Google’s Project Suncatcher to put ML infrastructure in space
blog.google
blog.google
We're talking about an exceptionally vulnerable target with a perfectly predictable path of travel here. And it's constantly emitting lots of RF making it easy to track. You just have to get near it and explode with shrapnel.
Totally illegal, of course. But it will be within the reach of millions of people if they want to do it.
I don't think "just move to space bro" is going to stop the pitchfork-mob.
Not trivial but not impossible. If you’ve got a few hundred million people with nothing better to do, I’m sure a few dozen/hundred could pull it off.
It's not like people actually need satellites. We already have ground-based communication in the form of mobile phone networks etc., so I don't think the harm of making LEO unusable would be very great.
The general attitude in this thread against reasonable people not wanting unsustainable megaliths that produce horrible amounts of noise, and are driving up electricity prices, in their communities without any input from said community is astonishing.
HN has really gone full AI derangement syndrome (it runs both directions).
Sending unguided rockets in the general direction of the enemy with 25% failure rate doesn't scale well to a 3-stage precision guided delivery vehicle.
And say you do build an orbital class rocket and manage to launch it without anyone noticing before you do - how many of e.g. Starlink’s 11,000 satellites will you be able to damage? What real impact will that have on Starlink?
It's much easier to wreck shit than transport it safely.
If real money can be made, there is no need of datacenters in space. Offer some country some money and they'll let you build whatever you want. The whole idea is entirely unprofitable thats why they are making up things that won't work economically. Keep giving us money indefinitely, we'll keep spending, money can be made after a few decades of spending ... trust us.
You'd need a dictatorship where people's voices don't matter, but then there's no right of ownership either.
And there are plenty of those countries. As well as countries that aren't dictatorships. Every leader everywhere is available for sale. In democracies, usually for a small sum. Dictatorships ask for a percentage of profit.
Everyone knows how the current administration got to power: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/01/politics/elon-musk-2024-e...
Trump will gladly allow datacenters to be built on federal lands. Just like he allows Oil/Coal and bans Wind and Solar. The only reason there is new story of Space Datacenters is because even if they are given everything by the Govt, it simply won't work.
If you see a datacenter in orbit, it means something went wrong on Earth: https://systemsthinkingcollection.substack.com/p/space-datac...
People believe all kinds of fiction and garbage, like going to Mars. (Why Terraform Mars When We Can Fix The Earth? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8mhib97--n4)
The same argument holds for AI DCs. If you can build profitable AI datacenters in space, why can't you build profitable AI datacenters on Earth? The only reason is you can't build profitable AI datacenters on earth. Just give us a few more trillions and wait a decade or two, we promise ...
a: now you’re in everyone’s back yard, since satellites in orbit can be seen by the naked eye at twilight zipping across the sky, so now the whole earth hates you
b: you are still launching from earth, which is a pretty significant target if you’re worried about ecoterrorism.
Once you move outside low Earth orbit (i.e. outside the magnetosphere) you also have to deal with much more radiation so using regular commercially available hardware for the DC is no longer an option so you're looking at another 10-100x increase in cost for the chips alone (and at worse performance because radiation-hardened chips are literally generations behind at this point). You'll also need signficantly more (very heavy) shielding and that also adds to your launch costs. Of course OceanGate is a good reminder that billionaires don't always concern themselves with such trivialities as using equipment and materials actually suited for the task if it means they get an opportunity to brag about how they're disrupting the market by jerry-rigging mission critical components.
Speaking in terms of feasibility again, availability isn't the only problem you'd be facing. Obviously latency is going to be horrendous because of the incredible distances involved but really there's just literally no infrastructure you can piggyback off of. You could potentially achieve data rates of up to tens of Gbit/s even from L4/L5 (stable orbits 1 AU away) using something like NASA's DCOS but this requires optical ground stations or LEO relays, bringing the weakest link much more within reach again.
Even if you somehow manage to develop sufficiently ruggedized variants of reasonably modern chips, add the necessary shielding and develop and build out the necessary communication infrastructure from scratch (remember that we haven't even considered how we generate enough power to run the actual DC itself) and are also willing to accept the disgusting latency and packet loss ratio, the elephant in the room remains that DCs on the ground require constant maintenance to operate and replace failing parts. DCs in space can only ever be disposable - once any redundancies run out, they're just very expensive space junk.
But you have a point: putting it in space is inherently ridiculously expensive. Getting it to L4/L5 is only insignificantly more expensive than getting it to L1/L2 but assuming you can fit the entire DC in a single Falcon Heavy (so you don't also have to worry about assembling the entire thing in space across multiple launches) you're limited to a payload of 25 t and the launch itself already costs you $120 million. Of those 25 t only 7 t or so can be spent on actual compute so your space DC would probably be constrained to the equivalent of about 500 GPUs (assuming this is for AI because everything is for AI these days). Most of the weight budget and the actual cost however would be eaten by all the structural and infrastructural parts required - in terms of cost for compute a space DC that fits in a single Falcon Heavy is easily an order of magnitude more expensive than one built in the US today and those don't need to be replaced from scratch when a significant chunk of the initial parts have degraded.
TL;DR: Building a DC in space is easily 10x as expensive, requires technology that hasn't been developed yet, requires you to also build all infrastructure needed to actually operate and connect to it, and in the end just gives you a high latency low performance Beowulf cluster that is rapidly converting itself into an expensive piece of space junk if random debris doesn't kill it first.
You can run compute in low Earth orbit but compute runs hot. We're not talking 500 GPUs a pop but even for an 8 GPU node you need some 40 m^2 surface just for thermal dissipation. I assume by "distributed" you also imply that they're not going to be in sunlight 24/7 and operate more like Starlink so they'll need batteries to keep running for a third or so of their lifetime.
Low Earth orbit also means you don't have to worry about radiation frying your off-the-shelf hardware without the heavy shielding but you'll still have lots of random bit flipping to deal with and storage is largely going to be unreliable for anything but short-term, especially on SSDs.
Distributed also means you replace local speeds with network speeds - Google was only able to achieve feasible "data center" data rates by having satellites fly within less than a kilometer of each other (i.e. densely packed in space terms, no longer really "distributed" in terms of proximity) and even that had orders of magnitudes worse latency (obviously) than you'd have in a data center pod (though not quite as bad as the multi-millisecond latency you'd have at current Starlink level distances).
"Orbital data centers", even if operated as fleets of disposable low-performance pods instead of singular "out of reach" disposable mini DCs, are worse than real data centers on every single metric: they're slower, more expensive, unrepairable, degrade more rapidly and require more redundancy to compensate for random errors.
There are pretty much just three use cases:
- Providing space-based processing for space-based data collection to reduce the amount of data that needs be sent to ground (realistically speaking in the current climate this pretty much only describes surveillance).
- Avoiding regulatory oversight, permit processes and most risks (e.g. earthquakes, missile strikes, protests, sabotage) associated with building and operating a real data center.
- Avoiding energy price increases that might make operating a real data center more expensive compared to the fixed cost of continuing to operate an already launched satellite.
I'm surprised nobody seems to have pointed this out but one of the biggest factors in the premises that would make this entire idea somewhat economically viable (assuming energy prices increase in ways that affect data centers without also massovely affecting the supply chain for launching things into space) is Musk's claim that they not only can make the upper stages reusable and recover them but also that inspecting, refurbishing and reusing them will be considerably cheaper than replacing them. If they can't make launches significantly cheaper still (not that they aren't already ridiculously cheap all things considered), using a fleet "designed to be distributed across hundreds or thousands of satellites" would be economically unviable compared to just stuffing a single satellite to the brim (especially if you can avoid the battery).
But then the single advantage becomes "it's in space" and that is really only interesting for compute running on data already collected in space - and if that is a problem big enough to be able to sustain an entire business model justifying SpaceX's valuation... well, let's just say that would be the kind of world where if it were a movie the major plot point would be the destruction of that company or defeating the regime that enables it.
This so much. Good luck destroying a DC on earth without a very strong force. On the other hand, destroying a rocket on its launchpad just take one FPV drone.
Leaving aside the DCs already destroyed in the Iran totally not a War by an enemy that can be easily crushed at any moment ...
DCs in mainland US aren't well defended - a pattern of shrapnel heads landed by a mobile mortar or two with a 2 km radius would render most in need of some upkeep.
When you start describing rabble level opposition that high you run out of ceiling very quickly.
