. This guy makes Ponzi look like a street hustler.
IMO the big problem is the lack of maintainability.
And you also need it to make sense not just from a maintenance standpoint, but from a financial one. In what world would launching what's equivalent to huge facilities that work perfectly fine on the ground make sense? What's the point? If we had a space elevator and nearly free space deployment, then yeah maybe, but how does this plan square with our current reality?
Oh, and don't forget about getting some good shielding for all those precise, cutting-edge processors.
You can have a swarm of small, disposable satellites with laser links between them.
And for data centers, the satellite wouldn't be as far apart as starlight satellites, they would be quite close instead.
I vaguely recall an article a while ago about the impact of GPU reliability: a big problem with training is that the entire cluster basically operates in lock-step, with each node needing the data its neighbors calculated during the previous step to proceed. The unfortunate side-effect is that any failure stops the entire hundred-thousand-node cluster from proceeding - as the cluster grows even the tiniest failure rate is going to absolutely ruin your uptime. I think they managed to somehow solve this, but I have absolutely no idea how they managed to do it.
And a single cluster today would already require more solar & cooling capacity than all starlink satellites combined.
A watt is a watt and cooling isn't any different just because some heat came from a GPU. But a GPU cluster will consume order of magnitudes more electricity, and will require a proportionally larger surface area to radiate heat compared to a starlink satellite.
Best estimate I can find is that a single starlink satellite uses ~5KW of power and has a radiator of a few square meters.
Power usage for 1000 B200's would be in the ballpark of 1000kW. That's around 1000 square meters of radiators.
Then the heat needs to be dispersed evenly across the radiators, which means a lot of heat pipes.
Cooling GPU's in space will be anything but easy and almost certainly won't be cost competitive with ground-based data centers.
Starlink V2 mini satellites are around 10kW and costs $1-1.5m to launch, for a cost of $100-150m per MW.
So if Gemini is right it seems a datacenter made of Starlinks costs 10-20x more and has a limited lifetime, i.e. it seems unprofitable right now.
In general it seems unlikely to be profitable until there is no more space for solar panels on Earth.
With recent developments, projected use is now skyrocketing like never seen since.
Before that I thought it was calculated that if alternative energy could be sufficiently ramped up, there would be electricity too cheap to meter.
I would like to see that first.
Whoever has the attitude to successfully do "whatever it takes" to get it done would be the one I trust do it in space after that.
This "Space Datacenter" sounds like biggest bullshit in last decade, which is pretty damn fucking high bar.
I think its pretty clear that Musk has lost his goddamn mind. And the American corporate system and Government seem powerless to do anything.
As for the space datacenter idea, I think this is just a case of extreme marketing that Musk's ventures are so accustomed to. Making huge promises to pump their stocks while the US government looks the other way. When time comes for them to deliver on their promises, they've already invented ten more outrageous ideas to make you forget about what they promised earlier. Hyperloop as a viable mode of transportation, tunnel networks for Teslas, SpaceX vehicles as a mode of transport, X as the new 'everything app', insane timelines for a Musk-led human mission to Mars. They've done it all.
They never bothered to improve on the car part, causing Teslas across the western world to fail inspections at staggering rates when the very basic car bits couldn't handle the torque of an EV.
Now old manufacturers have caught up on the computer front and China is blowing past at crazy rates and Tesla is legitimately in trouble.
The very high profile CEO cosplaying as an efficiency edgelord with the american president didn't help the company's image at all either.
You think I'm joking but I'm not. https://spacenews.com/spacex-files-plans-for-million-satelli...
It was so obviously stupid that a bunch of people went, "well, this so clearly can't work that they must have a secret plan to make money, we'll invest on that promise", and then it turned out there was no secret plan, it was as stupid as it looked and it went bankrupt.
The "datacenters in space" thing is a similar play: it's so obviously dumb that a bunch of smart people have tricked themselves into thinking "wow, SpaceX must have actually figured a way it can work!"; SpaceX has not and it is in fact exactly as stupid as it looks.
No? ISS isn't exempt from legal systems.
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Ex...
There are a lot of degrees of freedom to optimize something like this.
