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. nwelli+R11[view] [source] 2026-02-03 03:34:32
>>rainsf+RA
Yeah it does not make a whole lot of sense as the useful lifespan of the gpus in 4-6 years. Sooo what happens when you need to upgrade or repair?
◧◩◪◨
4. Lalaba+Q41[view] [source] 2026-02-03 03:59:42
>>nwelli+R11
This is a question that analysts don't even ask on earnings calls for companies with lowly earthbound datacenters full of the same GPUs.

The stock moves based on the same promise that's already unchecked without this new "in space" suffix:

We'll build datacenters using money we don't have yet, fill them with GPUs we haven't secured or even sourced, power them with infrastructure that can't be built in the promised time, and profit on their inference time over an ever-increasing (on paper) lifespan.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. acchow+S51[view] [source] 2026-02-03 04:09:34
>>Lalaba+Q41
> This is a question that analysts don't even ask

On the contrary, data centers continue to pop up deploying thousands of GPUs specifically because the numbers work out.

The H100 launched at $30k GPU and rented for $2.50/hr. It's been 3 years since launch, the rent price is still around $2.50.

During these 3 years, it has brought in $65k in revenue.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. kd913+Xa2[view] [source] 2026-02-03 13:10:52
>>acchow+S51
They worked out because there was an excess of energy and water to handle it.

We will see how the maths works out given there is 19 GW shortage of power. 7 year lead time for Siemens power turbines, 3-5 years for transformers.

Raw commodities are shooting up, not enough education to cover nuclear and SMEs and the RoI is already underwater.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. Sketch+vp2[view] [source] 2026-02-03 14:32:57
>>kd913+Xa2
My cynical take is that it'll works out just fine for the data centers, but the neighbouring communities won't care for the constant rolling blackouts.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. kd913+eq2[view] [source] 2026-02-03 14:36:49
>>Sketch+vp2
Okay but even in that case the hardware suffers significant under utilisation which massively hits RoI. (I think I read they only achieve 30% utilisation in this scenario)
[go to top]