zlacker

>>g-mork+(OP)
> The basic math is that launching a million tons per year of satellites generating 100 kW of compute power per ton would add 100 gigawatts of AI compute capacity annually, with no ongoing operational or maintenance needs. Ultimately, there is a path to launching 1 TW/year from Earth.

> My estimate is that within 2 to 3 years, the lowest cost way to generate AI compute will be in space.

This is so obviously false. For one thing, in what fantasy world would the ongoing operational and maintenance needs be 0?

>>rybosw+u5
There's clearly rhetorical hyperbole happening there. But assuming that thermal rejection is good in space, & launch costs continue falling, as earth-based data centers become power/grid-constrained, there is a viable path for space power gen.

The craziest part of those statements is "100 kW per ton." IDK what math he is doing there or future assumptions, but today we can't even sniff at 10 kW per ton. iROSA [1] on the ISS is about 0.150 kW per ton.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roll_Out_Solar_Array

edit: iROSA = 33 kW per ton, thanks friends

>>CGMthr+Ld
Just put a slightly larger solar array on the same equipment on earth?

>>__alex+6f
> put a slightly larger solar array on the same equipment on earth?

Land and permitting. I’m not saying the math works. Just that there are envelopes for it to.

>>JumpCr+yf
The math literally works.

The US mandates by law that we grow a fuck ton of corn to mix 10% ethanol into gasoline.

If you replaced just those cornfields with solar/wind, they would power the entire USA and a 100% electric vehicle fleet. That includes the fact that they are in the corn belt with less than ideal sun conditions.

We aren’t even talking about any farmland that produces actual food or necessary goods, just ethanol as a farm subsidy program.

The US is already horrendously bad at land use. There’s plenty of land. There’s plenty of ability to build more grid capacity.