Spacecraft radiator system using a heat pump - https://patents.google.com/patent/US6883588B1/en
I didn't realize SpaceX's media press is even cringer than Elon's average tweet...
Not saying I agree / disagree, but this seems to be the general thesis of people supporting this idea.
That, and the lack of regulation.
There's obviously quite a lot of autocratist illiberals in tech.
1. What in the circular funding? This feels more like a financing scheme founding it under X/Twitter and then spinning it over to SpaceX. I suspect some debt is disappearing or taxes aren't getting assessed because of this move.
2. The only thing harder than harnessing "a millionth of the sun's power" on Earth would be launching enough material into space to do the same thing. And that's not even a reason for SpaceX to own an AI company, at least not at this point. The current AI isn't going to help with the engineering to do that. Right now hiring 20-somethings fresh out of college is way cheaper and SpaceX has been very successful with that.
quick edit: dang, I even got point 1 backwards. xAI owns X/Twitter, and that means that SpaceX now owns X/Twitter as well as an AI company. Super suspicious that SpaceX could actually think that buying the social media part (a significant portion of xAI's value) would be worth it.
We know datacenters in space - sound plausible enough - yet not practical - hence they're potential pure play - also you can have massive solar in space - unlimited space -- etc -- all true -- but how economical / practical is it ?
yet we know on earth - to power the whole earth with solar - only a fraction of the land is needed. Hell it's even in the Tesla Master Plan v3 docs [1] - current limitation being storage & distribution
so all you - are now witnessing to the greatest scam ever pulled on earth.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzAdXyPYKQo [1]: https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/Tesla-Master-Plan-Part-3.pdf
>Factories on the Moon can take advantage of lunar resources to manufacture satellites and deploy them further into space.
I love how he goes from "the raw material is there" to "we will build high-tech supply chain to process them", just like that, magically.
https://i.imgur.com/wLJ60Vj.jpeg [I think you should be more explicit here in step two]
Also, https://xkcd.com/1724/
Edit: Formatting
It is all very puzzling to me.
Prediction: at some point SpaceX will acquire all Tesla stock and take it private.
But seriously, I think legally satellites are under the jurisdiction of the country they were launched from.
Or he could just buy a small island in the Carribean. There's one in particular that is available.
Maybe if Elon launched himself and the dev team into orbit and didn't use any ground stations and just Starlink terminals he could start getting into legal loopholes.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/20/science/nasa-spacex-moon-land...
Why?
Is financial fraud consistent with our national prestige?
There are better companies.
I think the parent's point stands. There's a lot more pragmatic concern with the damage SpaceX could do in 2026, versus the damage Nazis could do in the 1960s.
You're right, that may be all we have left to show for it if people can't come up with something better.
Whether it's Musk or anybody else who's a real example of outright fraud, in a top position where honesty and straightforward dealing mean more than anything.
But, Isaacman is administrator now, and whatever you think about Isaacman and his relationship to SpaceX, I don't think there's much merit in thinking one of Duffy's half thought out plans is likely to be carried out.
Are we ready for that as a modern society or are we going to start enacting regulation against it? I'm sorry but people wanting internet everywhere does not justify we going back to the dark ages for a decade or more.
I'm sure next week he'll have SpaceX be bought by The Boring Company, sell that to Tesla, then rename all the companies as "X".
Also, whatever happened to his plan to turn twitter into a financial services company?
Twitter (X) was folded into xAI. Now xAI is folded into SpaceX. SpaceX will IPO (or be merged with Tesla) and those investors will be able to sell their shares - the debt is "gone", his benefactors make money, and retail investors pick up the short end of the stick.
What’s happening now is nothing more than a transparent effort to couple the AI hype-wagon to SpaceX in order to drive the valuation higher in the minds of investors who still think that LLMs will completely transform society.
I’ll be thrilled if the rocket folks can avoid being distracted by this nonsense, but I’m not optimistic.
I’ve been following SpaceX since something like the 2nd Falcon 1 launch and this is the worst thing I’ve seen happen. Sad times.
Discussed earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46087616
Rah rah. Line goes up!
