Hacker News Reader

Comment by happosai | Hacker News Reader

> if anyone at all can make space-based datacenters economical, it's SpaceX

Let's hope burning ten thousand tons of toxic e-waste annually in upper atmoshphere never becomes economical. Or mankind gets to senses and bans externalizing your e-waste problem by burning in atmosphere...

View on HN

> ...burning ten thousand tons of toxic e-waste annually...

Expressing water usage in gallons makes it seem really large, too. NASA says[0]:

  Scientists estimate that about 48.5 tons (44 tonnes or 44,000 kilograms) of meteoritic material falls on Earth each day.

If we assume that they're all the heavier v2 units, the total mass of the orbital portion of Starlink is ten point four tons. [1] If we assumed that they lasted one year (instead of the five that they're reported to last[1]), then over the course of a year, Starlink would dump six hours worth of asteroid collisions into the atmosphere.

I think we'll be fine. Pour all that frustrated energy you have into substantially reducing the amount of incredibly hazardous d-waste [3] big commercial operators burn up into our atmosphere, instead.

[0] <https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/meteors-meteorites/#h-...>

[1] According to [2] there are currently 10,413 satellites. At an assumed 1760 lbs each, this works out to roughly 10.4 tons.

[2] <https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html>

[3] "dino"-waste, AKA CO2

I think you missed a factor of 1000 somewhere in there: Each satellite weighs about 1 ton, there are about 10,000 of them. That is 10,000 tons in orbit for the constellation, not 10. Assuming a 5 year decay, that's 10000/5/365 ~= 5 tons / day. Still about 10% of the natural incoming material, but considerably more than your "six hours worth per year".

> I think you missed a factor of 1000 somewhere in there... there are about 10,000 of them. That is 10,000 tons in orbit for the constellation, not 10.

I did. what. the. hell? Maybe my swiss-cheese brain read the "," in 10,413 as a decimal separator? I guess that's what I get for posting while old. Thanks for the correction and supporting arithmetic.

Though, I still stand by my "please for the love of everything, get to complaining about CO2 because this thing you're complaining about is a damn nothingburger" conclusion. (I am sufficiently aware to notice that that you're not OP, so the "you" in that pseudoquote is not directed at you.)

a) Meteorites don't have any of toxic chemicals used to build a server with lithium-ion batteries and solar panels

b) we could use the same argument to defend dumping spent nuclear fuel to oceans (like we used to do)

c) I agree with the CO2 issue, grok/spacex/xAI and others should be banned from building gas powered datacenters.

You think that meteors don't have lithium? The third most common atom in the universe?

You think the toxity and dangers of materials are defined by the atoms the materials are made of rather than the molecules? Swimming in a ocean of Hydrogen-Oxygen salted by Sodium Chloride must feel dangerous..

Also the toxic fumes from burning batteries don't really come from the lithium but everything else the batteries are made of.

> Meteorites don't have any of toxic chemicals used to build a server with ... solar panels

Right. The toxic chemicals found in solar panels known as silicon, aluminum, copper, and trace amounts of lead. These chemicals are only found in fuming Earthbound laboratories, and are nowhere else in the universe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com