zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. burnte+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-10-22 15:04:42
Even beyond cooling, just getting all the hardware up there is extremely costly, and for what benefit over ground based DCs? The cooling is the ongoing problem but the cost of lifting it there obliterates all the other problems, IMO.
replies(2): >>mickey+v8 >>ncr100+Rm
2. mickey+v8[view] [source] 2025-10-22 15:38:56
>>burnte+(OP)
Space X thinks they will reduce the cost by 90% with Starship, so they are probably calculating off that.
replies(1): >>glenne+Te
◧◩
3. glenne+Te[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-10-22 16:02:31
>>mickey+v8
On the linked page there are animations using Starship.
4. ncr100+Rm[view] [source] 2025-10-22 16:35:12
>>burnte+(OP)
And who is The Law, in space? What's to prevent E.G. Amazon Kuiper or Musk Starlink from crashing one of their vehicles into the array, when they want to takeover their market?
replies(1): >>dragon+4t
◧◩
5. dragon+4t[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-10-22 17:03:05
>>ncr100+Rm
My understanding is that the normal rule here is that the launching state has jurisdiction over (and international legal responsibility for) what is done by a spacecraft, but I’d bet that if private parties crashing their spacecraft into those of other private parties with widespread, economically significant use became a thing, a whole lot of countries in which one or more of the companies have assets or interests would discover jurisdiction in underused provisions of their domestic law rather quickly, no matter where either of the craft involved were launched.
[go to top]