The US is filled with ex service personal who can whip together a mortar, as "military hardware" goes it's on par with what civilian firework techs have access to and can build in a garden shed, it's home grown resistance level guerilla tech.
If there's growing ground swell opposition to US data centres then the same Y'All-Qaeda militia plotting against dams and power substations will feel empowered to have a shot at a DC or too.
I don't think the US have the social fabric needed for an insurgency to develop on though.
Who said anything about civil war?
The US has many splinter loon groups who blow up buildings and like to attack infrastructure (see: US news). This has happened over the past decades with no civil war.
Data centres are soft targets - softer than banks. Do you remember when armed bank robberies were all the rage in the 1970s and 1980s? Not a time of civil war, just a time when a couple of people took control of buildings while heavily armed. Such a small group with fragmentation grenades can easily render a data centre unfit for use for several months with relative ease and fast ingress and egress.
Politically motivated armed attacks are a totally different thing.
Also, I think you massively underestimate the sheer size of an IA data center. If you want to destroy one with grenades you're going to need a literal truck load of grenades.
Really? Maybe read up some more, OC scale mafia groups weren't doing many of the bank raids of the US 1970s / 1980s - in any case these are still well below my bar on what constitutes a "very strong force".
> Also, I think you massively underestimate the sheer size of an IA data center.
You think wrong.
> If you want to destroy one with grenades you're going to need a literal truck load of grenades.
Exactly right, or rather several drums of farm grade fertiliser, diesel, ball bearings, a stolen truck, and somebody (or two) prepared to do a ram raid. Groomed idealogues or addicts with debt have all been used for such things.
Or, as already mentioned, drive parallel and mortar the centre from one end to the other, achievable by small discontent militia types (who abound in the US).
Serious question time: Are you honestly unaware of Timothy McVeigh? Would you describe him as "a very strong force"?
If it's too expensive to outsource to another country, it's definitely too expensive to put in space instead.
Then there's the power grid problem.
I understand expanding the grid takes a long time, thus the gas turbines. Which I understand are also supply-constrained, and environmentalists are not happy either.
I'm no scientist or financial analyst, but I could imagine that the space thing would be viable especially in a scenario where AI capabilities continue to grow.
If AI really does replace not only most knowledge work but also other labor via robotics, and this requires enormous compute, we are going to want to scale this up at a much faster rate.
Preferably without covering a tenth of the planet with gas generators.
Unless economic systems around the world change significantly very soon, this AI replacement you so cavalierly mention would cause significant portion of human population to reach poverty, causing much unrest and mass deaths.
I don't buy into demonizing the rich, including Altman, Amodei, Musk and co.
I am not concerned that this will be the outcome of the productivity surge.
We will have enough for everyone, and ensuring comfortable living standards for the general population is going to be in the interest of those in power, even if you assume very selfish motivations.
I'd also like to point out that both Anthropic and OpenAI created frameworks to monitor labor market impact and propose responses.
Admittedly I know very little about spaceships
All flavors of Govt (authoritarian/democratic) are bending over backwards to build new DCs.
In Ulanqab, China buildout of data centers 1000x size of Colossus: https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/2099319829589295197
India, a country which has neither power nor water or any measurable infrastructure is giving massive subsidies to hyperscalers to build AI DCs. They get free land (very very costly), nearly free energy, guaranteed supply of water and so on ...
Examples of one authoritarian govt and one democratic govt. And there are 180+ other countries.
Cooling is a major factor. Ulanqab's average temperature is about 4.3°C, enabling free air cooling nearly 10 months a year and very low PUE around 1.1.
Even more decisive is cheap, abundant power—largely wind and solar plus coal—at roughly half the price of eastern China. Add vast open land, dedicated low-latency fiber to Beijing (~2-5 ms),
Honestly, India might be more democratic than China, but the current govt is known for it's authoritarian bent [1] and crony capitalism [2] in particular.
While governments of all types rushed to embrace AI data centers, perhaps driven by fears of being left out, the pushback against data centers seems to be universal. The difference is, countries with less authoritarian govenrments are seeing those pushbacks be generally more successful.
[1] The Chief Election Commissioner was recently caught manipulating voter rolls over the written objections of the other two election commissioners. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqkgw68yjg29o
[2] The transport minister came under flak after pushing a rushed transition to higher ethanol fuel blends. It transpired that his sons just happened to have set up ethanol factories just before the policy was announced and their net worth went up by 5000%. https://www.bhaskarenglish.in/originals/news/whye20-fuel-put...
Can also just be an asymmetric bet - relatively small outlay with low chance of working, but massive upside if it does, such that it's still positive expected value.
But mostly, I think all these armchair quarterbacks should not have very strong opinions about something that they almost certainly don't know much about compared to the people who build these. The person I responded to cited a random blog that ran some numbers, and includes such gems as "In space, a broken fan or a fried motherboard is a crisis." Just... lol
I guess no one dares calling out that the emperor is naked.
Getting it up there and unfolding is an engineering problem, but if you have about 5 times the height as the width of your solar facing front it’s just a matter of moving heat around internally
All solvable, but all difficult and unexpected problems which make everything about operating in space difficult.
And probably the biggest one: absolutely no possibility of service or cheap replacement (sure you don't repair a computer on earth, but you don't need a rocket launch to put a new rack in).
Also you have to pay for them to be launched, which isn't cheap even if you're SpaceX.
And somehow most of the replies seem to be about terrorism. What a comment section.
I'd expect the discussion to be a bit more focused on the scalability and solar power..
Cooling in space is a solved problem for these designs, by construction. They start with existing, flight-proven systems that handle some N KW of heat rejection in space, and shape they payload to require less than N KW of heat, meaning they can technically use existing design as platform and swap out the payload (there is devil in the details around integration here).
That's why there's little weight in papers about this, and they instead focus on actually novel challenges (like operating ML hardware in high-radiation environments).
But yes, I too expected the discussion to be more substantial. As it is, we have a rehash from discussion on that "ML in space" paper from ~6 months ago, which solved thermals by construction and explained how this makes economic sense, and people 100% ignored that, and all comments were a mix of "it makes no economic sense" and "have they thought about how to cool it?".
*sigh*
> Can we deploy a shitload of computers
That's the "is it economical?" question, and to spoil the answer, "with the way launch prices have been dropping in last few years, yes".
(Also the larger question of "relative to datacenters on the ground" is answered by "yes, if you want clean power for it" - turns out moving compute up is more economical than beaming power from space, and costs down here are becoming dominated by land price anyway.)
> in space that are running extremely compute intensive tasks on a continuous basis?
"Extremely compute intensive tasks" is just elaborate and overspecific way of saying "requires N KW of power".
There is nothing magical about compute here, power is power - it doesn't matter whether you spend it on ML, or collecting photons and radioing them back to Earth, or broadcasting a high-precision clock. You need some N KW to run = you need to collect that much, and you need to reject that much of it as heat[0].
--
[0] - That + whatever extra heat you absorb from the Sun.
It's one thing to vandalize some cameras or a driverless car in your neighborhood.
Traveling to a large, potentially secured facility to commit terrorism is on another level.
It being inside a building it is also much more difficult to damage and the consequences would be far greater.
I'd think one would need strong motivations for such actions.
A protest seems much more realistic, but I did not even hear of protests at data centers yet, only a small one at OpenAI headquarters.
Taking away work was exactly the premise it was sold under.
No one promised any utopia of any sort. The only promise was that AI would put people out of work. The rest is just some naive Star Trek bullshit that was never on the table.
Pretty sure all it's being promoted for is that it will make ~10 people richer than any human being in history.
Well, this part ain't coming without a revolution.
Real basic income will be a lot less like Star Trek and a lot more like The Expanse.
Also, revolutions are rarely ever started by the lower class. They're always started by the middle tier of society, enraging those helpful idiots lower than them to attack those above them. They end up with many dead and many suffering. Those who cry out for revolution have never seen the horrors of war.
> “I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell. … You people of the South don’t know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don’t know what you’re talking about. War is a terrible thing! … War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”
-William T. Sherman
That will never happen and capitalism is pretty creative in creating artificial scarcities.
You are far too naive if you think there is a non-bloody way to basically remove the wall between the classes, and that those in power will not try to do everything they can to keep their wealth and "higher lifestyle".
"What if we had taxed the internet?
"What was once framed as a trivial tax—half a cent to download a photo, or a cent to send 100 emails—would now cost the average American household an estimated $784,000 per year."
Incredible stats from @JaredWalczak"
https://x.com/senatorshoshana/status/2095980044657021352?s=2...
So are container ships in international waters. Put them there.
People are how and why things work at all. Wealth hoarders obsessively try to eliminate "the human element" because people are also going to turn on you when you mistreat them long enough. Given that we're already talking about space-based data centers, economic efficiency has long gone out the window as a justification for the "need" to remove humans from the equation.
The problem is that try as they might, you can't have it both ways: society requires people cooperating in order to maintain the systems they take for granted but at the same time they do everything to disrupt cooperation and to isolate themselves from people because people have every reason to hate their guts.
It's the ultimate "anarcho-capitalist" folly: in order to enforce a vastly disproportionate property claim (i.e. significantly more than your "fair share" by many orders of magnitude) you need to be able to maintain a vastly disproportionate threat of violence (i.e. significantly more than you could physically deal out yourself by many orders of magnitude) but at this kind of scale the only way to do so requires you to rely on other people (because at some point even carrying around a nuclear warhead with a dead man switch would no longer be a sufficient deterrent) - states exist to solve exactly this problem (among other things) but they still rely on people cooperating. Even "transhumanism" doesn't solve the problem unless you go the Peter Thiel route and see the end of all human life as a possibly necessary part of the process.
EDIT: To pivot back on-topic: guys with guns may not be an acceptable part of the solution for some companies but they can very much be part of the problem. And considering what Iran and the Houthis (or Ukraine for that matter) have been demonstrating, sometimes even guys with very basic explosives and consumer grade electronics can be enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3m4z9CoXEY
So unless those pirates have their own space program, it's pretty safe up there.
They appear to be trivially damaged by ships "accidentally" dragging their anchor.
Where does this happen, besides the Gulf of Aden off the Somali coast?
One thing that gives me some small level of comfort is that the billionaires who have the means to make that sort of thing happen don't want to live in bunkers or a radioactive wasteland afterwards. They have it pretty good on Earth as it is now. So there's only so bad things can get (I hope).
To your point, it does feel like we are bouldering towards major disruption, even the unravelling of the fabric of society, thanks to worsening inequality as well as the impacts of AI. In the coming decades we may well have a billion climate refugees. We may have large swathes of the population who have no productive outlet in a world that still requires you to have a job to live. And that could go south very, very quickly.
So I guess my point is that if things get so bad you need to put your AI DC in space to avoid the unwashed masses burning it down, I suspect we'll have far bigger problems long before that becomes an issue.
Look at our present woes in the Middle East. We have two nuclear powers who are dragging the world towards economic collapse. I believe that before we reach that economic doomsday scenario or anyone seriously considers deploying nuclear weapons, the money behind those powers will oust those who try to push us past the brink.
To this point, I believe there's a very real possibility that Trump gets 25A'ed next year, meaning the 25th Amendment is invoked to remove him from office.
https://www.reuters.com/world/poland-suspects-fire-starlink-...
Nope. Depending on the number of satellites in the constellation, it could be very hard or impossible. Russia has only so many orbital-class interceptors.
So bottom line a proof of concept for DARPA funds and eventual inegration into the military command and control nodes.
I suppose it is about being out of reach of cheap drones?
Both of which give the US military more persistent (revisit delay near zero because number of assets) and survivable (number of assets + LEO debris characteristics + cattle vs pets) ISTAR.
And an advantage in persistent ISTAR is a key enabler of the way the US military is aiming to fight a peer state adversary.
I'd be fascinated to dig into the contracts, but at 10,000' it's DoD offloading the bulk of the development cost onto NASA and the public (which in both cases, still gets good value for money).
Newer acronym, but apparently en vogue with the "How do we maintain a critical military space capability against someone who can shoot down exquisite satellites?" crowd.
if you're in a war where people are shooting your satellites out of the sky you're past the point where defenses matter. theres no grey war in space like russia hiring people to blow up stuff in europe and very few states could take out multiple satellites in space.
beyond that if we ever did get to that point, you could develop anti missile tech in space, you effectively have the high ground sitting at the top of the gravity well.
If space powers have any sense at all they'll develop a fleet of satellites that deploy small limpet craft that attach to the enemies' satellites and drag them toward earth.
Literal shooting sounds like mutually assured satellite destruction.
The internationally hoped for outcome should be that China continues scaling their orbital use, to the point where it becomes mutually advantageous to sign a treaty with the US banning orbital debris-creating weapons (and ideally imposing mutually-supported consequences on non-signatories who breach the agreement).
Then everyone would be left with more sane options of disabling-only (microwave, laser, targeted EMP, etc).
Starshield, on the other hand, has been directly funded by the US government to the tune of ~$9b in reported funding (much of it NRO or Space Force classified). It has ~250 satellites up as of now.
> A subsidy, subvention or government incentive is a type of government expenditure which redistributes from tax payers to individuals, households, or businesses. Subsidies take various forms, such as direct government expenditures, tax incentives, soft loans, price support, and government provision of goods and services.
SpaceX benefited from the italicized items in this definition.
Starlink didn't get any subsidies. There were reports in summer about them potentially getting 600 Mio (btw the broadband program is 40 billion heavy) and I can't find sources that SpaceX got any program founding yet.
If you don't count the launcher it rides on, and the company that owns both.
(No, "payment to launch this satellite" != "subsidy".)
You're correct that "we'll pay you to launch this satellite" isn't a subsidy. But "we'll pay you to develop this satellite launcher, and this cargo capsule, and this crew capsule, with the explicit goal of kickstarting a new launch provider" is.
Things like the EV tax credit also apply, considering Musk has leveraged his Tesla holdings to help SpaceX at times.
And to be clear: this was a very good use of public funds, whatever I think of Musk these days.
"$38 billion!", the Post shouts about in the headline, knowing full well that people will take away that every cent was a true, untrammeled, unconditional "subsidy", as opposed to government contracts that came after successfully meeting that early ambitious goal the NASA development contract laid out for SpaceX.
By that logic, every US university with federal funding is being subsidized à la Musk. Every small business that gets an SBA loan—the type of low-interest loan that the Post article highlights—is being subsidized. The NASA program that helped fund Falcon 1 were available to anyone with a promising design, and was contingent on meeting various milestones; to paraphrase the old saying about the early manned space program, no Buck Rogers, no bucks. SpaceX delivered the Buck Rogers.
Regarding Crew Dragon, SpaceX and Boeing each signed contracts as part of the Commercial Crew program for six operational manned missions. After SpaceX fulfilled its six, NASA awarded another contract for eight more (and just purchased a few more). Meanwhile, in addition to Boeing being paid substantially much for its half of the program, the company received a $300 million special, uncontracted payment in 2016 (not disclosed until 2019) to further accelerate development.
The Starliner flight that spectacularly ran into difficulties at ISS in 2024 was a pre-operational manned test mission (SpaceX's equivalent was done in May 2020). In other words, Boeing has not yet begun its six operational missions!
Getting back to the Post article:
>Government contracts to SpaceX from NASA and the Defense Department make up the majority of funds.
Again, this isn't the US government giving sacks full of cash to Musk just because it feels like it. Biden's NASA administrator Bill Nelson quoted a member of the Joint Chiefs as telling him that SpaceX had saved the US government $40 billion for just launching military payloads <https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/06/05/did-spacex-really-...>.
On the civilian side, SpaceX saved NASA $2 billion for just one payload, Europa Clipper <https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/a-year-from-launch-the...>, so who knows how many billions more from other launches.
That is correct.
> Every small business that gets an SBA loan—the type of low-interest loan that the Post article highlights—is being subsidized.
Yes.
> Meanwhile, in addition to Boeing being paid substantially much for its half of the program, the company received a $300 million special, uncontracted payment in 2016 (not disclosed until 2019) to further accelerate development.
"Boeing is subsidized" is not a controversial statement.
> On the civilian side, SpaceX saved NASA $2 billion for just one payload
Yes, this is why we do subsidies - they (potentially) pay off. We subsidize healthcare for poor people because it saves us money in the long run. We subsidize infrastructure because it helps the economy. We subsidize critical manufacturers for national security reasons.
How is it you're reading "x is subsidized" - a simple fact - to mean "subsidizing x is bad" - a matter of opinion that varies from subsidy to subsidy and company to company?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy
"A subsidy, subvention or government incentive is a type of government expenditure which redistributes from tax payers to individuals, households, or businesses. Subsidies take various forms, such as direct government expenditures, tax incentives, soft loans, price support, and government provision of goods and services."
