zlacker

>>jonbae+(OP)
Their numbers strike me as very optimistic:

    *Table 1. Cost comparison of a single 40 MW cluster operated for 10 years in space vs on land.*

    | Cost Item                     | Terrestrial                     | Space
    |:------------------------------|:--------------------------------|:----------------
    | Energy (10 years)             | $140m @ $0.04 per kWh           | $2m cost of solar array
    | Launch                        | None                            | $5m (single launch of compute module, solar & radiators)
    | Cooling (chiller energy cost) | $7m @ 5% of overall power usage | More efficient cooling architecture taking advantage of higher ΔT in space
    | Water usage                   | 1.7m tons @ 0.5L/kWh            | Not required
    | Enclosure (Sat. Bus/Building) | Approximately equivalent cost   | Approximately equivalent cost
    | Backup power supply           | $20m                            | Not required
    | All other DC hardware         | Approximately equivalent cost   | Approximately equivalent cost
    | Radiation shielding           | Not required                    | $1.2m @ 1 kg of shielding per kW of compute and $30/kg launch cost
    | Cost Balance                  | $167m                           | $8.2m

Source: Page 4 of their whitepaper https://starcloudinc.github.io/wp.pdf

>>runlev+f51
> $5m (single launch of compute module, solar & radiators)

This seems absurdly low to me.

>>MrZand+zh1
It is, unless you take Musk's hype about Starship as fact. With rockets that are actually potentially available the best price is $1500/kg to LEO, so either they're presuming the whole setup weighs in at 3-4 tons (which is less than the shielding alone) or that they can get it launched for a few orders of magnitude less than what's on the market now (and they do say they assume $30/kg).