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
Only people who never interacted with data center reliability think it's doable to maintain servers with no human intervention.

>>lugao+DK
Microsoft did do the experiment (Project Natick) where they had "datacenters" in pods under the sea with really good results. The idea was simply to ship enough extra capacity, but due to the environment, the failure rates where 1/8th of normal.

Still, dropping a pod into the sea makes more sense than launching it into space. At least cooling, power, connectivity and eventual maintenance is simpler.

The whole thing makes no sense and is seems like it's just Musk doing financial manipulation again.

https://news.microsoft.com/source/features/sustainability/pr...

>>mrweas+Ay1
The experiment may have been successful, but if it was why don't we see underwater datacenters everywhere? It probably is a similar reason why we won't see space datacenters in the near future either.

Space has solar energy going for itself. With underwater you don't need to lug a 1420 ton rocket with a datacenter payload to space.

>>moonte+wZ1
I can't see any reason to put them underwater rather than in a field somewhere. I think the space rationale is you may run out of fields.

>>tim333+CA2
Placing them underwater means you get free, unlimited cooling.

Exactly the opposite of space, where all cooling must happen through radiation, which is expensive/inefficient