You and I, and everyone else, knows what "Musk got subsidies" means to the mentally reddited of the world:
>the US government giving sacks full of cash to Musk just because it feels like it.
That he should be grateful for the taxpayers support? That government interventions can, at times, be highly successful?
Do you base every conversation on "what would the dumbest Redditor think"?
Sadly, the mentally reddited are too numerous and widespread—including on HN—to always blightely ignore.
I'll answer my own rhetorical question. Your implication is that every single thing Musk and Musk's companies are doing today—Dragon, Crew Dragon, Falcon 9, Starship, xAI, Tesla, etc., etc.—are "subsidized"—again, with the "sacks of free money with dollar signs painted on them" connotation—because of that Falcon 1 program two decades ago. If believing that makes you feel better about the accomplishments of someone you admit to greatly disliking, congratulations.
And before you deny doing so, you are the one who wrote
>> Starlink didn't get any subsidies.
>If you don't count the launcher it rides on, and the company that owns both.
Maybe you're projecting your own beliefs about government subsidizing things a little on other people. The government made a risky bet; that's one of the important things governments exist for. Sometimes they pay off (SpaceX), sometimes they don't (Starliner).
Perhaps the next time someone correctly notes SpaceX got subsidized you might lead with the clear positive cost savings you eventually defended them with?
> What was your purpose in insta-citing that article…
It was the first reputable source that came up in Google? It gives several specifics that directly match the Wikipedia definition of a subsidy?
> because of that Falcon 1 program two decades ago
Falcon 1 got them the subsidies. It was the most unsubsidized part of SpaceX!
> If believing that makes you feel better about the accomplishments of someone you admit to greatly disliking, congratulations.
I can be a big SpaceX fan and still wish the man running it hadn't gotten brainworms.
> And before you deny doing so, you are the one who wrote…
Why would I deny that? I asserted Starlink has been subsidized, and stand by that claim. I'd thought we'd settled that point handily by now.
mfw
>I asserted Starlink has been subsidized, and stand by that claim. I'd thought we'd settled that point handily by now.
And here you were questioning my need to speak to the mentally reddited.
Even accepting the notion that a small NASA pay-for-performance program = "subsidy" = Falcon 1 (with Musk throwing his entire $100 million fortune into starting a cockamamie rocket startup despite having zero experience in the field having absolutely nothing to do with the rocket meeting the program's goals, of course), name the subsidies that resulted in Falcon 9, in vertical-landing Falcon 9, in Dragon, in Crew Dragon, in Starship, in Starlink, in Starshield. (And before you say it, Starlink was turned down for the FCC rural subsidy.)
>Perhaps the next time someone correctly notes SpaceX got subsidized you might lead with the clear positive cost savings you eventually defended them with?
As I said,
>Your implication is that every single thing Musk and Musk's companies are doing today—Dragon, Crew Dragon, Falcon 9, Starship, xAI, Tesla, etc., etc.—are "subsidized"—again, with the "sacks of free money with dollar signs painted on them" connotation—because of that Falcon 1 program two decades ago.
Again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy
"Subsidies take various forms, such as direct government expenditures, tax incentives, soft loans, price support, and government provision of goods and services."
Tesla received low-interest loans (and tax credits for their customers). SpaceX was given funds (that'll be "direct government expenditures") to develop the Falcon 9, Cargo Dragon, and Crew Dragon (and now the lunar lander). Those funds were not conditional on completion of the program (as we've seen with Starliner); they were R&D funding in milestones in hopes of a functional spacecraft at the end.
> with Musk throwing his entire $100 million fortune into starting a cockamamie rocket startup despite having zero experience in the field having absolutely nothing to do with the rocket meeting the program's goals, of course
Again with the strawmen.
"You got subsidies" and "you had nothing to do with the success" are wildly different statements. You can be both an extremely hard worker and supergenius and still need government support for your very expensive good idea.
> Your implication is that every single thing Musk and Musk's companies are doing today—Dragon, Crew Dragon, Falcon 9, Starship, xAI, Tesla, etc., etc.—are "subsidized"—again, with the "sacks of free money with dollar signs painted on them" connotation—because of that Falcon 1 program two decades ago.
No, the opposite. Falcon 1 is the single least subsidized part of it. It was the one big bit Musk completely self-funded.
They demonstrated an ability to get to orbit (after almost going bankrupt), which gave NASA the confidence to subsidize them in a larger project.
Please, read, then react to it.
If SpaceX failed to deliver a working product after a receiving a bunch of incremental payments for the pre-delivery milestones (deliberately structured to prop up their early R&D), it might have ended up front and center as an example of government "picking winners and losers" gone wrong like how Solyndra was featured at the 2012 RNC.
Yes, but while I do not see the first, I can clearly see the latter :)
You enforce laws the same way you do otherwise: if they are in your jurisdiction and don't comply, you arrest them; if they're in a jursdiction you're friendly with you ask for extradition; if they're in a jurisdiction you're not friendly with and you really need them to cease whatever they ceasen't, you have them accidentally fall out of a high enough window.
You can't shut down a DC in space. But even if someone has moved their DC into space, their terrestial human body is still very easily shut down one way or another. And maybe less gruesomely, so is whatever comms infrastructure they need to maintain in order to actually connect to that DC - if the DC is sufficiently "out of reach" (i.e. not in low Earth orbit) it likely requires optical transmission if it can accomplish any data rate high enough to allow it to be used for something sufficiently annoying and optics are fickle and require careful calibration.
But seriously, us tech nerds routinely underestimate rubber hose cryptoanalyis (cf. XKCD 538). If you can bypass government regulation it's because the government isn't sufficiently interested in making you stop whatever it is you think you need to bypass their regulations to do. If your goal with operating a DC in space is to evade the "regulatory arbitrage", you're literally advertising your intent to operate what will most likely be a criminal enterprise so unless you have sufficient financial resources to exert political leverage in your favor (cf. Musk), you're just asking for trouble.
it does not see the sun half of the time
polar orbits don't come to the rescue, they are quite busy already
From TFA:
> In low Earth orbit, satellites can access near-constant sunlight, generating up to eight times more solar power than on Earth.
That's obviously a reference to sun-synchronous orbit. You don't get 8 times more solar power in a low inclination orbit.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-confirms-weapons-in-space-ch...
I'm not sure that's truly the case here, but it does seem like the tech Project Suncatcher is working on has at least some overlap with requirements for military SIGINT and in-orbit imagery processing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bombing_of_the_C...
It's getting quite tiresome.
And the preliminary design shapes aren't unknown. They just have huge ass solar panels and radiators. Plenty of space in ... space.
And why haven’t these genius engineers delivered on basically any of Musk’s promises on time? Or at all, in many cases?
You have the entirely wrong impression of people here. TONS of people are saying exactly that, and trying to disqualify the whole debate.
>likely for years to come
Starship is putting its first business payload to orbit in two days. The craft represents making mass to orbit magnitude(s) cheaper. Read the text on your side mirrors.
>any of Musk’s promises on time
I find this argument so frivolous. Ok, so they've made what was considered impossible, _late_ on a few occasions? And they visibly iterate, showing failure, as if it makes them somehow worse? It does kind of sound like you are not the engineering type, or at least don't work with actual hard problems.
The smartest people are still geniuses and the smartest even if they're late, while no one else is ahead of them.
There's a case to be made that a substantial part of the mobile/social web revolution of the Aughties was at least in part propelled by the exploding budget of the security state post-9/11. LifeLog, In-Q-Tel, a bucket of other programs that have straight-line-relationships with the various Web 2.0 shenanigans. The CIA point man for these operations are recognizable today as some of the new generation of American semi-governmental oligarchs.
This last year I read that the early Stingrays only worked because they were engineered in from the IMSI standards - it was backdoored at the spec level, not the design level, not the manufacturing level.
When you step back a moment it makes sense. Who's funding a wireless information infrastructure to every American on the continent, not to mention a sea change in mobile computing manufacturing and development. Different tooling, different design systems, different everything, massive scale . . . what, paid for with advertising? Are you saying Mad Men is paying for all this? That seemed and seems . . . unlikely.
A bank run happens when everyone tries to withdraw all their money at the same time and the bank runs out of cash. Not really possible in the stock market where companies literally can create/destroy shares and there is a whole secondary pricing layer to it.
1. https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/alphabets-spacex-be...
