undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdoxeddaily17d ago0 comments

SpaceX already has 10,000 satellites on orbit that are basically preview versions of space data centers. They've already paid 5 years of that 5-10 year timeline you outlined.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

adgjlsfhk116d ago· 2 in thread

the math doesn't work. a starlink satellite has ~10kw power consumption. A single ai optimized server rack (GB300) is 140kw. Starlink works because you get a massive benefit from putting networking in space for rural users. no one has made a convincing case as to why putting a data center in space is a benefit that can come anywhere near the drawbacks (inability to service, launch cost, cooling etc)

JumpCrisscross16d ago

> no one has made a convincing case as to why putting a data center in space is a benefit that can come anywhere near the drawbacks

Permitting. And the main drawback is cooling. If you want to sell a company to SpaceX, build a better radiator.

I’m not saying the math maths. But it isn’t fundamentally fucked in the way a lot of armchair commentary has been making it out to be.

adgjlsfhk116d ago

Even permitting isn't a clear win. You are changing from land permitting (where you can pick the location to be wherever you want) to launch permitting (where you have to coordinate with the federal government for airspace and water closures). Not to mention that with the current regulatory status, a rocket explosion can easily lead to a multi-month mandatory safety review that blocks all new launches.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse