zlacker

[return to "Exploring a space-based, scalable AI infrastructure system design"]
1. smlacy+Yl[view] [source] 2025-11-04 18:58:21
>>meetpa+(OP)
The ultimate "out of sight out of mind" solution to a problem?

I'm surprised that Google has drunken the "Datacenters IN SPACE!!!1!!" kool-aid. Honestly I expected more.

It's so easy to poke a hole in these systems that it's comical. Answer just one question: How/why is this better than an enormous solar-powered datacenter in someplace like the middle of the Mojave Desert?

◧◩
2. alooPo+tm[view] [source] 2025-11-04 19:00:45
>>smlacy+Yl
From the post they claim 8 times more solar energy and no need for batteries because they are continuously in the sun. Presumably at some scale and some cost/kg to orbit this starts to pencil out?
◧◩◪
3. morale+ep[view] [source] 2025-11-04 19:17:07
>>alooPo+tm
No infrastructure, no need for security, no premises, no water.

I think it's a good idea, actually.

◧◩◪◨
4. ceejay+Xr[view] [source] 2025-11-04 19:33:21
>>morale+ep
> No infrastructure

A giant space station?

> no need for security

There will be if launch costs get low enough to make any of this feasible.

> no premises

Again… the space station?

> no water

That makes things harder, not easier.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. morale+Fv[view] [source] 2025-11-04 19:55:20
>>ceejay+Xr
This is not a giant space station ...

>There will be if launch costs get low enough to make any of this feasible.

I don't know what you mean by that.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. ceejay+yw[view] [source] 2025-11-04 20:03:38
>>morale+Fv
> This is not a giant space station …

Fundamentally, it is, just in the form of a swarm. With added challenges!

> I don't know what you mean by that.

If you can get to space cheaply enough for an orbital AI datacenter to make financial sense, so can your security threats.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. TeMPOr+kB[view] [source] 2025-11-04 20:33:24
>>ceejay+yw
> Fundamentally, it is, just in the form of a swarm. With added challenges!

Right, in the same sense that existing Starlink constellation is a Death Star.

This paper does not describe a giant space station. It describes a couple dozen of satellites in a formation, using gravity and optics to get extra bandwidth for inter-satellite links. The example they gave uses 81 satellites, which is a number made trivial by Starlink (it's also in the blog release itself, so no "not clicking through to the paper" excuses here!).

(In a gist, the paper seems to be describing a small constellation as useful compute unit that can be scaled, indefinitely - basically replicating the scaling design used in terrestrial ML data centers.)

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. ceejay+PF[view] [source] 2025-11-04 21:03:37
>>TeMPOr+kB
> Right, in the same sense that existing Starlink constellation is a Death Star.

"The cluster radius is R=1 km, with the distance between next-nearest-neighbor satellites oscillating between ~100–200m, under the influence of Earth’s gravity."

This does not describe anything like Starlink. (Nor does Starlink do heavy onboard computation.)

> The example they gave uses 81 satellites…

Which is great if your whole datacenter fits in a few dozen racks, but that's not what Google's talking about here.

[go to top]