Didnt you answer your own question? Most would consider a 100x ROI more than sufficient for taking profits
They've not got a pressing need for the cash, so can afford to take a multi-decade view of SpaceX. If you look at other investors who take a view across that time horizon, you'll see some pension funds and huge trusts putting money into SpaceX for the same reason.
It's overpriced today on fundamentals, but in 50 years time, today's price will look cheap.
PlanetLabs is the company providing the satellite bus infrastructure to Google for this project.
I think dodging debris is challenging at that scale.
Also this is the solar cells not the radiators
Up to you how plausible you think that is.
> Figure 3. A data center in Sun Synchronous Orbit, showing a 4km x 4km deployed solar array and radiators.
given solar cells are only 30% efficient. if you put the radiators behind the panels then you have the structure already and always keep the radiators shaded
So not really. There are some proposals for space-based geoengineering, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S146290112... has a summary. I can't say how plausible any of them are.
That’s 4000 acres. I see a 6000 acre ranch available in Arizona for $7m. The cost of building a 5GW DC is about 100 billion. Land including enough for all the solar and battery you need to be completely self sufficient is basically free.
Consider a global human population, fractured into historically formed nations and power blocs. Consider corruption and clans taking up a fraction of positions of power at a certain duty cycle. It's unavoidable legislative bodies would eventually abuse control of technology, for those points in time yes, doing the right thing becomes doing the illegal thing, but only because corruption attained such powers.
> Otherwise the economies do not make sense.
The economics at what scale? At scales of earthly compute, earth is cheaper and more maintainable. At stellar scale, the power simply isn't available on Earth, so the most economic path is whatever is the most economic space ML datacenter path.
Militaries.
On the ground nothing harms your own infra by dropping a bomb on another datacenter that might be powering the opponents entire military strategy.
Terrorism threat is nonexistent now, but maybe not in the future.
The other line items are probably similarly unrealistic since they include their own launch costs as well.
They also spec 300 racks of 500kg each, which is <40% of the weight of the comparable land rack. I doubt the full weight reduction since the racks still need to survive launch force/vibration in addition to fluid/pressure enclosures that land racks don't require. I think it's likely that just about every part of this report has a similarly cooked numbers, and we can just throw the whole thing out.
If not, then you may realize how stupid your comment is.
NVidia's recent support for warm (45 °C) water cooling for their new racks probably had more impact on price of compute than than space servers will ever have.
However, the only advantage listed in this announcement is "near-constant sunlight". It appears they are hoping for 8x solar efficiency for 1000x the cost of terrestrial construction.
If the actual motivation is that people don't want data centers on earth, that seems to be because the datacenters 1) drive up energy costs, 2) use a lot of water I guess, and 3) can make noise. If you're able to operate a datacenter satellite you apparently don't need local electricity, water, or human labor. As someone else said, set up on the desert or in the middle of Alaska somewhere 100s of miles from the nearest person. They can still use solar (just build like 8x the panels if you need to... still cheaper than space), they don't need water, don't need labor... I think most public opposition would disappear.
I've heard some say the real advantage is latency for spy satellites... This seems not a real use case. The kind of workloads that require this kind of datacenter usually can spare 1-2 seconds in round trip time. Millisecond-sensative reactions I would assume would want to be driven by onboard processing.
One true advantage that I haven't seen on any brochure is that the heat produced by the space datacenters could be released into space rather than raise the temperature of the earth. However, the satellite would have to be designed to radiate the heat away from earth. Hopefully they design the satellites to direct the radiated heat away from earth and don't just point the radiators straight back to earth...
I don't think the opposition to data center projects can be explained with actual impact, which so far seems entirely negligible, and lower than heavy industry.
I had the impression it's more driven by general mistrust in public officials and the tech industry.
No. Ideology is never bothered by facts and never leaves anything alone.
I don’t know about the desert, but in Alaska I think this would be hard to achieve. People there tend to care about preserving wilderness, and most of them would probably be opposed to this.
TPU: 100,000+ watts/square-meter
Radiator: ~300 watts/square-meter
"Scientists" being detractors and everyone going online to comment about how something is impossible while the people doing the thing just do it then all the detractors quietly shrug it off until the next time is so consistent it feels like Groundhog Day. I'd really like to learn about why so many people get off by saying something that other people are working on is impossible.
I guess you are doing the opposite?
> "Scientists" being detractors and everyone going online to comment about how something is impossible while the people doing the thing just do it
Let's make a chart for how many times this has worked vs failed.
You see, this is the difference between bullshit and not. I can claim "we'll do timetravel soon !", but unless I share some "things" (whatever they are) that might sustain that affirmation, this is just bullshit
Does it mean that no solution exists ? No. Just that today none are known (as far as I can tell).
Your desire to call out bullshit is stronger than your ability to GSD.
People are working on problems I cannot manage (who could have known) and they cannot say anything about that but we have to trust them to bring results out of thin air ? Is this politics .. ?
If your personal accusations can be boiled down to : "shame ! you are not gullible!", then please know that, here in France, not being gullible is a compliment.
Both of those are expensive as hell, by the way.
Cooling via radiation follows Stefan–Boltzmann: P = εσAT⁴. Let's assume a good surface (emissivity ~0.9) at 300 K (27 °C) at 400 W per square meter per side. A flat panel radiating from both faces into deep space gets 800 W/m, not including the losses from, say, the Sun, or from IR coming off the Earth. Now, input power. Sunlight in orbit ~1,360 W/m², assume ~22% cell efficiency, we got 300 W/m². So each 1 MW compute, 3,300 m² of solar panel and minimum 1,200–1,500 m² of radiator.
In case ya didn't know - 1 MW is tiny from a present-day-datacenter perspective. It's like 8 racks. So we're talking orbital megastructures here, many many many square kilometers, and this is with all the best case assumptions, and magic radiator panels that never see the sun, or the earth, or the moon.
This is just the basic numbers here, by the way. There's a garbage truck full of other unsolvable problems if you poke your head in there.
Aside from the "Avoid Regulations" aspect, and the "Everything That Burns Deorbiting is Depreciation" aka "The Starlink Trick", I'm not sure what the hell the draw is.
one is marketing.
the other is that you could make tiny datacenters and flood the sky with them. in effect, not datacenters at all, but some kind of dataswarm coordinating at literal lightspeed via lasers.
they'd still be wildly expensive to deploy, and probably litter the orbit zone with fast-moving debris.
You want to go smaller and go one rack only sure, it's still hundreds of square meters. Check the size of current orbital structure for a point of reference, you can't dwarf those and call it a "dataswarm of tiny datacenters flooding the sky".
For that you might need more advanced stuff like liquid droplet radiators (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_droplet_radiator), heat sinks & pulsed operation. Still, it should be eventually doable.
As for space data centers - I think the main issue is the complete lack of in space infrastructure for resource mining, processing and manufacturing & maintenance. It is kinda like building your first practical steam locomotive & the deciding to build directly an airliner. No suitable materils, experience, work force, material sources, etc.
We eventually went from locomotives to airliner, in an incremental manner & expanding the supporting infrastructure to support the ever more ambitious projects.
Method 1: same as how u2 planes dumped their data: air drop physical media containing data and catch it in the air.
Method 2: laser based emission to specific detectors.
Method 3: baseball style communication: station is under observation and manipulates in some way to serve as a signalling language.
Method 4: numbers station
Method 5: bill yourself as an isp and have some coded syntax that can be supplied in plain sight with the rest of isp traffic.
Training models takes weeks, are you really worried about a couple hours?
> Can be jammed by drone with laserpointer
Ok, you're just joking
Why do you think GPS is so easy to spoof?
Actually I just googled (clauded?) to learn more about space lasers and found a paper describing interrupting quantum key distribution (tamper evident but not jam proof!) with a 1kw laser on the ground pointed at the satellite! So it really does not take many photons to fuck up an encrypted signal.
“ Vulnerability of Satellite Quantum Key Distribution to Disruption from Ground-Based Lasers”
Definitely not signals from low earth orbit.
never? I doubt that.
Technology will improve over time. Eventually I bet it will become cheaper.
Have you tried building in the U.S.? Why do you think it's so expensive to build in the U.S.? It's due to regulation and red tape.
Thermodynamics says no today, no tomorrow, and no 100 years from now. That's not ever going to change.
The old Chicago School boogeymen of unions, regulations, and red tape are effectors, but they're a pimple on the back of the world-mutating effects of seven-some decades of USD Seigniorage.
I imagine we're going to be living through the reverse of this Seigniorage experiment quite soon.
