• Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Of course they are, same with undersea data centers (for different reasons).

    But it doesn’t matter. In the late-stage capitalism we find ourselves in, you don’t need a real product, nor a promising prototype. You don’t even need a good idea, you just need the promise that you’ll come up with a good idea soon. That’s enough to get the investors drooling, the shareholders hyped, and the gullible idiots engaged.

    And you only have to maintain that long enough to pay yourself and your insiders some fat checks. Then when inevitably, reality barges in and people start to realize it was all bullshit and pipe dreams, you’ve already cashed out, and if you’re PR team is good, the media and your sycophantic fans will praise you as a visionary who was simply, “ahead of their time.” And you can go on to scam more people.

    It’s basically Patreon scams but with billions of dollars.

    • maplesaga@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      56 minutes ago

      Late stage capitalism just means late stage fiat currency doesn’t it, since all the money flooding in is debt and QE, and every dollar created and placed into the market is new cheap debt issuance?

      Then we bail all the bad debt out when it fails, so the perverse incentive to issue bad debt is always there, because its not capitalist and nobody would backstop this mess if it was their own capital.

      • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        50 minutes ago

        You can have late stage capitalism with any monetary system. Though relying on inherent value tends to leave poor people in much worse conditions much more quickly.

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    It doesn’t matter.

    It’s a fantasy in billionaire’s heads, a self-perpetuating meme, and no one is telling them no. So they’re going to fund it, whether it makes any sense or not.

    Reality doesn’t really matter anymore.

  • Doomsider@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    By the time you launched and assembled one in orbit their hardware would already be outdated. Sounds like a great plan!

  • Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    It’s as stupid as solar roadways, a solution nobody asked for and we also already have way better solutions.

    I mean why.

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Solar roadways are the future! Driving on solar panels is the only way forward. Until all our roads are solar we will never be free people.

  • Pommes_für_dein_Balg@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    They’re a great idea if you happen to own a company making AI, a company making rockets, and a company controlling public opinion.

  • HubertManne@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I was under the impressions cpu’s were very sensitive to radiation. If we could mine and manufacture in space I could see this maybe.

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      They already run AMD chips on starlink, so they’ve figured out someway to shield them in most cases. Some solar flares at bad times (something about while raising orbits) has nuked some dishes before.

      • HubertManne@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Im pretty sure they are shielded as I think I have seen stuff like that for the electronics in the iss. Thing is that the eletronics in sattelites and the space station are pretty small relative to datacenters. The only benefit I can really see is maybe they can be solar powered which I guess if the panel acts as shielding and stays sun facing but all the extra expense of getting it up there. I just don’t see it as practical. I mean technically it should either work or not basedo on cost as long as they don’t wring out any subudies or soemthing.

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          I think everyone is really confusing what these datacenters are.

          They aren’t these massive things. They’re going to be a little bigger than v3 starlinks all working together in some manner.

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      It’s not speculation. Nvidia themselves have run experiments with GPUs in orbit, and the issue gets worse with smaller lithography (eg newer chips).

  • lordnikon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    8 hours ago

    My question is always how the hell are you going to cool them. Do you know hard it is to move heat in a vacuum?

      • BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        What’s going to be performing convection to dissipate heat from the radiator in a manner to support the heat generated by an AI data center?

        • Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Obnoxious as he seems to be, he’s actually right, there will be no convection, but they’d radiate heat in a vacuum, by IR IIRC.

          • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            40 minutes ago

            You’d need an enormous radiator to move the heat a data center puts out. Not even all the billionaires put together could afford that.

          • athatet@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 hours ago

            What you don’t understand is the size requirements those radiators would need to have to cool an entire data center.

          • BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Tell me you don’t know how radiators actually work without telling me. They dissipate heat via convection through the air surrounding them or gasses in general. What does space lack a significant amount of?