The trouble with strip mining the moon is that it is a pristine international geological park where one side is permanently visible from Earth*. In terms of park visits it’s been seen by pretty much every human that ever existed. Take that, Yosemite. The far side will be banned from exploitation to maintain its unique park status as being almost completely radio silent.
Perhaps the mining will take place behind the ridge line of limbward mountains: technically on the near side but without being visible. Going underground feels like a bit of a stretch.
On the far side, how far does one have to be from the anti-Earth point before one can fire up the WiFi without pissing off the space telescopes?
Who will even regulate this stuff? Do we extend the Antarctic treaty for whole-lunar purposes?
*Worst case, a 5km wide strip mine is 10 pixels on a DSLR photo, but that’s still too much for some.
Might be possible theoretically. But certain infeasible in any level of practise.
Is it easy though?
The moon surface is full of nasty regolith that can jam up machines pretty quickly. Plus the lack of atmosphere means that any small particle you accelerate fast enough goes into a partial orbit around the moon and hits you on its way back.
+ spacex already is the best way for many payloads to get to space.
+ starlink is already the best low orbit based connectivity solution.
+ x is already a great way to train virtual world AI.
+ tesla (and its robots) is a great way to train physical world AI.
+ space takes big $ and talent - this combo would have both.
the IF at the top is just that. but feels like an interesting convo for this crowd.
Did we suddenly solve the electricity problem, or the compute problem? As far as im aware there are still plenty of datacenters being planned and built right now.
I'm not a rocket scientist, but how do they plan to dispose of all the waste heat? The ISS carefully maintains its temperature, and it's not running racks-full of servers.
edit to add: this guy, who is a rocket scientist, explains exactly why it's a terrible idea, and yes, heat management is one reason. https://taranis.ie/datacenters-in-space-are-a-terrible-horri...
They can sell xAI/Grok to all automobile companies along with Tesla and other businesses(X.com included) just like the SpaceX services.
It would good to see how it was valued.
I'm wondering if SpaceX's going public will be delayed. If not we'll see the first test of the public's appetite for what the AI companies' balance sheets look like
This process takes a while, which is partly why all the computers in space seem out of date. Because they are.
No one is going to want to use chips that are a many years out of date or subject to random bit flips.
(Although now it got me thinking, do random bit flips matter when training a trillion parameter model?)
Latency would be fine for inference, this is low earth orbit, that is about 25ms optimistically. Well within what we expect from our current crop of non local LLMs.
https://taranis.ie/datacenters-in-space-are-a-terrible-horri...
It's not comparable to any data center.
Another consequence of US NatSec being gradually privatized is that once your income stream derives mostly from government spending, it becomes an imperative to influence politics to secure that stream. Yet some of these companies will remain vulnerable to shifting political winds.
I have never been so tempted to join Kalshi
> merge it with a company created out of thin air for 20bil.
> have a third company buy it.
put it back on the market for 1.5 trillion.
You cannot simultaneously build and launch 10’s of thousands of Starships to deliver 1 million tons of equipment and supplies bound to Mars while also committing to launching 10’s of thousands of Starships to orbit full of satellites.
They would need to quadruple their launch rate, and half of those launches would be Starships bound for Mars, the vast majority of which would never return.
How many Falcon9’s have ever been built? It is incredible to say you can build that many rockets and use up that much fuel on any reasonable time scale. You might as well say the Tesla Roadster version 3 will be a Single Stage to Orbit rocket car.
Add your car to the SpaceX fleet and get paid to own a Tesla!
Excuse my naive physics, but is there a point at which if you take enough mass off of earth and launch it into space, it would have a measurable effect on earth's orbit? (Or if the mass is still tethered to earth via gravity, is there no net effect?)
There's also a YC startup "Starcloud trains first AI model in space using Nvidia hardware" https://www.proactiveinvestors.com/companies/news/1084176/st...
>the satellite successfully ran Google’s open large language model Gemma and trained NanoGPT on Shakespeare’s works, generating responses in the style of the playwright.
ft
Knowing the insane level of hardening that goes into putting microcontrollers into space, how to the expect to use some 3nm process chip to stand a chance?
