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. spikel+8y[view] [source] 2026-02-03 00:07:39
>>gok+h4
Context missing. This is in reference to a vision the (distant?) future where the satellites are manufactured in factories on the Moon and sent into space with mass drivers.

Full paragraph quote comes from:

> While launching AI satellites from Earth is the immediate focus, Starship’s capabilities will also enable operations on other worlds. Thanks to advancements like in-space propellant transfer, Starship will be capable of landing massive amounts of cargo on the Moon. Once there, it will be possible to establish a permanent presence for scientific and manufacturing pursuits. Factories on the Moon can take advantage of lunar resources to manufacture satellites and deploy them further into space. By using an electromagnetic mass driver and lunar manufacturing, 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. >

◧◩◪
3. fluori+uF[view] [source] 2026-02-03 00:55:11
>>spikel+8y
Why would satellites be manufactured on the moon? There's nothing on the moon. The raw materials would have to be ferried over first. What would be the point?
◧◩◪◨
4. andsoi+pI[view] [source] 2026-02-03 01:13:01
>>fluori+uF
> Why would satellites be manufactured on the moon? There's nothing on the moon. The raw materials would have to be ferried over first. What would be the point?

From lunar regolith you would extract: oxygen, iron, aluminum, titanium, silicon, calcium, and magnesium.

From the poles you can get fuel (water ice -> water + hydrogen + oxygen).

The real constraint is not materials, but rather power generation, automation reliability, and initial capital investment.

So you have to shuttle machines, energy systems, and electronics.

The moon can supply mass, oxygen, fuel, and structure.

Satellites that would benefit most are: huge comms platforms, space-based power satellites, large radar arrays, deep-space telescopes, etc.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. Cthulh+td2[view] [source] 2026-02-03 13:27:07
>>andsoi+pI
> [...] and initial capital investment.

This is the big one - Musk knows that if he convinces enough people, they will invest the billions / trillions necessary, making him stupendously rich.

But anyone investing in that is... not a good investor, to be politically correct, because what's the expected return on investment? Who are the customers? What is the monetization? Or bar that, how does it benefit humanity?

It's throwing money down the drain. If you're an investor and are considering this, consider investing in earth instead. Real projects with real benefits. There's enough money to fix hunger, poverty, housing, education, and everything. Enough money to buy and / or fund politicians to make the necessary changes.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. andsoi+6h2[view] [source] 2026-02-03 13:47:33
>>Cthulh+td2
> There's enough money to fix hunger, poverty, housing, education, and everything. Enough money to buy and / or fund politicians to make the necessary changes.

Perhaps. But I can also see someone wanting to use their money to fund space exploration because it is more exciting.

As an aside, I strongly suspect that to solve the problems you think are more worthy, it isn't money that is the problem, but rather social, structural, cultural, and other issues mostly.

[go to top]