    • Jack_Burton@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Have you never seen a movie set in space? Evrytime someone gets sucked into space they freeze. You saying every movie got it wrong?? Space is cold. Duh.

    • EndOfLine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      The problems; plural; is that the person who popularized the idea of data centers in space has little to zero understanding of any of the space sciences and yet owns and directs one of the world’s largest, and privately owned, aerospace companies with massive government contracts that splits its time with their own AI work.

    • credo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Easy, just create a long heat sink and dangle it in the earth’s atmosphere. Now we are winning!

      • Devial@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Have you seen the size of the radiators on the ISS ? And that’s just what needed for cooling of body heat for 9 people and basic computer and support equipment.

        A data center that is actively pumping out massive amounts of heat would need humongous radiator panels.

        • XLE@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          And you can only build so many of those radiator panels before you start running into congestion problems. You don’t want them radiating onto each other.

          • Devial@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            45 minutes ago

            And those radiator panels are heavy and big, therefore enormously expensive to launch, and vulnerable to micro meteorites and other orbital debris.

        • Fermion@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          The area of radiator needed directly corresponds to the amount of power harvested by the solar panels. It doesn’t matter what the load is. So a compute frame with the same amount of solar panels as the space station would need approximately the same radiatot area as the ISS, unless you are bringing nuclear power into the mix.

          I agree that space based datacenters are a bad idea, but the thermals really are not the gotcha people are making them out to be.

          • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            36 minutes ago

            The solar panels needed is another problem for the space data center fantasy. Once you put together all the mass over enough surface area to make it work, you would blot out the sun worldwide.

      • lordnikon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Yeah the amount of heat a data center vs a satellite your going to super heat the space in that orbit over time. It they are geostationary then its even harder as the the data center doesn’t move away from the heat.

        • erin@piefed.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Geostationary satellites are not standing still. They’re orbiting the Earth at the same rate that it rotates “beneath” them.

        • nabladabla@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Um, it doesn’t make the data center in orbit thing make sense, but a geostationary satellite absolute moves at high speed and does not stay in the same place in space.

        • Fermion@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Radiators in space work by radiating electromagnetic energy(light). Heat can only accumulate in matter, not in space, so that is definitely not one of the things we need to worry about.

        • teft@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          geostationary then its even harder as the the data center doesn’t move away from the heat.

          Geostationary would leave the satellite in shadow anytime it was night time over the part of the earth since a geostationary orbit is stationary in the sky over a given point at the equator.

          That doesn’t solve any of the cooling problems just saying that you do get some shadow at geostationary orbits.

          There are other orbits that get less shadow though.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I said so long ago. Flying masses of stuff into orbit, keeping it alive in a relative high radiation environment, cooling issues (there is no local river you can conveniently turn into steam), the list is long. Getting free power from large solar panels does not make up for it.

    • db2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Getting free power from large solar panels does not make up for it

      For the power required “large” is actually a gargantuan understatement. It would need to be larger than what would be easily seen from the planet surface.

      Elon is a complete moron.

    • Thorry@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Plus when you build a datacenter on Earth you can use it for decades. You can swap out small parts (like the servers and networking hardware), which keeps it useful. Cooling and power setups are often good for a very long time and those can also be upgraded if needed. The building itself and all of the supporting infrastructure is good for at least 50 years. And a lot of the building is dedicated to easy access for humans to do stuff like maintenance. This is a design requirement for any datacenter.

      When shooting shit into space, that’s it, you can’t access it for upgrades or maintenance. And we’ve seen these past years cutting edge AI hardware is good for maybe 3 years at best. After that it’s basically worthless, maybe useful for some niche uses, but mostly useless and definitely not profitable. Not that this matters much, as to keep latency down the orbits would be so low they deorbit within 3-5 years anyways, like with the current Starlink constellation.

      But this is of course very useful for a cheap launch provider, as it keeps them yeeting shit into space non-stop. And what a surprise, Elon Musk is one of the people pushing this concept hard. No alternate motives there for sure.