So, basically give ourselves Kessler syndrome. Or is Elon trying to monopolize orbit entirely?
From a finance and accounting point of view this makes everything more cloudy. Which certain types of people really like.
Is there any other valid reason?
Datacenters in space is just stupid, getting rid of heat is much much easier on earth than in space.
You know what's even harder to cool?
> Orbital Data Centers
Perhaps SpaceX incentive is to lie?
(But I do hope it was satire, if not, cooling satelites was/is a big issue and they only have very modest heat creation. A data center would be in a quite different ballpark)
I thought this was a troll by Elon, now I'm leaning towards not. I don't see how whatever you build being dramatically faster and cheaper to do on land, even 100% grid independent with solar and battery. Even if the launch cost was just fuel, everything else that goes into putting data centers in space dwarfs the cost of 4x solar plus battery.
And so it began. The seed was sent into space. All going according to plan.
Can't wait to see pictures of night sky ruined by... A data-center in the frame.
SpaceX has made numerous breakthroughs in reusable launch vehicles, human spaceflight, satellite constellation, and rocket propulsion.
SpaceX is the world's dominant space launch provider with its launch cadence eclipsing all others, including private and national programs.
Apparently optimus robots don't work and he needs to start his final grift, space datacenters, while his datacenters on earth are powered by gas turbines.
Most likely he's just trying to bury his epstein involvement where was exposed lying by his own daughter.
Musks making Tesla seem like a good fit into the portfolio.
The man's a moron.
Orbital debris cannot be recovered without permission.
Wireless power beaming burns the atmosphere. If it is n % efficient, then where is the other 100-n % of that energy?
What is the minimum latency to each of the LaGrange points?
We should send humanoid robots to establish human-sized habitats with airlocks for a number of years before risking humans.
-- 2026
Can Humans that breathe CO2 breathe on Earth?
Humans with tardigrade DNA for radiation resistance risk their offspring losing said advantage if they cross with a person who is not so hardened.
Without artificial gravity and fortification, humans' musculoskeletal structures will not develop sufficiently in lower gravity to survive on Earth. If a person is born on Mars, what do they need to do to physically return to Earth?
Recently xAI has been in the news for Groq's revenge-porn-like "undress them" feature, which seems pretty legally questionable.
Musk has also been in the news for his own Epstein-related activities.
If he can move Groq and X into space, well, there's not very many age-of-consent or revenge-porn laws in space as far as I know, so maybe he'll be able to do some sort of legal leverage where the space data-center can produce otherwise legally questionable AI responses with impunity.
Not sure how X which “merged” wit X (formerly Twitter) and SpaceX really matter or synergize but here we are. It’s all about the money being protected. And this Ketamine using wierdo is gonna be the worlds first trillionaire. Yay all of us.
We saw this on a much smalelr scale a decade ago when one of Elon's companies (Tesla) acquired a second one of Elon's companies (SolarCity) because it was broke and owed a ton of money to a third one of Elon's companies (SpaceX).
Elon was forced to go through with his impulsive Twitter acquisition by a Delaware court, an acquisition that was not only secured by a bunch of Tesla stock but also a bunch of Qatari and Saudi royal money. He then mismanaged Twitter so badly Fidelity wrote down its value by at least 80% [1].
So what did Elon do? Raised even more questionable foreign money into xAI, diverted GPUs intended for another of his companies (Tesla) into Twitter and then "merged" Twitter into xAI, effectively using other people's money to bail him out from an inevitable margin call on his Tesla stock.
Interestingly, Twitter was reportedly valued at $33 billion in this deal [2], significantly more than the less than $10 billion Fidelity valued Twitter at. Weird, huh? With a competent government, this would be securities fraud that would have you spend the rest of your life in jail. And even with all that, $11 billion was lost on the deal.
So here we are and it's time for the shell game to be played again. Now it's SpaceX's turn to bail out the xAI investors.
And what is the argument for all this? AI data centers in space. Words cannot describe how little sense this makes. Launch costs (even if the Starship launch costs get to their rosy projections), cooling in space, cosmic rays (and the resulting errors) and maintenance. Servers constantly need parts replaced. You can just deorbit the satellite instead but that seems like an expensive way of dealing with a bad SSD or RAM chip.
