zlacker

>>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.

>>gok+h4
In fairness, solar cells can be about 5x more efficient in space (irradiance, uptime).

>>moeadh+Lf
Solar cells have exactly the same power rating on earth as in space surely? What would change is their capacity factor and so energy generation.

>>__alex+Oh
The atmosphere is in the way, and they get pretty dirty on earth. Also it doesn't rain or get cloudy in space

>>bastaw+Mi
Sure but like, just use even more solar panels? You can probably buy a lot of them for the cost of a satellite.

>>__alex+Jk

  >just use even more solar panels

I think it's because at this scale a significant limit becomes the global production capacity for solar cells, and SpaceX is in the business of cheaper satellites and launch.

>>schiff+vr
“This scale” is not realistic in terms of demand or even capability. We may as well talk about mining Sagittarius A* for neutrons.

>>skywho+hv
You don't even need a particularly large scale, it's efficient resource utilization.

Humanity has a finite (and too small) capacity for building solar panels. AI requires lots of power already. So the question is, do you want AI to consume X (where X is a pretty big chunk of the pie), or five times X, from that total supply?

Using less PV is great, but only if the total cost ends up cheaper than installing 5X the capacity as terrestrial PV farms, along with daily smoothing batteries.

SpaceX is only skating to where they predict the cost puck will be.

>>schiff+Yz
You seem to be ignoring the substantial resource cost of putting them up there.