      • SaltySalamander@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        but mostly useless and definitely not profitable

        The main reason for this unprofitability is, quite frankly, energy costs. Wouldn’t be much of an issue in space where your energy is free.

        • Thorry@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          No such thing as a free lunch tho. It’s like saying solar energy on Earth is free, it’s obviously not. Sure, once the panels are produced and installed, the running costs are minimal. But that doesn’t mean that energy is now suddenly free. When I did the calculation on my solar installation, I took the costs of buying the panels, installing them, maintaining them and in the end tearing them down and properly recycling them. Then we calculated the estimated total energy produced during the lifetime of the system and thus arrived at a cost per unit of energy. Then we can compare that to what the cost would be as compared to other energy sources. At the time it didn’t make financial sense, as over the lifetime other energy sources (which might have been solar as well, just out of large scale installations) would be cheaper. But some government subsidies, plus a feeling the cost of energy in the future is unsure and wanting to contribute to sustainable energy production made me pay for them anyways.

          It’s the exact same with launching a datacenter into space. Once it’s up there the energy might not cost anything and running costs per satellite might be relatively low (although there still are running costs for sure, often just spread out over the entire constellation), but that doesn’t mean the thing is free. Investers would want to see a return. So that means a lot of the costs are upfront, developing the system, paying the launch provider, getting the right licenses, etc, etc. Then during the lifetime of the system, it needs to sell the compute in order to make a profit. When directly competing with newer ground based systems that run cutting edge technology, it doesn’t really matter where or how the compute is done. It’s simply a unit of work being sold at market rate. Newer technology will push the price per unit down, as the new tech is more efficient. And it might make your compute less attractive as it’s lacking in newer capabilities, so it can only be sold at a lower price.

          So even if the system would be designed for a lifespan of 10 years and put into an orbit that can last 10 years, the compute would be very hard to be sold for any reasonable price after 5 years. And as mentioned, operating a satellite is far from free, there are many running costs associated.

  • WanderingThoughts@europe.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    10 hours ago

    There was one study where they set the price of launching at 0 and it’s still a lot more expensive to use data centers in space.

    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      8 hours ago

      For anyone who doesn’t know, this is because space is an absolutely terrible place to put computers. Getting power is actually the easiest problem to solve, and is still really hard, because building any kind of infrastructure in space is hard. Then you’ve got all that radiation you have to shield against because you’re no longer protected by the Earth’s atmosphere, and worst of all you’ve got the cooling problem because Jesus fucking Christ, space is not cold!

      This is why I get annoyed every time a scifi movie shows people freezing to death in space. Because it leads to this level of mass delusion and then suddenly it matters and everyone just unquestioningly believes the lie that space is cold. Space is a vacuum. A vacuum is what your Contigo travel mug uses to keep your coffee scalding hot after four hours. If vacuums are that good at keeping something hot when it naturally wants to get colder, think about what they’ll do to something that is actively generating heat. All of your components are going to cook.

      There are proposals to put data centres at the bottom of the ocean that are substantially more credible than this idiocy.

      • BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Tell me if I’m wrong, but with the shielding they have on the ISS doesn’t it have issues that consumer grade computers they use last a few months due to various radiation and heat that they die? So an AI data center is going to be insane to protect long enough to make its components useful.

      • Ken Oh@feddit.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I’m always annoyed that people don’t get that space isn’t cold or hot, since heat is a property of matter, and that’s exactly what a vacuum doesn’t have. Your travel mug example is great. I’m going to start using it.

        • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          That’s because science literacy is pretty low.

          And to be fair, the average person doesn’t need to understand vacuum thermodynamics. The issues is when a few of those “average people” are now billionaires making decisions, surrounded by yes men and feeds instead of experts informing them of reality.

        • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          You need to think about how an infrared laser works. You’re taking electricity, converting it into light and then focusing the light.

