zlacker

[return to "xAI joins SpaceX"]
1. gok+h4[view] [source] 2026-02-02 22:06:22
>>g-mork+(OP)
> it is possible to put 500 to 1000 TW/year of AI satellites into deep space, meaningfully ascend the Kardashev scale and harness a non-trivial percentage of the Sun’s power

We currently make around 1 TW of photovoltaic cells per year, globally. The proposal here is to launch that much to space every 9 hours, complete with attached computers, continuously, from the moon.

edit: Also, this would capture a very trivial percentage of the Sun's power. A few trillionths per year.

◧◩
2. rainsf+RA[view] [source] 2026-02-03 00:24:23
>>gok+h4
We also shouldn't overlook the fact that the proposal entirely glosses over the implication of the alternative benefits we might realize if humanity achieved the incredible engineering and technical capacity necessary to make this version of space AI happen.

Think about it. Elon conjures up a vision of the future where we've managed to increase our solar cell manufacturing capacity by two whole orders of magnitude and have the space launch capability for all of it along with tons and tons of other stuff and the best he comes up with is...GPUs in orbit?

This is essentially the superhero gadget technology problem, where comic books and movies gloss over the the civilization changing implications of some technology the hero invents to punch bad guys harder. Don't get me wrong, the idea of orbiting data centers is kind of cool if we can pull it off. But being able to pull if off implies an ability to do a lot more interesting things. The problem is that this is both wildly overambitious and somehow incredibly myopic at the same time.

◧◩◪
3. esseph+kG[view] [source] 2026-02-03 00:59:02
>>rainsf+RA
This is such a hypebeast paragraph.

Datacenters in space are a TERRIBLE idea.

Figure out how to get rid of the waste heat and get back to me.

◧◩◪◨
4. everfr+5V[view] [source] 2026-02-03 02:36:52
>>esseph+kG
Just have to size radiators correctly. Not a physics problem. Just an economic one.

Main physics problem is actually that the math works better at higher GPU temps for efficiency reasons and that might have reliability trade off.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. kadoba+4Y[view] [source] 2026-02-03 03:02:09
>>everfr+5V
Anything is possible here, it's just there's no goddamn reason to do any of this. You're giving up the easiest means of cooling for no benefit and you add other big downsides.

It's scifi nonsense for no purpose other than to sound cool.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. everfr+X31[view] [source] 2026-02-03 03:53:04
>>kadoba+4Y
It's about creating a flywheel for scale.

Getting better at creating and erecting solar panels & AI datacenters on earth is all well and good, but it doesn't advance SpaceX or humanity very much. At lot of the bottlenecks there are around moving physical mass and paperwork.

Whereas combining SpaceX & xAI together means the margins for AI are used to force the economies of scale which drives the manufacturing efficiencies needed to drive down launch etc.

Which opens up new markets like Mars etc.

It is also pushing their competitive advantage. It leaves a massive moat which makes it very hard for competitors. If xAI ends up with a lower cost of capital (big if - like Amazon this might take 20 years horizon to realize) but it would give them a massive moat to be vertically integrated. OpenAI and others would be priced out.

If xAI wants to double AI capacity then it's a purely an automation of manufacturing problem which plays to Elons strengths (Tesla & automation). For anyone on earth doubling capacity means working with electricity restrictions, licensing, bureaucracy, etc. For example all turbines needed for electricity plants are sold years in advance. You can't get a new thermal plant built & online within 5 years even if you had infinite money as turbines are highly complex and just not available.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. michae+pi1[view] [source] 2026-02-03 06:09:42
>>everfr+X31
There is nothing we need on Mars other than science. It's not a market because there isn't money to be made outside of what is required to do whatever economically useless but scientifically valuable efforts we can convince people to fund.

We can't build an independent colony we can't live there any time soon. Arguably it may never make sense to live there.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. everfr+7k1[view] [source] 2026-02-03 06:24:09
>>michae+pi1
With that attitude mankind would still be living in caves. Why build a farm and stay in one place - we should follow the animals around.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. Mordis+hn1[view] [source] 2026-02-03 06:54:58
>>everfr+7k1
1. Mankind never systematically lived in caves; that's just where remains and rock paintings are more likely to have survived.

2. Farming didn't evolve from a vision of "let's stay in one place, so let's find a way to do it"; it evolved from the gradual application of accumulated practical knowledge under real constraints until eventually it was possible to stay in one place. If Paleoelon had somehow convinced early humanity to abandon hunter-gathering and settle into a sedentary life because he had a vision for new markets around farming it would have led to the earliest famine.

[go to top]