zlacker

Putting data centers on ships in international waters would be just as effective at evading government control (i.e. not very) while being orders of magnitude easier and cheaper to build and operate.

>>wat100+(OP)
They've always been able to do this.

Microsoft was talking about submarine data centers powered by tidal forces in the early 2000s.

There have been talks of data centers on Sealand-like nation states.

Geothermal ...

Exotic data center builds will always be hyped. Always be within the realm of feasibility when cost is no object, but probably outside of practicality or need.

Next it'll be fusion-powered data centers.

>>wat100+(OP)
Recently the USA blew out some some boats in international waters and came back to finish off the survivors, despite thin evidence and no due process, while maintaining that it was legal. If those data centers on ships ever become declared as a 'threat to national security' then they might get the same treatment.

>>bouncy+44
This would be equally true in space.

>>bouncy+44
I think GP's point is that an advanced nation-state could just as easily shoot down an orbiting data center as an oceanic data center and that "international space" offers an equally flimsy defense as "international waters" but a much larger price.

>>echelo+U
Commonwealth Fusion Systems called dibs on next last year by saying they’re gonna have a Dominion (Virginia) commercial site up and running in the early 2030s.

https://cfs.energy/news-and-media/commonwealth-fusion-system...

>>cwal37+17
Is there a way I can take bets on this not happening? Because I’d sure like to.

>>collin+J5
Antisatellite weapons are expensive and rare, and also woefully inadequate for dealing with megaconstellations.

If there's one large orbital datacenter, then sure, ASAT is a threat to it. But if it's a dispersed swarm like the Starlink system?

Good luck making a dent in that. You'd run out of ASAT long before Musk runs out of Starlink.

>>bouncy+44
If those ships chose to not fly a flag, they'd even have justification to do so. And if they did choose to fly a flag, then that country would have the responsibility to police them, and is the US complained to that country, that country might just withdraw protection anyway. Data center ships just want to loiter where convenient, they're not cigarette boats flying along at 100mph... no way to evade a navy that wants to blow them out of the water.

>>ACCoun+0j
You only need to destroy a few. Then you have a cloud of debris that will take down the rest or at the very least force them to use all their fuel making evasive manoeuvres.

>>verzal+Nm
Not really. Space is too large.

>>verzal+Nm
And they'd get away with it too if it weren't for that pesky orbital mechanics.

>>ACCoun+0j
Blow up the ground stations. Or the CEO.

>>ACCoun+Yx
On the contrary, orbital positions are quite limited. And space debris is already a large issue.

>>ACCoun+0j
Lasers

>>rgmerk+Ih
Despite the massive PPAs that have already been signed on a chunk of the plant’s planned output I also find it very hard to believe.

>>tsimio+4J
A cosmic game of billiards.

>>tsimio+4J
Only in specific situations like the GEO orbit.

Otherwise? Go wild. The space doesn't lack for space.

And with all the LEO megaconstellations? GEO isn't as vital as it once was.

>>ACCoun+0j
Swarms of satellites need to maneuver, which includes maneuvering directly toward the atmosphere.

It would take zero anti-satellite weapons to take down Starlink. Just point a good old fashioned gun at the SpaceX engineer who can issue maneuvering commands to the satellites.

>>wat100+aI
Good fucking luck. Starlink's ground infrastructure is absurdly decentralized. Laser links make that possible.

Starlink can even bounce data P2P, from one client terminal to another.

>>ACCoun+at1
How absurd is absurdly decentralized, here. A hundred ground stations? Thousands? Do they really have more than can be shut down by the FBI domestically and blown up by the USAF internationally?

And how does decentralized ground infrastructure save you from a centralized executive?

>>wat100+ZB1
Over one hundred ground stations, spread across the world. More on demand - Starlink allows one to use terminals as makeshift ground stations in a pinch.

Uncle Sam could bring Starlink down, probably. For anyone else, that would pretty much require WW3.

Executives don't matter as much as you think they do. No credible executive is going to cave to random death threats, and carrying them out would cause new executives.

Now, would SpaceX eventually become a shell of its former self without Musk calling the shots? Maybe. But if the shell you're worrying about is Starlink orbital shell, and the time you're worrying about is today and not in ten years? Killing Musk doesn't help you much.

>>ACCoun+714
You think Musk would refuse, and give up his freedom or even his life instead of complying with a US government demand? The point isn’t to actually kill him. The point is that you can, and you use that to force compliance.