2) The International Space Station has used a dual-loop ammonia/water-based heat pump to cool the station temperatures. It's been in place for several decades. Heat pumps are a proven technology.
Other satellites have also used heat pumps, such as SES-17 in geostationary orbit https://www.esa.int/Applications/Connectivity_and_Secure_Com...
If we want the heat pump's cold end at about 40–65°C, then for each 1MW of GPU heat, we need another 1MW of heat pump power. Now you need 2MW of solar power.
Good news is that the radiator at 227C (500K) can emit about 5× more heat per square meter than at 57C (330K)
Looks like some experimental pumps within this region have CoP around 30%: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605...
So you'll need a lot of additional energy to run the pumps. Which will require additional radiator area.
That's thumping the Carnot limit: [[T_cold / (T_hot − T_cold)]].
2.5, while rejecting at 500 K, cold side's at least 357 K (eeehhhhhhh 84 °C) . . . and that's an absolutely perfect Carnot machine. At 50% Carnot -- a pretty good heat pump, real world performance is 40-60 -- cold side's at 417 K (144 °C). 417k, feeding your GPU coolant loops.
With those numbers, ideal carnot would be 500/(500-357) = 3.5.
Multi-stage could potentially get you to a COP of 2 or so. So 0.5MW.
Depends on which heat you want
Heat adding to hot side: COP_heat = Q_hot / W = T_hot / (T_hot − T_cold).
Heat leaving the cold side: COP_cool = Q_cold / W = T_cold / (T_hot − T_cold).
Another one (more common in the day to day, for me at least): heat-engine efficiency, η = 1 - T_cold / T_hot. Cycle forward to make work from heat.
Luckily, there are almost no rock in space.
Though I do wonder if it would be possible to have some kind of internal heat pump driven by electrical power to juice up the temperature of the radiators to increase the power being radiated away? E.g., run a heat pump to increase the temperature of a working fluid and then run high temperature radiators? I think it would work and I don't immediately see that it would violate the laws of thermodynamics? (this is ignoring all practically, I'm sure the engineering would be devilishly hard, although if you're already shooting for the moon you might as well throw in some artificial gravity to boot, it's not like the robots get motion sickness)
We need > 2x more solar panels than we need radiators. Doesn't this imply radiation isn't really the limiting factor here?
Also also, how do you get the heat out there, to the panel? You are talking a lot of plumbing, and a lot of working fluid. As mentioned, ISS's two external cooling loops hold about 540 kg of ammonia combined to dump 70 kW of heat, so at the megawatt scale thousands and tens of thousands of kg of working fluid. I know, new heat exchanger, lots of people have brought up "Magic Heat Exchanger Technology X", but no one's given me a cite to at least lay down the fundamentals on how these things manage to bang all over the Carnot numbers.
I'm no downer on space solar. It's probably the long term solution for humanity's energy needs - an equatorial band on the Moon, or even Mercury, would give us more power than we could ever reasonably use. But presenting it as the fix for the data center problem . . . I'm sorry, it sounds like people chasing other people's money. Which is what got us into this mess in the first place.
(This follows because a physical object can't absorb more light than a perfect blackbody spanning its convex hull. A perfect blackbody by definition absorbs 100% of incident light, which is a hard upper bound. Any line incident on an object is also incident on its convex hull).
(Consider an isothermal object that emits more power than a blackbody in the shape of its hull at the same temperature. If you were to place that object in a closed system at thermal equilibrium, the interior of an insulated emissive sphere—combining assumptions, it would emit more power than it absorbs, in violation of the 2nd law. Starting from an isothermal system, the object would grow colder, and the enclosing container hotter).
At any rate, 1 MW for a single satellite is fine. Just launch several thousand of those and you get to real numbers.
Also, there's no need to talk about "magic" radiators. You orient them so they're at a knife edge to both the Sun and Earth. This is not difficult (the Moon is irrelevant).
They run fine for a short while, but not nearly as long.
Heat accelerates all aging processes. It's how they artificially age chips in order to calculate MTBF.
The only valid argument against data centers in space is the economic cost. If the per megatoken price for space datacenters is higher than terrestrial, then this won't work.
But the price for terrestrial datacenters keeps going up and technology keeps dropping the price of space-based.
If you are trying to generate a profit, every extra kg puts you further in the red. It still costs over $1000/kg of mass to get into orbit.
But if it's an economic argument, then you need to do the actual math. How big is the radiator? How low could the price to orbit go? How much can you charge per million tokens in 2030?
The reason this is a fake argument is because the validity depends on the math, and nobody advancing the "you can't cool stuff in space" argument is actually doing the math.
Sure, things would be different if the cost was $1/kg, but short of somebody building a space elevator that's just not going to happen.
But are you sure that $100/kg is not competitive? I don't remember all the math, but even their initial AI1 design[1] would throw a lot of profit, if you can sell at the price they offered to Anthropic.
I suspect the price of manufacturing the satellite, plus chips, is the dominating factor, not necessarily the launch costs.
Why wouldn;t you? he delivered on almost everything he promised, just the timeline was a lot later.
we are talking sci-fi things here, these will take time but can be done.
would you rather we bury our heads in the sand and never innovated beyond basics?
A 1GW datacenter with chips operating at 100C (which is probably doable) will need a radiator that has a surface of one square _kilometer_, and this is with all the favorable assumptions. Realistically you'll need about 2x of that.
If you want your DCs to be on a 1000km orbit (for reasonable ping times), you'll be able to _resolve_ these satellites with a naked eye!
Sorry. But this idea is fundamentally unworkable.
Deploy 4,000 and you're at 1 GW. That's 160 launches.
BTW: SpaceX has already manufactured and launched 10,000 Starlink satellites and Falcon 9 launches about 150 times per year. None of this seems unworkable.
Look at the numbers. 1kW of nuclear power capacity on Earth is around $2000, and that's 24/7 guaranteed power. So a 250kW cluster needs $500000 to cover its power demand with near 100% reliability and with some ongoing cost.
And if we're OK with some interruptions, then we can use solar+wind at around $100000 and with essentially no ongoing cost. If we assume the absolutely best projected launch cost of $100 per kg (vs the current one of ~$800), that's just 1 ton of material in space!
So you're off by 2-3 orders of magnitude in cost. And this kind of "it's unprofitable" is actually a fundamental issue.
Now your argument is that it's unprofitable. Here's the calculator: https://andrewmccalip.com/space-datacenters
Specifically, if SpaceX can get the price of a satellite down to $8 per watt (about $2 million USD) then it will compete with terrestrial.
I just don't understand how you can be so certain that they can't do that. I'm not certain that they can, but being certain that it's impossible seems completely evidence-free.
So no, the calculations show that space is NOT feasible unless you want to do that for nefarious reasons: evading regulations, using AI for criminal enterprises, military use, that sort of thing.
Only these applications have the profit margin that even comes close to justifying it.
If you want math then https://andrewmccalip.com/space-datacenters exists. The numbers are grim for orbital DC. Even if you drag the launch cost slider all the way to $1/kg (by the way this is literally sci-fi, per ChatGPT air freight of semiconductors from Taiwan to Ohio costs $9/kg and ocean/train freight costs a bit under $1/kg for a reasonable shipment so good luck with $1/kg to LEO this century) it is still more than twice as expensive as terrestrial DCs.
That sounds absolutely possible. But in any event, we're now arguing a different thing.
The only thing I'm arguing is that cooling is a solved problem. I don't know if SpaceX will ever get the price down so that it is economical. But I'm convinced that there is no universe in which they hit their foreheads and say, "Oh no, we forgot about cooling!"
> No additional mass for liquid cooling loop infrastructure; likely needed but not included
> Thermal: only solar array area used as radiator; no dedicated radiator mass assumed
In hardware and mfg. solvable vs. solved is a big difference. And I too believe that SpaceX's engineers know about radiator panels. But the more cynical interpretation is that whatever the SpaceX engineers think about the technical merits, they are not being asked for that. They are just being asked for a pretext that justifies the xAI acquisition. Elon is also discussing lunar satellite factories that launch the satellites via railgun. Now, is this physically impossible? No, that isn't physically impossible either and I will seriously defend the physical possibility of this. It's not going to happen though.
And you could spend all the engineering costs on building some seriously efficient terrestrial DCs, but somehow all these analyses start with "assume that launch and satellite technology advances manyfold and terrestrial DCs stagnate or become less efficient, then if you squint the two numbers get kinda close."
