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
You operate them like Microsoft's submerged data center project: you don't do maintenance, whatever fails fails. You start with enough redundancy in critical components like power and networking and accept that compute resources will slowly decrease as nodes fail

No operational needs is obviously ... simplified. You still need to manage downlink capacity, station keeping, collision avoidance, etc. But for a large constellation the per-satellite cost of that would be pretty small.

>>wongar+z8
How do you make a small fortune? Start with a big one.

The thing being called obvious here is that the maintenance you have to do on earth is vastly cheaper than the overspeccing you need to do in space (otherwise we would overspec on earth). That's before even considering the harsh radiation environment and the incredible cost to put even a single pound into low earth orbit.

>>willis+K9
How much maintenance do you need? Lets say you have hardware whose useful lifespan due to obsolescence is 5 years, and in 4, the satellite will crash into the atmosphere anyways.

Let's say given component failure rates, you can expect for 20% of the GPUs to fail in that time. I'd say that's acceptable.

>>torgin+Kh
Radiation is a bitch. Especially at those nanometers and memory bandwidth.

And cooling. There is no cold water or air in space.