[1]: https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/02/business/elon-musk-twitter-x-...
[2]: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/28/elon-musk-says-xai-has-acqui...
Any claims that this is about putting compute in space is just a non-sense distraction. This was absolutely about bailing Elon out of his impulsive, drug-fueled Twitter purchase.
The only question now is: when they try to go public, will they be punished for wasting so much money or not? My guess is: not.
How is this possible?
Also, the incredible amount of grift here with the left hand paying the right is scarcely believable. Same story as Tesla buying Solarcity. Board of directors should be ashamed IMO.
To put that in space, based on your numbers, that's 1,250 square kilometers of cooling - an area roughly equivalent in size to Los Angeles
Doesn't stop grifters, tough.
Should have merged xAI into Twitter. A failure there would not be a major setback.
I'd also question whether a species deserves a future in the cosmos when we can't even care for the people here on earth, especially when the person leading the charge thinks its ok to shut down USAID which according to published figures will result in millions of deaths of the worlds poorest people to hunger, AIDS, Malaria etc.
Tech bro psychopaths need to check themselves.
Musk aide while high: "sPaCe"
Slightly less high Musk aide: "But what is the synergy, where's the moat and how could that be done in practice and most importantly is there any limiting factor on Earth before we have to bring AI into.."
Musk : "SPACE!!!!!!"
It is incredible to think that the extremes of the stock market are actually pretty similar, pink sheets/cryptos and these mega companies are actually the same. News fueled pumps and dumps to win the cycle of hype of the week
I think Elon's taken one too many puffs of hopium
Tesla has probably the most valuable shareholders on Earth. Over years of empty promises and meme status, the stock has pretty much purged all the level heads. So it's mostly deluded Elon sycophants giving placing their tithe on the alter of his sci-fi fantasy smoke and mirrors game.
In reality he will be dumping the debt of twitter and xAI (and maybe spacex?) on Tesla shareholders, and buoying that with the added layer of hyper that spaceX brings.
My reasoning is xai has no moat … except in lawsuits, and spacex has one of the biggest moats in history. And they aren’t valued into this equation.
* Starship so far can't put as much tonnage in orbit as New Glenn or several other more conventional rockets. Putting "megatons" of hardware in orbit is an entirely unsolved problem.
* the ISS currently carries 250kW of solar panel and 70kW of radiators. Cooling vast amounts of hardware in orbit is ever more an unsolved problem than putting it up there.
Sheesh. I'm so tired of this bullshit.
And Musk keeps grifting about Kardashev 2 civilizations while his rockets do not even reach the moon.
If SpaceX goes public, that will rescue his xAi shares. I wonder how he will rescue his Tesla shares.
People confuse being able to think big with being allowed to think big. With this much money loaned to him, protectionism and too many PR stunts, I don't think he delivered big enough, and he won't be able to at some point. This is madness.
Hyperloop > Neuralink > Self-Driving Cars > Robotaxi fleets > Personal Robots > Orbital Datacenters > [insert next vibe shift]
At what point do people start to see the ever-shifting goalposts for what they are?
Datacenters in orbit seem insane so idk we’ll see
There's a lot of doubt that the AI and compute to enable that would happen on commercially relevant timescales.
Consider: "do the majority of work" is a strict superset of "get into car and drive it". The power envelope available for an android is much smaller than a car, and the recently observed rate of improvements for compute hardware efficiency says this will take 16-18 years to bridge that gap; that plus algorithmic efficiency improvements still requires a decade between "car that can drive itself" and "android that can drive a car". (For any given standard of driving).
And that's a decade gap even if it only had to do drive a car and no other labour.
You can't get around this (for an economy-wide significant number of androids) by moving the compute to a box plugged into the mains, for the same reason everyone's current getting upset about the effect of data centres on their electricity bills.
And note that I'm talking about a gap between them, not a time from today. Tesla's car-driving AI still has safety drivers/the owner in the driving seat, it is not a level 4 system. For all that there are anecdotes about certain routes and locations where it works well, there's a lot of others where it fails.