          So you’d need to take the heat from your GPUs, inefficiently convert it into electricity (a lot of it would remain as heat), then inefficiently convert electricity into light (much of the electricity would turn back into heat in this process) and then focus the light away from the space data centre.

          Now, we already have a process for moving heat away from things as infrared light, without going through all those steps (which would just reduce the efficiency of the process). It’s called a radiator, and it’s how we cool things in space. That’s literally where the name comes from; they radiate heat away as infrared light. That’s why hot things glow in thermal cameras.

          It is incredibly inefficient. Radiation (ie, infrared light) is, by far, the worst way of cooling things. But in space its the only option you have, because there’s no convection or conduction across vacuum.

          A top end GPU puts out about 1,000 watts of waste heat. The entire International Space Station has enough cooling for 14 of those, if it was doing nothing else whatsoever. An average server rack contains 72. The ISS cost $100 billion dollars. So at a minimum you’re looking at around $500 billion to put one single server rack in space. And that’s before accounting for the heat from the sun, which we can’t avoid because we need solar power to run this thing. So probably closer to a trillion. In other words, twice the already ludicrous price tag of Sam Altman’s “Stargate” project. For a single server rack.

          • elephantium@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            But in space its the only option you have

            Hmm, this has me thinking about the stealth ships in The Expanse. The engineering needed to make it work makes me want to cry, but in principle you could run a Peltier cooler with a swappable heat sink.

            To be clear, I don’t think this is a viable option, but it’s interesting to think about.

            • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 hours ago

              Basically the way you would make a stealth spaceship would be by focusing as much as possible on energy efficiency. At every juncture you would try to use as little power as possible, and use every bit of it as efficiently as possible, so that you’re not remitting waste. That waste, in the form of heat, radio waves, etc, is what gets you spotted.

              You could also run heatsinks temporarily for enhanced stealth as you suggest, then open up radiators to cool them - or eject them - once it’s safe to do so.

              (For the Elite: Dangerous players, yes, that game got it right.)

        • Kirp123@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          You could cool them through radiative panels bit you would need quite big panels to radiate away the heat a data center produces.

  • Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 hours ago

    The thing is spacex’s whole falcon 9 architecture needs something to do. They very quickly cleared the backlog of satellites waiting to launch and now they’re waiting for space start ups to materialize and want to launch things into space. The majority of falcon 9 launches now only launch starlink. It’ll get even worse if they can make starship work, they’ll have a huge capacity with nothing to put in it. Ai data centers in space are an attempt at justifying the entire concept of starship or at the very least employ the falcon 9 team.

    This and spacex going public tell me the return on investment of a space based internet provider maybe isn’t profitable enough to fund a rocket development program. Their big cash cow, being the ISS taxi, is winding down and now they’re looking for suckers with money.

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      If starship works (huge if) the markets it can open will be very different than the markets Falcon9 opened.

      Something will need to develop around the new capabilities to use beyond their own use for starlink, but its going to be much easier for companies to come up with uses for it.

  • reksas@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    only way it will be worth putting anything in space is by having a spaceport in there first and some reliable way to haul stuff from ground to it. At least way i see it, at the moment its like building a complex facility on an undiscovered continent with no support. But anything we put there shouldnt be privately owned anyway, or maybe that can be acceptable AFTER we have good and reliable infrastructure there which can deal with the bullshit that comes with privately owned stuff.

      • reksas@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        i dont think anything in orbit or space is supportable without a planet. Or maybe the rich want to have kind of ultimate ivory tower -> they live in luxury in orbital habitats while we slave on the surface for them. Maybe they would want to get somekind of coercion method too, like nuclear arsenal in orbit they could use to threaten any part of the surface that might get too rebellious.

  • Mihies@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 hours ago

    No, this is fake news. I bet on Elon, he knows more than anybody on Earth, he already put men on Mars and created Hyperloop.