This is why that calculator, even under extremely optimistic assumptions for orbital, and even if you assume launch is zero, still cannot make it competitive with terrestrial.
> If you assume Starlink satellite $/W
Why would you assume that, given that high power output is not a design goal of Starlink?
ETA: power is absolutely important for Starlink. SNR is very important for shannon capacity and satellite systems are often limited in this respect.
Anyway, my point is that Starlink is not primarily designed to harvest as much solar power as possible the way data center sats are. I'm sure they're not making it inefficient on purpose, but what you're suggesting is like using the cost/W of a solar powered traffic camera to estimate the cost/W of a solar farm. Yes, they both use solar power, but they have entirely different design goals.
Cost is a different matter of course, but it seems incongruous to me that after being confronted with the fact that your power density assumptions were off by a factor of 2x you would continue to insist ChatGPT's weird assumptions about manufacturing costs scaling linearly with mass are accurate. As was already pointed out upthread, even if all the calculator's other assumptions are correct they can turn a profit if they get the per satellite cost (excluding the cost of the GPUs) below $2 million. I think the only big question mark here is launch cost.
So... not easy? I don't suppose we're at a point where you could reasonably send a large-enough radiator for a multi-gigawatt cluster into space?
This is all a weird speedrun or race. If something we should be working on setting up resource mining from the Moon & asteroids, materials processing on the Lunar surface & in orbit, simple manufacturing in space, etc.
Instead some people think we can jump straight to a computronium Dyson swarm. :P
You don't need to send a multi-gigawatt satellite to space. You just need to launch a few thousand 250 kW satellites. That's not against the laws of physics.
If you know all that out to 2040 then you must be a time traveler. Please try to fix our timeline rather than wasting time on HN.
>> The current plan is for 250 kW peak with 160 m^2 radiators. It will weigh about 4 tons so you can pack 25 on one flight of Starship.
>> Deploy 4,000 and you're at 1 GW. That's 160 launches.
Convective radiation does not happen in space and this challenge is far more significant than your comment implies. Rather than "a dumb hunk of metal", radiators for spacecraft are often made of ceramics and carbon laminates with higher IR emissivity than convective radiators made of simple metals.
From the article you're commenting on:
> The chips can operate for about 15 minutes in space before needing to be shut down so they can cool off, said Travis Beals, Google’s senior director of product management for Project Suncatcher.
The Thermal Control section on NASA's Small Spacecraft documentation center is quite an interesting read for this subject: https://www.nasa.gov/smallsat-institute/sst-soa/thermal-cont...
ML Infrastructure comes with some pros (larger emissive footprint) and cons (exponentially larger TDP) compared to the concerns there, but if you aren't familiar with the challenges of heat dissipation in space, please give it a read.
There's also a pretty interesting pop-sci article on cooling the Webb telescope, since it needs to be especially cold for its purpose. Not directly related, but may give insight into both challenges and solutions as well as well. https://science.nasa.gov/mission/webb/science-overview/scien...
The equation is:
A ~ (1000 P) / (2 e k T^4)
A is the radiator area in square meters
P is the power in kilowatts
e is emissivity (usually 0.9)
k is the constant 5.67e-8
Both Google and NASA are worried about this for a reason, if you think they are wrong, you should offer your assistance to them, rather than debating me.
If your argument against space datacenters is "radiator materials are too expensive" then I just think that's not a very good argument.
Moreover, you can easily calculate how big of a radiator you need for a given power level and temperature. You can use the Stefan–Boltzmann law:
A ~ (1000 P) / (2 e k T^4)
A is the radiator area in square meters
P is the power in kilowatts
e is emissivity (usually 0.9)
k is the constant 5.67e-8
For SpaceX's 175 kW satellites, they will need ~170 square meters of radiators.
None of this is impossible or even difficult to calculate. That's why I think this is the laziest argument against space data centers. There are so many other more reasonable arguments (like whether they will be economically competitive) but people love to latch on to this one for some reason.
That's like a quarter of a rack of modern AI hardware. Modern AI datacenters are now in the multi-GW range.
Now the argument is, what, you can't launch that many satellites?
How can anyone be certain of any of those numbers without (a) knowing how the technology will evolve, and (b) doing the math?
I'm just astounded that people can have such confidence.
They are showing that space-based DCs only make sense for criminal enterprises. Which probably IS what's going on here.
The 15-minute figure is what they currently designed for because they have mass constraints. If they wanted a different figure (like forever) they could do it with a larger radiator.
As you said, the physics is solved! We know exactly how much heat a surface radiates in space--there is literally an equation for it. We know how to cool stuff in space. Will the price be low enough to make a profit? That's the real question. But stop worrying about cooling in space.
If you have something useful to contribute regarding how to actually reasonably put up enough mass to make this remotely a feasible idea then please contribute. We have the technology to prevent global warming, and doing that is far easier than this, and yet even that is apparently not feasible for humanity.
What's unfeasible about that? SpaceX has already launched 10,000 Starlink satellites. Falcon 9 launches 150 times per year.
People use that argument because it takes zero thought to make and significant effort to refute.
"Space is cold" is classic zero effort to make, significant effort to refute stuff: proponents imply complete nonsense about vacuums being optimal for cooling and anyone who understands why this is a lie to gull retail investors ends up getting bogged down in "sure, but Boltzmann equations proving it's prohibitively expensive doesn't prove it isn't possible"...
You don't need civilian scale compute in space, but you absolutely can put miliary application up there and get filthy rich, like Elon, who doesn't care if it ever works, because he's getting paid as taxi service to shoot stuff up.
Sounds very probable: gives a plausible reasons for sending a lot of infra up, absolutely doesn't have to be profitable or even effective, puts the focus on AI instead of the MIC, and is in line with the kind of contracts Big Tech runs after.
To me this model explains a lot of why so many big companies seem to be investing into what every expert I've heard says goes against basic physics. The only thing missing for it to be more than an interesting idea is why China and the EU are not fighting this.
It's Golden Dome when Google does it.
I guess it's something along the same line when Jeff Bezos does it. He does indeed plan it.
What is China's motive? why do they also need to pretend they want space data centers? [0], [1]
How about Europe's? [2]
[0] - https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/space/china-puts-...
[1] - https://www.reuters.com/science/china-vows-develop-space-tou...
> The biggest challenge was how to cool the A.I. chips, which heat up when they perform calculations and process information. Fans, which typically help dissipate the heat, do not work in space. So the Silicon Valley company instead developed a cooling system that uses layers of conductive material to expel the heat into space.
> The bottom layer is made up of Google’s A.I. chips, which sit on a green motherboard. The next layer consists of “thermal interface material,” a pale green putty that comes in sheets like Fruit Roll-Ups and connects the chips to layers of aluminum and copper, radiating heat away from the motherboard. Finally, there is a radiator panel, which projects heat into space.
> The chips can operate for about 15 minutes in space before needing to be shut down so they can cool off, said Travis Beals, Google’s senior director of product management for Project Suncatcher.
Is it at least a 1:1 usage / cooling cycle?
“ We’re working on a number of different approaches for this, including a combination of heat pipes and radiators to cool the chips. So far, our team has tested the technology in a thermal vacuum chamber that simulates both the thermal and vacuum environment in space. We’ll see how our new TPU cooling system works in space and refine our designs as we learn more.”
(I guess you could try to capture the radiative photons via the photoelectric effect?? but I don't think it works.)
And they never will be because it's always going to be cheaper to build them on the ground.
They have a different approach - rather than a ceramic heat shield they have a metal shield to be cooled by the liquid H2+O2 fuel. https://youtu.be/3V6lfs7xFJM?t=191
Even while current administration is kind of positive towards them, they are still even now just having to wait for no good reason for a FAA go-ahead. These kinds of stalls don't really exist in China.
Swapping out obsolete or failing TPUs. Rewiring or replacing connections. "Listening" for sounds indicating an equipment failure.
What are the proposals to address these needs?
This is obviously a test, just like hundreds or thousands of tests in space before it. Can we run Earth-rated components at any scale in space? How will it fail in various ways, at what rate, and are the causes able to be mitigated?
"We" talk about moonbases and Mars colonies. Part of any extended presence in space will involve the presence of computational devices. They're figuring out how to make that work with modern hardware. That's my take, anyway.
I like the "moonshot research" framing, in particular, because it highlights that even negative results will be valuable, either as improvements for ground technology or as published data to inform other initiatives of what has already been tried and failed.