That said: Remote control units without much AI are still economically useful, e.g. a factory in Texas is staffed entirely by robots operated over a Starlink connection by a much cheaper team in Nairobi.
1kW would be hell on the battery, and at the same time make the robot a space heater even while standing still which in turn creates new problems if you want to replace all labour with them.
Further, to my point about moving the compute out of the machine and mains-powering them, the current global electricity supply and demand is about 350W/person. We're currently already using all of that, including for industrial purposes.
To see the effect of demand exceeding supply, observe that the data centres were starting to cause local problems with only 4-5% of the USA's national power use.
Even if the current literally-exponential growth of each of PV and wind continues, it doesn't change my timelines: even with 31% per year compounding growth for PV, and given what we're doing with it already even without androids, it takes a sufficiently long time to build out sufficient electricity for androids that we're not likely to have enough spare electricity to run an economically relevant number of them (say, equivalent to 10% of the current labour force) before we improve both the compute hardware and the algorithmic efficiency of the software running on it.
I agree 1kW is a lot for a humanoid, I can’t predict how much of that will be necessary. People run 1kW PCs at home though so not that bad.
This sounds like you misunderstood my point.
This isn't a China-renewables-vs-US-renewables problem, it's the total electrical supply worldwide from all sources that's only around 350 W/person.
With regard to renewables, the point is that *even though they're growing fast, even when baking in the assumption that we continue to deploy more at a sustained compounding genuinely exponential rate, then it's still a decade away from being relevant*. At which point, the effect of a combined efficiency boost to hardware and software also becomes relevant.
> People run 1kW PCs at home though so not that bad.
*Some* people run 1kW PCs. Even in the USA with relatively high energy supply per capita, were *everyone* to do this it would either cause brownouts, or increase energy prices by (best guess) something like 5x to reduce demand by the same degree elsewhere in the system.
One of the dumbest things I've ever read.
Are we sure this isn't some Ponzi skeem?
Is Musk just using purchasing of his own companies as way to inflate them?
Socialized losses, privatized profits. As is the American way.
It's just a dumbest idea ever if Elon truly believes it. I'm pretty sure he doesn't.
I expect the next step in this series of moves is to turn Tesla into a SPAC & have it acquire SpaceX, bringing its valuation nearer that 8.5t.
What a joke.
Twitter/X in xAI
SolarCity into Tesla
xAI into SpaceC
I am just waiting now for Tesla to be acquired by SpaceC as it has run into issues.
This is like saying "I am the largest land owner in the country" , big deal considering the enormous number at the denominator.
Also very convenient to just pick one model when brands like Toyota have 30+ and sell 11+ million cars per year every year
One hand pays the other.
This is obviously about propping up a shaky business (SpaceX) by making people believe that data centers in space are a solution. It's just riding the AI hype wave.
It's impossible to cool servers effectively in space, and, even though I'm skeptical, I'm more inclined to believe in a project to put them in the ocean than in space, simply because water conducts heat, unlike a vacuum.
Sure, there's a lot of room in space, but: - it will always take more energy to get into orbit than to install servers on Earth - the distance between the data center and us adds latency, which is not desirable for an LLM - the distance between the satellites themselves adds a huge amount of latency, making the data center less efficient
In a nutshell, there are physical problems that can never, ever be solved by science or technology, and even science fiction doesn't dare to invent scenarios this implausible. But then, coming from a pedophile who lied about his ties to Epstein, is it really surprising that he's lying and trying to divert attention right now.
We need more 'moonshot promisers' like Elon going public. Come on AGI people, come on immortality people
Way more exciting than spending $70 billion on VR like Meta did when we all just wanted to play games.
The overall sentiment of the discussion is *overwhelmingly skeptical and critical*. While a small minority of users defend Elon Musk’s track record of defying critics (citing reusable rockets and EVs), the vast majority view the "AI datacenters in space" proposal as scientifically unsound and economically nonsensical. Most commenters interpret the merger as a form of "financial engineering" designed to bail out underperforming assets (Twitter/X and xAI) using SpaceX's valuation ahead of a potential IPO.
