zlacker

>>mindra+(OP)
Datacenters in space is about circumventing nation states masked as ambitions to generate more power.

Follow the rationale:

1. Nation states ultimately control three key infrastructure pieces required to run data centers (a) land (protected by sovereign armed forces) (b) internet / internet infra (c) electricity. If crypto ever became a legitimate threat, nation states could simply seize any one of or all these three and basically negate any use of crypto.

2. So, if you have data centers that no longer rely on power derived from a nation state, land controller by a nation state or connectivity provided by the nation state's cabling infra, then you can always access your currency and assets.

>>mbesto+Wo1
Putting data centers on ships in international waters would be just as effective at evading government control (i.e. not very) while being orders of magnitude easier and cheaper to build and operate.

>>wat100+HB1
Recently the USA blew out some some boats in international waters and came back to finish off the survivors, despite thin evidence and no due process, while maintaining that it was legal. If those data centers on ships ever become declared as a 'threat to national security' then they might get the same treatment.

>>bouncy+LF1
I think GP's point is that an advanced nation-state could just as easily shoot down an orbiting data center as an oceanic data center and that "international space" offers an equally flimsy defense as "international waters" but a much larger price.

>>collin+qH1
Antisatellite weapons are expensive and rare, and also woefully inadequate for dealing with megaconstellations.

If there's one large orbital datacenter, then sure, ASAT is a threat to it. But if it's a dispersed swarm like the Starlink system?

Good luck making a dent in that. You'd run out of ASAT long before Musk runs out of Starlink.

>>ACCoun+HU1
Blow up the ground stations. Or the CEO.

>>wat100+Rj2
Good fucking luck. Starlink's ground infrastructure is absurdly decentralized. Laser links make that possible.

Starlink can even bounce data P2P, from one client terminal to another.

>>ACCoun+R43
How absurd is absurdly decentralized, here. A hundred ground stations? Thousands? Do they really have more than can be shut down by the FBI domestically and blown up by the USAF internationally?

And how does decentralized ground infrastructure save you from a centralized executive?

>>wat100+Gd3
Over one hundred ground stations, spread across the world. More on demand - Starlink allows one to use terminals as makeshift ground stations in a pinch.

Uncle Sam could bring Starlink down, probably. For anyone else, that would pretty much require WW3.

Executives don't matter as much as you think they do. No credible executive is going to cave to random death threats, and carrying them out would cause new executives.

Now, would SpaceX eventually become a shell of its former self without Musk calling the shots? Maybe. But if the shell you're worrying about is Starlink orbital shell, and the time you're worrying about is today and not in ten years? Killing Musk doesn't help you much.

>>ACCoun+OC5
You think Musk would refuse, and give up his freedom or even his life instead of complying with a US government demand? The point isn’t to actually kill him. The point is that you can, and you use that to force compliance.