Maybe this project exists because the "early in the game" factor. It has worked well in the past for Google, OpenAI, etc. They used copyrighted content to train LLMs to sell AI. They indexed Yahoo directory and websites before robots.txt existed, once they have a dominant position they put robots.txt in Google results so new players can't use their content. And they are launching AI in Space before regulations and politics catch up.
we talked big game for a long time about bringing manufacturing back to the US, but the practicalities would likely have been impossible in our modern political climate
As a long time space and technology nerd, this is the coolest fucking time to be alive!
1. Cost to launch / mass lowering due to technological advancements.
2. Mass / compute lowering due to technological advancements.
3. Compute hardware evolution stagnating to the pace, relative to compute payloads, where CapEx is amortized over longer duration.
4. Compute & energy hardware reliability improving so OpEx is lower, and remaining useful life predictably keeps hardware running over its designed lifetime.
A wishy-washy inequality (per time, factoring out launch cost from OpEx):
Revenue - CapEx/lifetime - (launch_cost + OpEx) * (1 + failures) > 0
Note: I did 1+failures to denote baseline cost (initial launch, nominal OpEx).
- Unlimited geothermal energy.
- Cold climate for heat dissipation
- tons of land
That's why we just annexed it.
Yoink!
- You still do need staff, it's not cheap building a mini city for 200 maintenance worker, much less the 5,000+ construction crew, and you'll have to pay premium to get people to actually do it
You’re totally right. I thought it was Greenland with geothermal. But it’s Iceland. Thx!
Follow-up question - then why not Iceland? It has geothermal, airports, less geopolitical tension, etc
1. Hardware failures: If you know anything about data centers you know that servers fail all the time. I've seen estimates of AI DC servers that have a failure rate of about 9% annually. A terrestrial DC has hardware techs who get alerted to the failure, replace the bits with known good bits and then take the suspect bits for testing to either bin them or verify they're working. You have no option to economically do this in space;
2. Radiation: We have the atmosphere and a concrete box protecting ground-based servers from cosmic rays flipping bits as well as the potentially more problematic (in space) solar storms;
3. Power generation: solar is the only option and yes, orbital panels would be more efficient than ground based. But space-based solar solar tech is much more expensive than what we put here on Earth because it absorbs multiple wavelengths of light to generate electricity. The launch cost and weight savings overcome the high panel costs. But to generate power in the gigawatt range, you're talking about solar panel arrays far larger than anything we've ever deployed in space;
4. Cooling: this is a big one. The only way to get rid of heat is to radiate it away into space and this is bound by physics. I'm sure people have done the maths on this but it's not going to be pretty;
5. Heating: the sun will be heating your vessel a lot of the time. You can shield it to some degree with solar panels but they too will radiate away heat in all directions, which will heat the things behind them. JWST uses several sophisticated layers of cooling to reach the low temperatures it needs to operate; and
6. Interconnectivity: these things are likely to be tens of kilometers apart in the very least. You're going to need terabit level networking to be useful for coordination and even then latency will be an issue. Laser dispersion will be an issue as well as the power and heat generated.
I honestly don't know what anyone is trying to achieve with any of this.
What do you do when you need to manually maintain server structure in space? Just the idea of a set of rogue autonomous data centers in space seems like an intriguing story idea.
Putting data centers in Antarctica or extreme north Canadian islands would also put you out of the way of molotov-throwing joe public. Even in space your not safe from the voting public as long as your companies directors are sitting on earth somewhere.
"whether space could one day host scalable machine learning infrastructure. In low Earth orbit, satellites can access near-constant sunlight, generating up to eight times more solar power than on Earth. Eventually, it could be possible to link together multiple constellations of satellites, allowing them to manage larger AI workloads while in orbit."
More sunlight! :D
$50 on black. No other cost-effective use case. The US government only lets you pollute orbit when you're helping them, like Starlink.
Suggesting such an idea without indicating how - and more importantly, why - you are going to do it makes it an article of faith.
Do I have faith in their trustworthiness? No. Do I think they want to do marketing for their AI financing? Yes!
i mean why wouldn;t you want sci-fi things taking shape?
No it isn't. That isn't true.
They know it is never going to be cost-effective, compared to building on the ground. People who know better are lying to the public about the feasibility of data centers in space.
It would easily raise the cost by an order of magnitude (or more) to launch a data center into space, compared to current AI data centers on the ground; it's the equivalent of building 100+ ISS space stations to house a Colossus in space. It costs even more to launch your materials if you want sun-synchronous orbit.
It's not just expensive to do at scale, it's impossibly expensive to do at scale. This is a science project, launching a few tomato plants into space to see what happens. Data centers in space are decades away (if ever).
I would believe that military deployments will happen; a couple of TPUs that can be deployed over conflict zones. Outrageously expensive, but no more so than the billions we blew up in Iran this year.
Let's assume everything gets smaller and cheaper. Vastly smaller and cheaper. So much so that it becomes feasible to launch a data center comparable to Colossus into space for the same price. You know what that means about the cost and size and efficiency on the ground? It means I can have a fucking TPU in my pocket and a round trip to space would be an insane waste of time.
There is no way to make the math for AI-in-space to make more sense than just making it work on the ground; any challenges one has with local politics are easier and cheaper to overcome than physics. The public may be stupid in large groups, but public opinion can be swayed, gravity cannot.
In short: This is either a marketing stunt, a bid for military funding, or both. It is absolutely not a project to put AI for "everyone" into space.
Meaning "we haven't found anything that works yet".
> In the right orbit, a solar panel can be up to 8 times more productive than on earth....
* 24 hours of light vs. ~9 hours of light (e.g. winter)
* Panels perfectly perpendicular to sun 100% of the time vs. variable for fixed panels on earth
* No atmosphere
* No clouds
1: There is no night or day.
2: There are no seasons.
3: There is no weather.
Basically, the primary motivating factor of putting AI in space is abundant solar energy. Otherwise, AI in space makes little to no economic sense.
The useful life of cutting edge AI server hardware will require constant rotation of equipment to potentially remain competitive with more accessible solutions.
Heat management ( https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-w6G7VEwNq0 )
Hardening of equipment for the environment. ECC isn't going to be enough. I would have to defer to experts about the best way to manage it, but it either means custom hardware, weight, or both.
Repairs are impossible. Hopefully a sat can degrade gracefully, but routine repairs on earth become significant outages/decreases in economic value of a sat over time.
Rocket launches have gotten much better, but are not perfect. Insurance is a thing. However, cost of equipment in a failed launch may be eye watering, rivaling a governmental military launch.
It's nuts that it's supposed to be easier to send them to space than to truck them to a desert.
(But to be quite frank, I don't think data center is in space are going to be practical.)
Either it's that weird "space is easier than getting land on earth"(it's not) or the same tortured arguments about heat dissipation, no one is going to run consumer scale compute with consumer scale economics in space ffs. And maintenance and cost does not matter when it comes to strategic military assets, they are a step function useful enough to warrant even a few monthly replacement.
Everyone else with strategic weapons and a space program e.g india china is launching one as well.
They're effectively outside the sovereignty of any country. Further, it would be extremely impractical for any government's law enforcement to raid the datacenter and confiscate the servers.
That or impounding data at the teleports.
The actual rack part is small, even if the solar panels and radiators are big. If this truly was super dangerous, ISS wouldn't be safe. And it's never hit mission-degrading issues due to micrometeoroids.
In any case, this is mostly for peacetime / civilian usage. Obviously military datacenters are and will be as secure as possible. Remember ARPANET was foundational for the internet.
It's physically impossible
It's technically impossible
It won't be profitable <= You are here
It's bad for the environment
It needs to be nationalized
However, I do think avoiding local control (state/city permits) is a reason for this.
Not true
It's just far out research experiment like another commented quoted from the text: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49834746
But even in this comment stream there are tons of people saying the cooling problem is insurmountable.
It’s very confusing to have a project related to space called a moonshot project.
As mentioned in the video in the void the only way they can remove heat from the radiator is via radiation, but that is extremely slow and ultimately the rate of heat generation in TPUs would be higher than the dissipation rate of the radiators and the whole thing would get heated up over time.
Here's a recent talk about the ridiculousness² of building compute in space: https://youtu.be/eo7MEPgWGic
>radiation is extremely slow and ultimately the rate of heat generation in TPUs would be higher than the dissipation rate of the radiators
Properly size the radiators (ie solve the aforementioned 'extremely slow' black body equation in reverse) and you won't have a problem.