---
### *Category 1: Technical Feasibility (Thermodynamics & Environment)*
The most robust debate focused on the physics of operating high-density compute in space.
* *The Cooling Problem:
* Numerous engineers pointed out that space is a vacuum and therefore an excellent insulator. While solar panels generate power, getting rid of waste heat from GPUs requires radiative cooling, which is inefficient compared to terrestrial convection (air/water). Users estimated that the radiator surface area required would be massive and structurally prohibitive.
* *Radiation & Durability:* Commenters noted that cosmic rays cause bit-flips and degrade electronics. Terrestrial hardware (like standard GPUs) would not survive long without heavy, expensive shielding, or would require "space-grade" hardening that lags generations behind in performance.
* *Maintenance:* On Earth, failed components are swapped; in space, a failed GPU or drive effectively bricks the unit or turns it into space junk.
* *Latency:* While Low Earth Orbit (LEO) offers better latency than Geostationary orbit, users questioned the utility of high-latency inference compared to fiber-connected terrestrial centers, particularly for complex AI tasks.
### *Category 2: Financial Engineering & Corporate Governance*
A significant portion of the thread analyzed the merger as a financial maneuver rather than a technological necessity.
* *The "Bailout" Theory:* Users widely believe this deal is designed to offload the heavy debt and losses from the Twitter (X) acquisition and the high burn rate of xAI onto SpaceX, which is viewed as Musk's most solvent and valuable company.
* *SolarCity Parallel:* Many compared this to Tesla’s acquisition of SolarCity—a move previously criticized as a bailout of a failing Musk-owned company by a successful one.
* *IPO Preparation:* Speculation suggests this is a play to juice the valuation of a SpaceX IPO by attaching "AI hype" to it, allowing early investors in the struggling X/xAI entities to cash out or convert their equity into SpaceX stock.
* *Conflict of Interest:* Commenters questioned the governance of private companies where one individual (Musk) controls the board and directs mergers that may benefit him personally at the expense of specific shareholder groups (e.g., SpaceX employees or investors).
### *Category 3: Economic Viability*
Users attacked the business logic of launching datacenters into orbit.
* *Cost of Launch vs. Land:* Even with the cost reductions promised by Starship, users argued that land and grid connections on Earth are orders of magnitude cheaper than rocketry.
* *Solar Efficiency:* While solar is more efficient in space (no night/clouds in specific orbits), users argued it is still cheaper to simply build more solar panels on Earth and use batteries than to launch infrastructure into orbit.
* *The "Million Ton" Claim:* Users crunched the numbers on Musk’s claim of launching "a million tons" of satellites, noting it would require an unrealistic flight cadence (e.g., launching massive rockets every few hours continuously).
### *Category 4: Musk's Reputation & Rhetoric*
The thread discussed Elon Musk’s history of promises versus delivery.
* *Skepticism:* Users cited a long list of missed timelines and unfulfilled promises (Hyperloop, Full Self-Driving by 2017, Robotaxis, Mars landings) as reasons to doubt the "space datacenter" timeline of 2–3 years.
* *Mockery of Language:* There was specific ridicule regarding the press release language, particularly the phrase "scaling to make a sentient sun," which many found to be "drug-induced nonsense" or "cultish."
* *The Defense:* A minority of commenters argued that betting against Musk has historically been a bad idea, citing the success of Falcon 9 and Starlink as proof that he can solve "impossible" engineering problems.
### *Category 5: Regulatory, Legal, & Ethical Concerns*
* *Jurisdiction Shopping:* Some speculated that moving AI to space might be an attempt to bypass terrestrial regulations regarding copyright, safety, or content generation (specifically referencing Grok’s lack of guardrails regarding CSAM/deepfakes).
* *National Security:* Concerns were raised that SpaceX is a critical US defense contractor, and merging it with a "chaotic" social media company and an AI firm introduces unnecessary risk and leverage over the US government.
* *Orbital Debris (Kessler Syndrome):* Users worried that launching millions of tons of disposable datacenter satellites would clutter low earth orbit, increasing collision risks and potentially locking humanity out of space travel.
### *Category 6: The "Why" (Strategic Speculation)*
* *Energy Arbitrage:* A few users attempted to steelman the argument, suggesting that if Earth's energy grid becomes the primary bottleneck for AI, space offers the only unconstrained solar power source, despite the cooling difficulties.
* *Vertical Integration:* Some noted this creates a conglomerate similar to Samsung or aggressive Japanese keiretsu, where the goal is total vertical integration of energy, transport, communication, and intelligence.
What makes you think it isn’t?
edit: these replies aren't going to age well
literally (adverb)
informal : in effect : virtually
Used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible.
Ex: I literally died of embarrassment.
You don't need synergies to justify a merger. They're often used as justification as in paying well above market price. But it has nothing to do with actual justification. You can just have a holding company of businesses
(to be crystal clear, I am making a joke equating the failed SolarCity/Tesla solar shingles to the (generally considered very painful) Herpes Zoster manifestation also called "shingles")
https://futurism.com/advanced-transport/spacex-buying-unfath...
I cannot wait for him to one day be hit in the face by reality.
Google and Amazon are doing the same thing. Maybe it is a moonshot (pun intended), but Musk is hardly alone in the push.
https://www.wsj.com/tech/bezos-and-musk-race-to-bring-data-c...
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/01/technology/space-data-cen...
Also in LEO you're going to have reentry become more of an issue (starlink burning up in the atmosphere isn't some free garbage removal it will have a measurable impact on the chemical make up (assuming it even burns up and doesn't just squash more farm buildings), Power supply more of an issue and still have huge problems with heat and radiation.
I wonder what the largest viable ping time would be, for vibe coding? If it exceeds 40 minutes (my pre-Christmas experimentation would have been fine with that but it was just experiments), these things could be on Mars on the opposite side of the sun and still be useful.
* I have no idea what training needs, neither fundamentally nor currently in practice
I wish more companies were private and ambitious. I'm tired of companies like Apple making marginal spec bumps to their phones and milking the same products for decades
Any proof of that?
And consider that this is retroactive, meaning it's backpay. They're literally voting to give the guy $50b for work performed. He has a lot of confidence from his investors. And if there were issues, there would be lawsuits. Ironically the only lawsuits that get brought up, like the one about the pay package, are basically trolls, from a guy that had 9 shares.
Besides the parent is the one making a claim that something not above board is going on so burden of proof is on him.
Finally, it's a private company where Musk is the majority shareholder. He's moving money from one pocket into another, and any moves will be reflected in his attempt to raise money with the IPO coming this year.
Why do people online pretend not to understand?
citation needed.
At least what Apple does is real not make believe like everything Musk claims , disappear boring Apple or even boring Microsoft, Oracle, IBM etc.
And the world would come to a screeching halt, disappear all of Musk companies and people would barely notice.
You seem to be eager to be sold dreams , that's exactly what vaporware salesmen like Musk hope to find on their path
Anyone who doesn't see how broken this situation is isn't paying attention. This is how people like Elon, who want to seize as much power from the government as they can, ensure that the means for seizing that power are untouchable.
Anyone who has ever used Grok or X lately knows that both of these products are heavily manipulated to align with the political, social, and economic views of Elon Musk, who is increasingly boosting "white power" language and full-throatedly backing America's most nationalistic and authoritarian president to date.
This is just another consolidation of power, and it's deeply worrisome. Any integrity one may have hoped remained at SpaceX just vanished when they aligned their mission with that of these deeply problematic digital services.
And this is not even scratching the surface of what looks like a deliberate attempt to create Kessler syndrome by launching millions of cheap short-term satellites into orbit, or the rationality of putting datacenters into orbit in the first place...
Starship launches are only going to make sense every 779.94 days (the approx 2 year Mars-Earth proximity). The rest of the time, the launches could similarly be used to deploy orbiting data centers for XAi/Grok etc. Brilliant move.
SpaceX and xAI would not be able to freely collaborate on space datacenters after the IPO because it would be self-dealing. SpaceX likes to be vertically integrated, so they wouldn't want to just be a contractor for OpenAI's or Anthropic's infrastructure. Merging before the IPO is the only way that SpaceX could remain vertically integrated as they build space datacenters.